This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kingjeff. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome!
Hello, Kingjeff/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Infrogmation 23:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
! Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. FireFox16:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It might not be the big difference now, but ideally there would be lots more players if you had all the 'Noted players' from way back in 1900 (fx. Arsenal FC have 50 or so), and the table would be way too long to give any kind of overview - then parting the list of players into periods will be better. Poulsen20:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
"Even though you can clasify them under the same heading, they're really 2 different tables. In Germany, you really can't go back before 1963."
I don't know what you mean by this, so please tell me if I take it the wrong way.
Yes, they are two different tables, that's why I only restructured one of them - with the first table the crop of the cream with a short description of each, and the list providing links to all noted players for further reading. Why can't you go back before 1963? Looking at FCB history it looks like Franz John (1900), Max Gablonsky (~1910), and others could well be listed as noted players through time. Poulsen21:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
As I see it, the table you've made is too clumsy. Following the guidelines of Wikipedia:Tables#When tables are inappropriate, there is no need of tables when the list is relatively simple - which the template previously used was. Why did you put the stuff in a table? I think it's more confusing now, with a horisontal sorting, instead of a vertical arrangement - if you wanted to seperate domestic from European competitions, a subsection under 'Honours' for each would work fine. Poulsen00:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you can, you probably just stop using it. But I don't think you should leave, the thing just is, it's not only your project to edit, which is why there are guidelines. If you want to change the guidelines, then you discuss it, but if there were no guidelines it would be impossible for more than one person to work at one page at a time. I've seen you're very dedicated to FCB, so it would be a pity if you left because of a minor thing like a table/no table. Poulsen03:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Web-screenshot tag
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I've noticed you've uploaded some images tagged with {{web-screenshot}}. This tag is not meant to be used for images that came from Web pages; it's meant to be used for images of Web pages (such as Image:Google screenshot.png, for example). I've retagged the images below as having no license information. Please make sure that Wikipedia has permission to use these images. Then edit the image description pages to include information about the licenses these images are under. You may find an appropriate tag at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags or Wikipedia:Template messages, or if none of these fit you may write a description of the license yourself. You may want to refer to the image use policy. If the use of this image on Wikipedia is a copyright violation, please follow the steps at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion to nominate this image to be deleted. If you have any questions, please feel free to post a message on my talk page. —Bkell23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, what justification do you make to establish that it is legal under U.S. copyright law to use this image in Wikipedia articles? Wikipedia cannot use copyrighted images without the permission of the copyright holder, except in a few cases when the four conditions for "fair use" are satisfied (please read fair use for more information). If you yourself took this photograph, then you should consider releasing it under a free license. If you aren't the photographer, then you'll need to find out if the copyright holder has released it under a license that allows it to be used on Wikipedia, or contact the copyright holder yourself to ask for permission. If you can't get permission, but you believe the use of the image qualifies as fair use, you should use a fair use tag and write a fair use rationale. If you can't make a justification for the use of this image on Wikipedia, then this image must be deleted, unfortunately. Let me know if you have more questions. —Bkell00:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Can I use the fact that there is no intended profit on either for either the website owner or wikipedia? Kingjeff00:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
That helps, but it's not enough by itself. If you don't have permission from the copyright holder, and you want to claim fair use, then you have to consider all of the following:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I think you should be fine claiming fair use, but you will need to write something that explains why the use of a copyrighted image is necessary instead of an image under a free license. Try using {{fairusein|Michael Neumayer}} and adding a short fair use rationale. If you want a more experienced editor to double-check your fair use claim, you can also add the {{fairusereview}} tag. —Bkell00:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Image:Michael Neumayer.jpg
Looks great! I copied the fair use rationale from the talk page to the image description page, where it will be more visible, and removed the "no license" tag. Thanks a lot for your help! —Bkell05:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Nope. The standard is perfectly clear: Use whatever spelling is common in English - of the football club. If anyone should be accused of double standards, it's the news sources who use Hannover instead of Hanover, but then again there will always be debates about the spelling of things - which is why the most common spelling should be used in cases like these. Sam Vimes20:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
You can't ignore the fact that all the sources I've come up with spell it with two, and the most common way to spell the name of the football club is with two ns. It's what our sources say that should count, not some opinion of right and wrong spelling. Sam Vimes21:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
You're the 1 not showing a neutral point of view. You're quoting media resources which have biases. It is fact that in english that Hanover has 1 n. Kingjeff22:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not asking to move Hanover, I am asking to move Hanover 96, because it simply isn't referred to with only one n. Show Wikipedia editors that the world conforms to that, and THEN you might have an argument, but as it stands the world isn't listening to your view when it comes to talking about the football club. Sam Vimes23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh well, you've made your point and I've made mine. No point in arguing for ever; the article will stay at Hanover unless a significant amount of people come to the talk page and say it should be Hannover. Sorry for being a bit confrontational. Sam Vimes10:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I have seen that you have changed the team squad section on the Bayern Munich article, replacing the old one with a new style. I must let you note that we have decided and implemented a unique standard for representing team squads in all football articles, that was the previous one. Thus, I am going to revert back the old template. The old discussion about the template issue is located here. Ciao. --Angelo00:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Just because there is a standard decided by Wikipedians, and thus all the football articles should implement it, instead of always using different styles for the same contents in the same encyclopedia (that is also the reason for which the template had been proposed). --Angelo02:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I have seen that you have changed the team squad section on the Bayern Munich article, replacing the old one with a new style. I must let you note that we have decided and implemented a unique standard for representing team squads in all football articles, that was the previous one. Thus, I am going to revert back the old template. The old discussion about the template issue is located here. Ciao. --Angelo00:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Just because there is a standard decided by Wikipedians, and thus all the football articles should implement it, instead of always using different styles for the same contents in the same encyclopedia (that is also the reason for which the template had been proposed). --Angelo02:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Just don't argue with them. Let 'em take the last word and try to shrug it off. I don't see any point of arguing over something that's already done and over and isn't a big deal. Or is there more to this than I've been told... --DanielCD01:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Archiving talk pages
When archiving articles' talk pages, please make them a subpage of the talk page you are archiving, rather than a creating whole new one e.g. Talk:Bayern Munich should be archived as a subpage at Talk:Bayern Munich/Archives (with a slash) rather than Talk:Bayern Munich Archives, which is a separate article. This is standard Wikipedia practice, and allows easy navigation from the archived to the current version. Qwghlm17:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
If you mean about its deletion, well, don't blame me: I have no idea and no responsibility for it (I'm not an admin, therefore I don't have the necessary privileges for deleting pages). Have you maybe submitted it on speedy deletion? --Angelo14:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It had been just a mistake: there were some messages on that page, so I thought it was just your talk page. That's all, no other reason, I did it just on good faith (in fact, what I added to the page was my message about the team squads' issue). --Angelo14:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.
Image copyright problem with Image:Sebastian_Battaglia.jpg
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo08:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
What a surprise, I've upset you, so you're making large changes to a page I've worked on. There hasn't been any consensus on doing this on the talk page, so please stop immediately. I consider this vandalism, so I will warn you and if necessary have you blocked. Grow up. CTOAGN (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I will also be reverting your changes unless you go about them the right way, so you're wasting your time. There is no consensus that splitting the page would improve anything and non-league player pages are generally merged into the club page. CTOAGN (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm just putting their info onto a new page and I'll be changing the roster to a table form. Is that a problem? Kingjeff 18:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I've already said on the FAID that I think it's fine the way it is. If you want to make such large changes to a page you should discuss them on its talk page first. CTOAGN (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Do I agree with you on archiving at BM? Well, there's a big pile of issues I've seen you in the thick of. At BM and the football collaboration page.
An easy one first. The numbers thing, whether it's 2 or two, forty-three or 43, doesn't really matter that much to me. Depends on what manual style you were weaned on I guess. Wikipedia's style guide gives soem decent direction, I was just looking to make a minor clean up. I was surprised the issue cropped up on the talk page, but whatever. It was a small step to tidying the article up.
Archiving? If people are whigning about stuff disappearing then just leave it be. There's not always a lot of joy in cleaning up after someone else. If it bugs another user enough they'll end up doing the dirty work. Right now it's just a hot button issue that people are sniping at you over, so I'd just let it ride for a while. No point in baiting the bear. Unless you're one of those compulsive types that lives in an excessively clean house ...
I'd get a grin on if it sat for a bit and someone piped in with "Hey. Kingjeff! When are you gonna clean this up?". Just leave it go and find some other way to chip it. It'll get sorted out and you come away with your nose clean. Besides, I don't see what you gain from it to make it worth a fight. Let some one else pick up. And no, I'm not annoyed over the archiving thing.
Voting? Changing the rules about how you vote, discounting votes in the middle of the thing and all the rest of that is just fundamentally wrong in any democratic process. If the vote process isn't working you rebuild it before trying again and deal with the guys who want to subvert the process before they hijack the thing. But at the end of the day getting wound up about something silly like what we're all going to work together on is bald face goofy. I've picked up on what I'm interested in and will be happy to contribute to any collaboration that does emerge if it interests me. The vote thing will get itself sorted out as the the forum matures. I saw vague signs of it drifting towards a "registered voter" thing where there were some sort of criteria allowing you to vote. That might work, but someone would have to manage it.
Too many nominations? Maybe. But it's like being a kid in a candy store surrounded by all kinds of goodies. You want to do it all, but you can't. You end up sick and not liking candy very much any more. So, yeah, I think some sort of moderation is in order. The three nomination limit might be a useful thing. It keeps people focused and acknowledges that we all have limits on our time. I I'm hopeful it would also contribute to there being enough bodies around to follow up on articles selected for collaboration are being properly tuned up.
Bayern Munich overall has me discouraged. OAlexander-En has hijacked the collabrative process and has been, at best, condescending towards me. There's a lot interesting information in there, but there's some clear problems with the language of the article. It's not the work of a native English speaker and it is turning into a dog's breakfast. In contrast I look at the football article on Arsenal, I think it is, which was selected as a feature article. It's concise, well written and organized, and looking at the history of the thing, is the result of a genuine collaboration. Have a read of it. Pretty much the opposite of what BM is shaping up into. I'm disappointed that no one else has piped up to let Oa know, gently or not, that we should all have the good grace to accept a helping hand when it's offered, especially when it's so badly needed.
So that's my view of what I can see/remember of your Wikiworld (?). Thanks for indulging me. I hope you find something useful in it all. In the meantime, go gently, be patient, treat others the way you would like to be treated, and help somebody write something cool! If I've been too windy, feel free to ignore me for the rest of your natural life. :) PatienceWiggy!23:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Archiving #2
Well, the page was 32 kb, but there were still comments there that were only a few days old. You should wait longer, because it may take time for people to reply to those messages. If you don't mind me asking, why are you so hot to archive? Just try to be more patient with the archiving. I don't know if there are any hard-set rules, but I'd say wait at least a week. Try to err on the side of caution, and set bounds for yourself at something like 40kb and ten days. I know you are trying to do the right thing, but if you archive messages only three days old, people are going to get uptight. Archive too soon = people uptight = stress.
Try to use a little judgement, and if there's some sort of craving there to tidyup when it might be too soon, acknowledge and be conscious of that. Perhaps ask some kind person, "OK, I feel like archiving now, should I?" Perhaps their response might help you see and learn how ppl are seeing things. I'll be around if things really get rough over there, and I'll go check it out. Take care and hang in there. --DanielCD01:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems like your idea of tidyness might to be a little higher than the norm. Be aware of that. I'd say use this idea:
Archiving
Is everyone ok with me archiving at this point? -- User:Kingjeff
That's the safest way. Better to have someone shout "No" than to put up with all the bull that comes after. And I think that's the best advice I can give. Even if you are feeling itchy, force yourself to make the header and ask the question. I hope thhis helps, good luck. --DanielCD01:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Kinda like a puzzle. That's about as close as I can get for tonight, buddy. I need to go to bed though before I fall out of my chair. If it's still messed up in the morning, I'll give it another try. --DanielCD05:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I voted for your article, but I don't know if im eligible to vote there or not. Take it out if thats so, ha. Goodnight! --DanielCD05:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
FootballIDRIVE template
Hi Kingjeff,
Just wanted to let you know that the Football Collaboration nomination templates go only on the talk page of the nominated article, not the main article page. Thank you. -Aabha(talk)07:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
Nomination templates for voting are meant basically for editors, not readers of the article, who form a significantly larger number than editors. The general opinion is that the talk page be used for nomination templates, since voting is an internal activity. And an article's talk page is a space created for the very purpose of discussing improvements to the article. Most other collaborations follow this convention, after having discussed it. -Aabha(talk)18:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should put the reigns on it a bit there. There's several articles from the past few days, and they can't all be done at once. I know this is probably important material for you, but try and hold off for a few days and let the ones that are there work their way out. If only one is done a week, you've got plenty of time anyway. I'll try to find what the policy says about time limits on article nominations. --DanielCD21:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Incident
King:
I just responded to your message in WP:ANI but I wanted to leave a personal message here as well. Sometimes, in the spirit of WikiPedia, we need to leave our preferences aside and play by the "consensus" rule. WP is not exactly a democracy but when a group of people has a standard set of rules, is considered good manners to at least discuss changing them. I am not condoning Johan's message or "tone", I am actually trying to mediate a little bit to avoid any kind of escalation.
I think that if you accept the suggestions and try to work with editors instead of challenging them you'll find WP is a better place.
I hope you don't mind my intrusion here and you realize that this is just a friendly attempt at avoiding a confrontation.
"If he doesn't like it then he should just say so". He probably should've used a different approach, I grant you that. As I said, you can read what I left in his talk page. I am not taking anybody's side here, just trying to help. Sebastian KesselTalk23:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
King, Johan sent me this link [1]. He has a good point on showing that you weren't completely civil as well. Maybe you both should take a deep breath and think if this is the proper way of collaborating. KJ, I have a feeling that JE and you have some history and maybe you could "forget" that, wipe the slate clean and start as if you never wrote him before. I know it sounds corny, but it does help when to keep your head cool. Sebastian KesselTalk00:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
KJ, that was pure sarcasm and you know it. C'mon, be honest with yourself. I think your intentions are good, and I am not taking any sides here, but comments like those are bound to inflame passions, and staying clear of possible misunderstandings is a wise way of editing. Sebastian KesselTalk00:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
KJ, he may or may not have good faith, but I don't think neither of you want an RfC. The best in this situation is avoiding potentially disruptive comments and offer compromises instead of looking to make a point. I am not interested in creating a confrontation (nor with you or anybody else), just offering a neutral outside view. It is take it or leave it, I am not here to make justice, just trying to help. Sebastian KesselTalk00:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
His own website seems pretty good (I only looked on a couple seasons, though) - [2]. Also, I found this German database [3], which seems pretty good. A tip for adding new seasons to the statistics table, the rowspan="x" needs to get a higher number (i.e. if adding 3 seasons, the rowspan needs to be x+3) for all seasons to be in alignment. Poulsen23:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 12 February - 18 February
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
FC Dynamo Kyiv has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Football AID 19 February - 25 February
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Football (soccer) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
oliver kahn
hey, i guess i missed the deadline to vote for alan smith. have u seen the oliver kahn page? dont you think the 'ridicule' section is unnecessary? i've been trying to improve the page, but havent got much info. can you help?
Kinda crazy12:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 26 February - 4 March
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Bobby Robson has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Check the TSV 1860 München page. There are now two stadium sections. Note that in the first the name of the stadium is used twice in two short sentences, which is awkward writing. The second uses the name once and a pronoun the next time which makes a smoother read. Fix your fix, please. Thanks. Wiggy!00:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I was very confused at first but then saw that you were on the way of creating a German AID and guessed that you just edited the wrong page. -- Elisson•Talk12:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 13% for major edits and 11% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)
This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot16:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
A.C. Milan has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Der Kaiser
I'm just 10 years too young to really have seen him, a "real" best team would have Beckenbauer, Cruyff, Pele, Maradona, Van Basten and so on. I know fx Matthäus isn't much compared, but my only dilemma was Matthäus vs Deschamps.. I'm guessing your favourite 11 is the Bayern "Greatest Ever" team? ;o) Poulsen02:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Bots
Hello Kingjeff/Archive1. One of your recent edits was undone by an automated bot as likely abuse of editing privileges. Our welcome page provides information for new users who would like to contribute. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you feel you have recieved this notice in error, please contact the bot owner. Thank you for your interest in our project. // Tawkerbot220:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The bot registered you as blanking the page. This appears to have been a networking issue between the bot and wikipedia. I'm sorry it had to happen to you. This is the first time I've seen this issue. I don't know anything about mathbot and why it tangled with you, you'd have to take that up with whoever runs that bot. Again, sorry about that. If you have any more issues with Tawkerbot2, please let me know. joshbuddytalk20:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if we can kill the bots per say, Tawkerbot2 has dramatically lowered the workload of RC patrols and has really helped fix page blankings rapidly, if you check the bots contribs I'm sure you'll find 99% of the edits it did spare a few early ones when we were testing are the proper decisions.. I'll have a look into the network logs to see if theres anything, this really is the first time this has happened in over 1000 edits, it could very well be the bot got a bad diff from Wikipedia and marked it as such. Mathbot, I really have no idea, its not mine, Tawkerbot and Tawkerbot2 are the two I operate, other bots have different programming and I have no control over them. Thanks for bringing it to my attention and apologies on the slow response, I stepped out of the office for a couple hours to go have lunch -- Tawker21:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 12 March - 18 March
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Ronaldinho has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Football AID 19 March - 25 March
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
I only took it up with you because you posted on the improvement drive, did not get a consensus or even a response, and went ahead to change things. No matter, I replied there. DR31(talk)18:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
No
I really thinks it looks bad. If you look at any good wikipedia articles, you don't see subheadings for 1- or 2- or 3-sentence paragraphs. And the manual of style advises against it. But ok, you think it looks good. I think it looks bad. Others seem to agree that there's no need for extra subsections. I mean look, if someone wants to write a long section (not just a few summarizing sentences, but some real content) on Giants Stadium, or RBNY supporters, then fine, let them write that section, and we'll add a header, according to both the manual of style and wikiproject:football. But for now, please let it be and let's stop this revert crap for both of us. Peace. DR31(talk)04:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I know a lot about MLS history, but since I am very biased against Metro, I don't want to write about other teams. I am sure a Crew fan will do a better job. Look man, let's just respect each other's work, ok? DR31(talk)04:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The Metro/RBNY stadium situation is a pretty complicated topic. But if I have some time later this week, I'll try to write something worthwhile up and re-create the section, ok? DR31(talk)04:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 26 March - 1 April
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Football in Germany has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Football AID 2 April - 8 April
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Timeline of football (soccer) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Football AID 9 April - 15 April
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
FC St. Pauli has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Empty subheaders
What's up with all the empty subheaders? I can understand it on a form over substance basis, but it might be an idea to add some content to help flesh the articles out ... Wiggy!22:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 16 April - 22 April
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Ukrainian Premier League has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Football AID 23 April - 29 April
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
History of football (soccer) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Football AID 7 May - 13 May
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Reading F.C. has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive: Austria national football team
It's a short article with quite a few red links.
Please provide a reason for voting for it, otherwise no-one will. There are lots of short articles. Editing this article won't remove any red links. I couldn't bring myself to second a nomination like that, even I'd like to improve the article, which I would. Slumgum | yap | stalk | 19:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 21 May - 27 May
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Heysel Stadium disaster has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Football AID 28 May - 3 June
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Football in Norway has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
I only usually vote for things I'd be able to do quite a bit of work on. I don't know much about the Austrian national team, so I don't think I'd be able to contribute much. Oldelpaso16:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Football AID June 4-10
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
UEFA Cup has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Football AID 11 June - 17 June
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Watford F.C. has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
2006 FIFA World Cup
I suppose it'd be okay to update scores at halftime, provided that they're accurate. I don't think it's wise to have tons of people editing at once with all the edit conflicts. I'm not an expert on the subject by any means, though. Ian MankaTalk to me!21:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Prods
Hi, don't know if this changed since you put the prods up, but the FIFA 2006 group articles have full team lineups, and more detal than the main article. I'm reomving the prods. Incidentally looks like you put the commnet on the article page for group H. RichFarmbrough 22:35 15 June2006 (GMT).
Yes I have done so. I have not removed anymore prods since I saw your message (let me assure you 8 edits would have only taken seconds). Please look at Group G where instead of the prod you have pasted:
I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group G, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup - Group G. If you remove the {{June 15}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
Excuse me for stating the obvious to you because you were just going on and on even though you were on a clear loser. My userpage gets vandalised because I am willing to stand up to morons who have no intention of making useful contributions to wikipedia. Your comment on my talkpage was a) a personal attack and b) ignoring your own conduct. You should examine yourself and then come back to me. Xtra14:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
They are morons. Maybe if you want to comment you should look into what actually happened, or I might end up classing you in the same league. Xtra00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 18 June - 24 June
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A
You're welcome to ignore my comment, but I was serious. I did not, however, mean it as a personal attack, though I'm sure you must have felt piled on by all the comments on that page, and I regret using the word "idiotic". What I find upsetting is the overall trend I see of nominating for deletion articles with factual information that don't have anything seriously wrong with them, simply because they provide too much information. In my opinion, because this is not a paper encyclopedia, and because it is organized in articles that are easy to ignore by the uninterested, objective factual articles should be allowed to exist so long as people are willing to put in the effort to write them and verify their accuracy. (In my opinion, verifiability and NPOV are the bright lines that can be drawn around vanity articles, where the only source of information is the subject of the article.) Honest people can certainly disagree, but I really don't see the argument for deleting. --dreish~talk14:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for Supporting my RfA!
Thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed by a margin of 54/6/1. I know this thanks is tardy, but it does take a while when you hand-craft your "thank you"s to your RfA. If you see me doing something I shouldn't in regards to my admin powers, please feel free to let me know. Thanks again Ian MankaTalk to me!04:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Football Aid
(from User:Pearle)
I've noticed you did an edit on Kaká back a while ago. I nominated the article at Football Aid/Article Improvement. Maybe you can help out by voting and do more edits. There are also more articles you can do and you can nominate articles yourself.Kingjeff00:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Pearle is a computer program, mostly involved in refiling articles tagged for attention. 8) -- Beland21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 2 July - 9 July
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
UEFA Intertoto Cup has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
As a foreign born player eligible to a UK passport, he is eligible to play for any of the 4 associations of the UK. It was on this basis that Wayne Allison played for N Ireland. If you have evidence to the contrary, rather than simply an assumption that he is only eligible for the place of birth of one or other of his parents, please present it. Kevin McE21:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
"Not really" is not presenting your evidence. Although the UK has 4 representative associations, each independent members of UEFA and FIFA, the only criteria that FIFA has is eligibility for a passport. The 4 UK associations have a "gentlemen's agreement" about eligibility, one of the elements of that agreement is that foreign born players are equally eligible for any one of the four. I repeat, if you have evidence to the contrary, please present it, otherwise do not revert without certain knowledge. Kevin McE21:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
User Talk Archiving
I have also fixed up your user talk archives. Please do not go around creating pages in the User: space. All archives need to go in a subspace of your account using the "/". For proper archiving, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Thank you. Sasquatcht|c14:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 9 July - 16 July
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
FA Premier League has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Football AID 16 July - 23 July
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
FA Cup Final has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Football AID 23 July - 30 July
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
2006 FIFA World Cup has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Image tagging for Image:1088610897588.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1088610897588.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Juventus F.C. has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Football AID 8 August - 15 August
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
FIFA World Rankings has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Football AID 13 August - 20 August
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Dunga has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Regionalliga
Ok, I agree, going down into the Oberligen would be near impossible to keep track of. What should the page be called? I was thinking 'German Regionalliga 2006/07' becuase it needs to be distinguished from its Austrian counterpart or maybe it would need to have a 'Fußball' prefix also?
I think the title is ok until someone creates an Austrian version then there might be some confusion, but other than that I think it works fine.
Well you never know, I mean I have created similar pages for the Slovakian league. Just wondering do you have MSN that I could talk to you over instead of this, would make things easier? --shanda23:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Regionalliga
I've made league tables for the Regionalliga Nord and Süd 2006/07 I was wondering whether you think it would be a good idea to make a new page for these or if you think maybe it is a step too far and too much to update, they can be found here... User:Curswine/Sandbox/Regionalliga --shanda17:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: Premier League table
I wouldn't have a problem with it if you want to put the points at the front and bold them. With the way it was before I thought they'd get lost in the shuffle, but bolding should solve that. - Pal20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: Premier League table
That was some quick archiving! Yeah, the location of the points on those tables are fine. I'm not a big fan of the colors, but since you've put a lot of work into that page I'm not going to suggest any changes. - Pal 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you're after but you use this as a base and just change the links inside it. --shanda21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Bradford City disaster has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Kottaras
Yeah, I should read up some more on things before I post on Wikipedia. I read that, then went to Redsox.com a bit later, and it said "Player to be named later", I went to edit it, but you already had. David Reject03:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. It was empty so far, excluding the headings. When you start an article, please have at least a little bit of information to begin with. --Gray Porpoise15:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 3 September – 10 September
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Spain national football team has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Merge tags
Please don't remove merge tags until discussions are complete. Consensus has not been reached on the subject and the merge tags indicate to other users that there is a discussion on the matter. - Pal18:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, how about I'll add the scores (and just the scores), and let the merge tags be taken down? It seems like that was what everyone was headed for anyway. - Pal18:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Premier League table
OK, I'll discuss it on the talk page. It just didn't seem worthy - it just looked like an ugly mess to me the way it was and the traditional table format is far more understandable. - fchd19:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 17 September - 24 September
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Garrincha has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
This is to inform you that the project page you created above is currently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to follow the links on the project page to participate in the discussion. Thank you. Badbilltucker18:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 1 October – 8 October
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Ben Thatcher has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Certainly, the project you created can be "recreated", and my apologies if it might seem to you that my own actions in requesting it's deletion was to "clear the way" for my own project, because that was not the case. You may notice that I have been nominating several single-member projects for deletion, not only yours, in the process of a task I am engaged in. However, I think that the page itself, in terms of content, etc., is at this point probably irretrievably lost. Knowing that, you would probably either have to retype the data, or, if you wanted, inform me of what the proposed central activities of the page were and I could try to create an approximation. My hope of the new project is that it function something along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia, Wikipedia:WikiProject India, and the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada, kind of a central base for a variety of projects and subprojects dealing with a rather large subject area. In fact, hopefully next week, after I finish the more detailed version of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory that I am currently working on, I'm hoping to spend a great deal of effort in trying to improve my proposed project page, particulary including a listing of all related projects. If you want to create an approximate project page for me to include a link to, or just me know what the contents and scope of the project are for me to create (probably in your userspace to more easily permit your own modifications), please let me know. I do think that having a kind of centralized location where all the projects related to the subject can "meet" is probably the only one which has proven to work when dealing with this large a subject, and if that is the kind of project you wish to "recreate" to supercede the one I have just started, you have my sincerest permission, agreement, and best wishes. In fact, I'd probably try to help you in doing so. I just hope that some project of the kind I proposed, headed by whomever, continues to exist, as it seems to me to likely be the only way available to deal with this large of a subject. And, if I failed to mention it above, my thanks to you for indicating an interest in the "umbrella" project on the proposal page. Badbilltucker16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:1088610897588.jpg
This file may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:1088610897588.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. bainer (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikiproject:Italian Football
Hi ya. I see you add to Italian Football articles from time to time. Just wondering if you want to check out Wikipedia:Italian Football. We are just hoping to organise our efforts towards improving articles better. If you want to sign up just put your name down under participants on the project. You can do as much or as little work as you like and any ideas on improving pages would be great. Niall12319:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source for United advancing after losing their first 3 games? I'm going to have to delete it till I see a reference. Kingjeff00:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget to convert letters with diacritics, or non-standard letters to the nearest standard letters (that is: "standard" in English, at the time Wikipedia is written), examples:
Diacritics are omitted: e.g. Étretat: [[Category:Communes of Seine-Maritime|Etretat]], or: Ål: [[Category:Municipalities of Norway|Al]]
Ligatures are separated: e.g. Æsir: [[Category:Norse mythology|Aesir]]
Sometimes which is appropriate depends on the language e.g.:
From the Bruno K. Öijer article: [[Category:Living people|Oijer, Bruno K.]]. From the Ötzi the Iceman article:[[Category:Mummies|Oetzi the Iceman]] (in this case the German umlaut on the O is expanded to an "e" - preferably only omit the diacritic, without applying foreign rules that could make collation seem illogic in English: [[Category:Mummies|Otzi the Iceman]].
From the Arne Åhman article: [[Category:Swedish athletes|Ahman, Arne]]. From the Lasse Åberg article: [[Category:Swedish film directors|Aaberg, Lasse]] (Contrary to the previous example the "Å" is here expanded to "Aa" - again, better to only omit the diacritic, to avoid collation confusion in English: [[Category:Swedish film directors|Aberg, Lasse]].
Right now your vandalism is a nasty joke.
But you are warned now twice to stop the nazi-vandalism on the Berlin Page.
Otherwise this will be the end of your Wikipedia-career. Lear 2100:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to apologize on the suspicion of socketpuppets. You are obviously not connected to
the POV-Pushing authors. Thanks for cooperation on the issue. all the best Lear 2109:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Not a news agency
That's a bit rich considering your involvement with the German standings and stats. Or is there an inherent difference I'm not seeing? - Dudesleeper11:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
No idea what you're talking about, sadly. I'm going to put the current eleven back in, since nobody (on any of the three articles in which I've implemented it) has had a problem with it since its inception. - Dudesleeper20:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I just try to do what's correct about the current squad and tournament records.
about the layout, i just try to maintain the germany national team to be the same with several others national team page. if you want to make the current squad under the players heading, thats fine, i wont change it back again. ~ Martin tamb04:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
well i just wan't consistency, it just not fair for other players who got deleted. You can't forget that Metzelder also a regular, he and Mertesacker were the first choice centre back in WC2006. I think we should put all those players back? since I think sooner or later, Metzelder, Mertesacker, Kehl will earn recall to the national team (maybe not Huth but if we put those back, we should put him back to, just for consistency in the article). ~ Martin tamb04:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
So which do you suggest is better, putting all those world cup players back? just put mertesacker back? or just wait to see the call up for november match against cyprus, which i assume some of the players would be back. by the way, i'm sorry if i insulted you earlier, i don't really want to make edit war, so are we good? ~ Martin tamb04:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I still want to put Huth, Metzelder and Kehl on the list. However, I did not want to argue anymore and whether their name on the list or not does not effect the article that much. I rather emphasize on the current squad section. Also, I have a feeling that you think that me and that IP are the same. I don't know how to convince you, but that was not me. If I am to argue, I would rather argue on Metzelder rather than Huth. ~ Martin tamb02:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that the Seattle Pilots came into existence before the Blue Jays, but that has nothing to do with this edit, which was clearly a discussion about the 1977 expansion. Mindmatrix14:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
all i want is fair treatment to all the players, anyway what do you have against huth? or do you love mertesacker that bad? you say world cup is not recent but you still put mertesacker on the list, isnt that unfair for huth? do you know that huth also suffer injury in pre-season that keep him out of german squad until october match? regular or not is not your call, its low's call, all i know is mertesacker recover before october internationals but still not called up yet, you call this a regular? also no harm in putting huth on the list, or also no harm could be done by deleteting both, as people could access them from the world cup squad. but to put just mertesacker is a biased opinion and i dont think this is what wiki about. anyway take a look on other national team page, they even put players that retired fully from football (Zidane) in the recent call up list, just for respect for them who played in the world cup
Stadiums
Seen any? I've got one featured :p . In terms of FAID nominations, I don't know whether much improvement would result if a stadium was selected. The last stadium related article to be selected, Bradford City disaster, attracted just 4 edits while it was the AID. If it was a stadium which had hosted the World Cup final or something, then sure, but in most cases it would attract more edits if it was the club article, of which a stadium section would be an important part. Some of the substub stadium articles would perhaps be better off merged with their club for now, though obviously this isn't an option for multi-use ones like the two you nominated. Oldelpaso19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 29 October - 5 November
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Goalkeeper (football) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Australia national football (soccer) team
Hi Kingjeff, I reverted your edits, so I thought I should explain myself - I did it for two reasons:
Due to multiple codes of football being popular in Australia, the "(soccer)" is needed to clarify which one is being referred to. (Note I personally don't think this should apply to the national team because there aren't any other national teams of importance that use the name "national football team" - but the existing naming format has been the consensus.)
You moved the articles by cut and pasting - the correct procedure is to move the pages to the new name, that way the history of the page moves with it. Since the target name "Australia national football team" already exists, this can only be done by an administrator.
The removal of the 'recent call ups' on the German page has no bearing on the English national team page. As long as the section is properly maintained with agreed-upon guidelines etc., then there is no harm in it. --Robdurbar17:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Which is my point exactly. There is no overall policy on them; therefore, the actions on one national football team page cannot be used to justify actions on another. --Robdurbar17:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well that is your opinion; I'd point out to you that 3 seperate editors have disagreed by reverting your changes. It does not, however, repeat any information. Only those players who were not in the last squad, but who were in a squad within the last 12 months, are included. --Robdurbar17:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Kingjeff, please be warned that you have now broken the three revert rule on this article, which states that you cannot revert a page more than three times within 24 hours. I will presume that as a new user you are unfamiliar with the rule, so will not report you if you agree to self-revert your last revert. Please note that most occurences of a breaking of the three revert rule result in a ban. --Robdurbar18:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Australia national football (soccer) team
Sorry I reverted your edit. I did not oppose the inclusion of the quote, I was just trying to stop the revert war there. But now I think it's better to let the quote stays. And I just posted some thought on the talk page, maybe others user will understand about the inclusion of the quote. Martin tamb01:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not subst this template, it creates a mess. Also, improvements to the template will not be seen on pages where it is substituted. Please just transclude it using {{WikiProject Germany}}. Thank you. Kusma(討論)11:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Italy
Of course I'm interested!!! I've produced some 5,000 quality edits for Italian articles, I don't know if anybody else here did something comparable. So, I'm willingful, good idea. Further, it could be a discussion table to finally define standards and gain consensus against prepotent user like Nehwyn and others, which are pratically controlling articles like Rome. I know a couple of other people who'll be surely interested, and there's already a WikiProject:Sicily ongoing from which we can draw people, perhaps. Let me know!! --Attilios22:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Panarjedde
Let's give him some rest. I seem it has behaved not so bad in the last times. I think more blatant crimes (3RR, disruptions, etc) should be found. Let me know. --Attilios23:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, regarding the AMA case, I think a RfC could be appropriate. In order for this to be valid, the users certifying the complaint are required to demonstrate their attempts to resolve the dispute. In this context, I would suggest you leave a note on Panarjedde's talk page outlining in what areas he could improve. Thanks, Addhoc14:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
See My edit (summary will do) to your user page. Is the October matter a seperate issue or related to this one about Rome? // FrankB17:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Xpost fm my talk on above w/answer
re: My problem Panarjedde has been harassing and following my edits. He's always reverting something. As far as I'm concerned, he gaming the system and I can't assume good faith with him anymore. As far as the joke, it was their long before the advocacy request. (You know I didn't bring the Advocacy request up?) Kingjeff 18:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
No, looked to me like you had filed the matter. I haven't yet worked my way back to the original page yet to reread the case, so sorry if I'm wrong on that particular. Been reporting on some vandalism seen along the way. Gaming the system is juvenile at best, and I couldn't agree more. Line em up against a wall and shoot 'em at dawn! <g> later // FrankB18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ahhhh so. See it's Attilios and not you. [6] Perhaps an RFC on this bird is something you and Attilios should contemplate. Let me keep on studying this one. Not sure I have time to get involved in any event. I've been handling RL crises mode this past two months, and really have a lot of stuff to catch up with and on. Best Regards // FrankB18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
"bad faith" edits?
Hi Kingjeff,
I haven't had time to analyse every single change in this edit, but many of your changes, such as "campaigns" to "Campaigns", "Socceroos" to "socceroos", and "and" to "&" are incorrect so far as style goes. Most of the other changes appear to be simply line breaks in references, which don't make a difference to the page in general. I'm going to revert the edit back, but if you feel that any of the previous editors changes are "bad faith" or vandalism, please feel free to change just the specific parts of the article that you have a problem with. -- Chuq02:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to drag other people into this, but could you have a look at the discussion at Talk:Jake Daubert? I'd be most interested in additional opinions in the dispute between me and Tecmobowl as to the article content. MisfitToys21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Bayern Munich game
Can you please buy me a plane ticket to Munich and a ticket to a Bayern Munich game. I would definitely love to go to a game. Kingjeff03:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a small idea. Check out November results section in Serie A. We're now adding each table at the end of each round. Now, I know that a couple of tools who didn't care about football have banned creating seperate pages for Bundesliga results. I propose you use this collapsable template to put the results on the front page of the Bundesliga article ? Niall
Your pictures
From my perspective, the motives of the person who nominated the pictures is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the images fit within the image policy of this site and from the look of the DRV, it doesn't. Jimbo has asked us to be strict with images and I can't see any administrator restoring an image that has been correctly deleted on the basis that the nom was in bad faith. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Kingjeff, stop it. You've been going on and on about this image thing for days. There was agreement on the admin noticeboard, deletion review and several user talk pages that this deletion was fair. You win some, you lose some. Just drop it. -- Steel21:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
If the image does not fit within the image policy for use on Wikipedia, then none of the other issues you're talking about matter. We can't host a picture that is outside our policy just because it was possibly nominated in bad faith. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The fair use policy is based on US law. I think the law takes priority over suspicions of bad faith. -- Steel21:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi King! (or should that be Hi Jeff!). I’ve taken the liberty to make some edits to the draft Wikiproject page, even though it’s within your userspace. Please tell me to stop if you would rather sort it out yourself before moving it into the mainspace. I won’t remotely be offended. Cheers! —Ian Spackman16:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
May be I was unclear. I am asking you to publish the emails here on Wikipedia. If you decide to go away, there should be a way to check your claim.--Panarjedde18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
May be I was unclear. I am asking you to publish the emails here on Wikipedia. If you decide to go away, there should be a way to check your claim.--Panarjedde18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You need to comply with WP:COPYREQ. Send the email exchange to the Wikimedia Communications committee at the e-mail address "permissions AT wikimedia DOT org", where it will be securely archived. Forward both your request and the answer received to that e-mail address, preferrably together as one message (e.g., as attachments to one message of yours that would say that you received such-and-such release of which article or image). In the confirmation that you forward to "permissions AT wikimedia DOT org", ensure that both the Internet URL for the image and the a Wikipedia link to that same image is provided so that the Wikimedia PR department may cross reference the Wikimedia uploaded image to the Internet URL imgage.
You should add a note to the effect that permission has been confirmed on the article's talk page (not in the article itself) or on the image description page, but avoid disclosing unnecessary personal details such as email addresses or telephone numbers. You may wish to use the {{confirmation}} template for this purpose.
I don't think you will have many people joining, if the proposed project is a redlink. Anyway if it goes ahead please don't use a banner, get it included in the Germany Project template as a parameter. Agathoclea08:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Meh. If it's just administrative stuff, I'm afraid I won't be of much help; I have my hands pretty full with WP:MILHIST, so I can't really take on a new WikiProject at this point. Kirill Lokshin21:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks pretty good, but I just have one suggestion (at the moment, that is). I suggest you have the Member List directly on the WikiProject page. That might attract users to join. Also, you can list this project at the community portal, in hopes of drawing attention. Nishkid6421:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think so, but I am Dutch and I've never been in Munich, apart from sports related stuff I do not know anything about Munich. But if you have anything specific where you would like to know my opinion, feel free to let me know. SportsAddicted | discuss22:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
What you see on my user page is some sort of project I started myself, I haven't used it for a while now, but might use it again in the future. It's different when you compare it with the regular WikiProjects that can be found on Wikipedia, but if you think I can be of any help, I can at least give it a try. SportsAddicted | discuss22:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I indeed created that myself and made my own style of assessment for those articles, without adding them to the talk pages of these articles. As you can see on my user page I also added a "Description of the symbols" section, where I explained the assessment, maybe that can be of any help. SportsAddicted | discuss22:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I can try and see whether I think I am capable enough to assess Munich related articles. However, I'm pretty busy with sports related articles myself, so I don't know when or how often I will participate. If that is not a problem I'd like to help you out every now and then. SportsAddicted | discuss22:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
re: WikiProject Munich....thank you for inviting me, but I'm really not sure I could be of much use to the project. --BlueCanary22:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Danke schoen, but I prefer to only join a Wikiproject if it's something I'm quite interested in, which would not apply to Munich at this time. Thanks for the invite though, Dar-Ape23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Munich
Hi, thanks for inviting me for the project, but I have to decline your invitation. I am not a German and I have very limited information about them. I'm only a football and motorsport fan. Maybe I can help if it is a Munich-born footballer or racer. But overall I don't think I can contribute much to the project as I am an Australian (actually I'm Chinese, but I was born and raised in Australia). Well if you ever need any help I'll try my best. Thanks. -- Martin tamb01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 19 November - 26 November
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Old Firm has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Er... no offense, but why? Why did you pick me to ask? I know nothing about Munich, and to be honest I'm not all that interested in the place anyway. I don't think I've contributed to any Munich related articles in the past, except reverting vandalism. The only connection I have with it is that I take GCSE German... I've never even been to Germany! The closest I've got is Belgium when I was three years old. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks for the offer. I'm still getting used to using wikipedia and such though, perhaps you could tell from my user page and lack of editing apart from spelling. Would be glad to help.
Andevaesen
All the stub templates you included are relevant to Munich, so it's fine. It would only be too many if there were any that were not appropriate to Munich. By the way, the project is now listed on the Wikipedia:Community portal, so a few more members might show up in the next week. Badbilltucker00:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was operating under the impression that the stubs were already approved. Their rules at stub sorting are that each proposed stub has to have at least thirty articles which qualify for it to have a stub created. I'm not sure all of those will qualify. I'm in the process of adding really tiny stubs from the various encyclopedia I have which might qualify, but some of the new templates you're proposing might not be approved if they don't have the requisite 30 stub articles upon which to place them. Like I said, I'll start to try to create the stub articles to use the stub templates today. Badbilltucker00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think they will qualify. I took the templates from WikiProject Germany. I only took the ones that Ithought were worthwhile. Kingjeff00:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Re:Munich
Sorry for the late response. I got so many messages and I didn't see yours until a day had passed since you messaged me.
Okay, I'll try adding references to Munich when I get some time. I don't think we need an ARD at the moment, since there aren't that many people in the project. I don't think it would be wise to start up the ARD until a month or two into the actual project, as I doubt anything will be done in there (this coming from my own personal dealings with WP:BBAID). Nishkid6402:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It's an absolute must. You have to go to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals and propose all the new stub templates. You have to get exact numbers as to how many items fit in each category. Usually, people say 30+ or 60+ is a good number, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of your stub templates get rejected. If it's rejected, then you'd have to find some way to combine them into similar categories. Nishkid6422:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I have admin powers for a reason. =) And besides, these guys are experienced and know what to do regarding stubs. Why is it a problem at all? Nishkid6422:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Munich is just one city in Germany. You can't have a stub for every single itty-bitty thing, which is why they have requirements for the minimum number of articles in a stub category. Also, stub templates have to go to separate stub categories (I'm talking about your U-Bahn stub). Just go to WP:WPSS and propose your system. Germany is a whole country, while Munich is just one town. Munich may have 10 articles in one stub category, but Germany would have dozens or hundreds in that same category. If you're still not willing to cooperate, then leave the templates aside for now. We'll wait for a month or two until the project has gotten underway and we can start looking at the exact number of articles that fit into each stub category. Nishkid6422:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Didn't you see what my whole complaint was in the first place? You have to have a certain number of articles in a stub category for it to be approved. 30+ is the usual req, but if you make many templates with 30-40 articles each, people at WP:WPSS may request you consolidate the stub templates into a few broader and more general stub categories that would encompass a higher number of articles? Nishkid6422:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
No, no. You're supposed to find all the articles that can potentially fit into a certain stub category. That's how it works. You count them up, and report it to WP:WPSS. Nishkid6423:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Just do it. I'll help out. All you need to really do is find articles relating to Munich in the individual Germany-related stubs. Nishkid6423:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and make a proposal for it anyway. You can link people to the discovery posting, so people will know about it. Nishkid6423:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
If you really must have templatisation on that fine-grained a basis (and tag things that are not primarily notable in regard to Munich), then I suggest the "resources" you're looking for are talk-page templates. Stub templates are supposed to follow certain guidelines, especially given that they appear in the article space, and aren't there purely for wikiproject convenience. Alai01:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Multiple messages to different talk pages
This is considered to be poor form at best, and internal spam at worst. It's much better to simply post the message once, to a central location where all interested parties are likely to see it. Alai17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really sure that the absence of a stub template with only one or two articles it could apply to is necessarily preventing the project from accomplishing its goals, particularly if there is another template (the Munich-stub, which has been basically agreed to) which can achieve the same purpose. They would still be recorded as Munich stubs, after all, just not under the specific subgrouping. Also, unfortunately, the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub Sorting can hold a vote to delete what they see as excess templates anyway, even if they are created over their heads. Like I said, right now probably the best approach would be the least confrontational one. I'm pretty sure that they will agree to the basic Munich stub, (in fact, that they already have) and, once we see just how many articles it applies to, the members of the stub sorting project will themselves monitor it, like they monitor all stub categories, to see if its growth merits the creation of additional stub types. Also, if we see that we have 60 or more stub articles that fall within a specific grouping, we can propose the creation of a new stub template with a virtual guarantee of approval. Also, the majority of the rest of the city-scope projects already have only one stub, and they seem to be getting along fine. In fact, a few, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto, don't seem to even have one stub template. And, finally, whether the proposal of several templates is right or not, it probably would be a bad idea for the project to get on the bad side of too many people, like the people at stub sorting, this early in the game. I understand your frustration, but I think that right now taking the single stub they've basically agreed to will probably be the best idea. Badbilltucker17:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, using a stub template will generally automatically put the articles in the stub category, so creating the category separately would probably be counterproductive. Also, I'm not sure if this was clear before. None of the stub templates that were used on the WikiProject Germany page were created for the project, they all already existed, having been created at some time in the past by the people at Stub sorting. I simply listed the existing stubs. The Stub Sorting people do a very good job of keeping track of the stubs, particularly for the huge categories. Like I said, they had already created all the stub templates on the Germany project page. And, remember, as per the Munich project page, one of this project's first priorities will be to expand all articles to the point that they no longer qualify as stubs. In effect, the project is asking the Stub sorting people to create and/or approve stub templates which the project itself explicitly hopes and plans to make sure get used only very rarely and briefly. Creating what they would probably consider to be unnecessary extra work for them is probably not the best way to go in this case. Also, if the project changes direction later, or if the number of stubs expands anyway, we'll probably need them to help manage the increased number of stubs. Again, I think that, for now anyway, it would probably be best to take the single stub that they've basically already offered. Having only one template, at least initially, would probably also be a bit less intimidating to the average project member, which could potentially keep people from joining the project. The articles will still be able to be categorized as Category:X from Munich anyway. I think that the number that's looked for to prevent deleting a category is only three or more, which is a much lower threshold than the 30 or 60 to create a stub template. We also don't have to check with anyone else to create those categories. And, if we take the nonconfrontational approach now, it'll make it more likely that we'll be able to get the additional stubs we need to help categorize the project's stubs later. One last factor to consider is that we really can't tell how things in Munich will change in the future. Maybe, for all I know, a NFL Europa team, or baseball team, or anything else that is generally tied to the creation of a lot of stub articles, sets up there. Then, we'd probably have to get the Stub sorting people's cooperation to create a stub template for that, because we couldn't predict it at this time. Anyway, I think that, right now, taking the single stub is probably the best way to go right now. If we find that things change, we can always change them to keep up. Badbilltucker19:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation, but I don't feel I could contribute much since I know next to nothing about Munich. I may have edited one of the articles that fall under the scope, but it was probably cleanup/categorization/stub sorting. Crystallina02:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I know what WP:OR says, but that isn't really what I meant. It makes it much easier to research a topic when you have prior knowledge, or at least knowledge of related fields. As one of the essays says, it's best to contribute what you know or have an interest in. While I'm more than willing to clean up anything Munich-related that falls within the backlogs, I don't feel that I am quite qualified enough to be writing new articles on the subject. Crystallina03:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The template that you made for Wikiproject Munich has a mistake in it that is making the box that is contained in it expand when people comment below it on a talk page. Please fix this mistake and be more careful when making templates of these kind. Also, please read WP:Spam regarding how you distributed this template. For future purposes please be more selective in choosing whom you send these messages to. Thank you.--Jersey Devil03:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I just got your message, I couldn't find what the problem was. And, unfortunately I am not interested in the project but it does sound like an interesting project and wish you well in it. Please try and fix the template ASAP however.--Jersey Devil03:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
There....now I fixed it. [7]. You have to remember that you have to close boxes if you are going to created them other wise everything underneath it goes in the box.--Jersey Devil03:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Munich Stub templates
You wrote:I think Ignore all rules policy is the policy that should be inforced here since the current stub rules prevent WikiProject Munich from improving and maintaining Wikipedia's Munich-related articles.
That seems pretty obvious from your behaviour so far. However, if you check that page, you'll see that it says "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." What you are doing is to the detriment of Wikipedia, since it is making it harder for others to maintain it. As such, I advise you to check out the pages linked from that page, such as Wikipedia:Use common sense. Grutness...wha?03:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Munich stub types
You wrote: This seems like a personal attack to me.
I'm sorry you think so - it isn't; it's exactly how I would respond to anyone who seems to be trying to disrupt Wikipedia. As has been expained to you, it makes little sense for any wikiproject to have so many stub templates - it fractionates the workload so much as to actually discourage editors from working on the project. as such, you are actually disrupting your own wikiProject. not only that, but you are also disrupting the Stub-sorting project, one which is an overarching project connected to virtually every other wikiproject in Wikipedia. In exactly the same way that process pages like CFD and TFD try to keep the categories and templates in a sensible hierarchy that works well and can be used by everyone on wikipedia, so WSS tries to maintain the same sort of standards for wikipedia's stub templates. Which is why it is requested that any new stub types be proposed for debate prior to creation, and also why stub types which are not proposed and run contrary to stubbing practice or standards get proposed for deletion. To say that your templates are for use primarily by your wikiproject is fine, but to say they are exclusively for that projects use, and are thus in some way WP:OWNed by it is not, since any stub type can be used by any Wikipedian editor and as such should be judged by the same standards as all other stub types. Given that some of the stub types you have created are detrimental to article editing (for reasons already spelt out elsewhere), and also given the excessive number of stub types you have created, is it any wonder there are concerns over these stub types? They are not helping you, they are not helping us - they are not helping anyone on wikipedia, in fact. You have given no logical expanation for why you think so many stub types are useful, nor to why it makes sense for Munich to have seven (and, in your own words, you "could have had more then twice as many") when no other wikiproject of a like nature needs more than three, and the majority manage quite happily with only one or two. Instead, rather than trying to justify the stub types, you have spent much of your time attacking dedicated wikipedians such as Alai and myself for no apparent justifiable reason. Grutness...wha?04:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
happy Turkey-Day!!!!
I wish you a very merry Thanksgiving! Hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? Hooray and happy gormandiziŋ! --Randfanpleasetalktalk to me!
Have a great day! Please respond on my talk page (the red "fan" link in my signature). Cheers! :) —Randfan!!
Cheers! :) —Randfan!! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Referencing
Yes, I think it is important for encyclopedia articles to have references...particularily if there may be some disagreement or dispute regarding the content or tone. DPetersontalk17:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Owen Hargreaves
Apologies - it seems as though I removed a genuine edit as well while removing some vandalism! Thanks for reverting it. User:EH74DK
Ciao!
Servus! I received your invite to took part to the Muenchen Project, I'd like to contribute, but frankly I don't know nothing about the city (apart Oktoberfest and that they are mostly Catholic). Anyway, ask help if you need something Italian related. In turn, I ask help you for translation of a short German passage added to Jungingen and which was not translated (if you've time, you can find it in the talk page of that entry). Good work! --Attilios12:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 26 November - 3 December
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Ferenc Puskás has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
thanks for the invite
thanks for the invitation to help WikiProject Munich, I will try to assist in any way possible.
Welcome, Kingjeff, to the WikiProject Germany! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Germany-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject Germany}}.
A few features that you might find helpful:
The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.
Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",".
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! Kusma(討論)16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Re:WP Munich
Heh, thanks. I wasn't good at referencing either, but I read WP:CITE and I picked up some good info. I'm doing some AWB cleanup first, but then I'll get to each individual article and check out their situation. Nishkid6420:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: do I know German
unfortunately, mein deutsch ist sheiße, but I am learning, so I may be able to help in a limited way on translations in the future. I will do everything in my power to add to our articles, I have already noticed the 2001 Champions League stub, and was looking as to whether we can imbed youtube on the wiki, but from what I read in discussions i guess not. I was wondering that because here [8] is a video of the penalty shootout.
Personally, I think it's quite useful to have a list of the mayors with the dates when they were in office, party affiliation, etc.--Boson23:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Re:Thanks for joining WikiProject Munich
Thanks! I don't know very much German though I'm afraid but I'm sure I can contribute in some other way :) Any particular images we're after?
Mats
Sweden
Re:Cristiano Ronaldo page
Unfortunately, no. We must periodically unprotect the page every few weeks or months, just to see if the article is fine again. Although it doesn't work for all articles, it is sometimes effective in preventing future vandalism. Nishkid6400:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Munich
You could have checked the diff. The banner was using a template we're trying to get rid of, because it has been replaced by "Magic Words" that do the same thing. All I did was change out the template for the automagic. --humblefool®21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikiproject:Munich
I'm sorry but at the moment I'm immersed in too many other groups in wikipedia to join the Wikiproject Munich group. Also, I feel as though I need to know something on the topic or a substantial base of info so that I could actually contribute to the articles instead of wikignome which is not my forte. Thank for you the invitation though and best of luck in the future. - Patman264800:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject:Munich
Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and most of my contributions till now were mainly related sports. I would require guidance from other members to contribute positively to this project. So, if that is OK then, I am ready to sign up - Tirupraveen 03:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The situation on the Hargreaves page is in danger of getting silly. The article had, for several months, stated, correctly, that any of the Home Nations could have approached OH. The other day, an anonymous editor, one whose talk page reveals a history of vandalism, changed it without giving any reason. You now seem to suggest that there is more of an onus on me to prove the previous status quo of the article than there is on you to defend your point of view. I have given reasoned argument, although I have not been able to cite a source: you have given no reason more substantial than "I don't believe you". You prove on what grounds he was eligible for Wales: you prove why a UK passport holder can be prohibited by FIFA from representing Scotland or Northern Ireland. More specifically, why should Hargreaves be subject to restrictions that did not apply to Pat ven den Hauwe, Jeff Whitley, Tony Capaldi or Maik Taylor? Until then, I revert the page to its status for several months. Kevin McE19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Kevin is quite correct - and don't ask me to cite a source either, it is simply the case which has existed for at least the 35 years which I've had an interested in football. Any UK passport-holder who was born outside one of the four home nations is eligible for selection to play for any of them - take Jerseyman Graeme le Saux, for instance. -- Arwel (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The players I have named were born in, respectively, Wales, Zambia, Norway and Germany. Although they had, or at some point acquired, eligibility for UK passports, I do not believe that any of them had any parental links specific to Wales (in the case of van den Hauwe) or Northern Ireland (for the other three). Because they had UK passports, and had not played a full international for any other team, FIFA had no grounds for refusing them the right to play for any side for which the nationality criteria is UK citizenship. You have already acknowledged that there is no substantive difference between their circumstances and that of Owen Hargreaves. You have not established that anything otherwise is the case.
I am at a loss as to where you think that I suggested that you were "backing up" FIFA: I had your comment that "FIFA is not reasonable" when I referred to your prejudice about that organisation.
Your initial edit comment in this thread was "I can't see FIFA letting him play for Scotland or even Northern Ireland for that matter": this sounded very much like assumption, and yet now, without providing a single reasoned argument, you are rebutting every point I make as though you speak with authority on the matter. You are trying to make a revision of a statement that had stood unchallenged for several months on the article in question: it is incumbent upon you to prove your case. Kevin McE00:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 24 - 31 December
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Italy national football team has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
Formation (football) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Longterm vandalism affecting german football clubs
see here for a recent update. Could you do me a favour and keep a close eye on changes in playernames in the various clubs and let me know when the vandal hits any clubs that I don't have watchlisted or while I am off-line. If the vandalism pattern isn't clear to you let me know and I'll explain. Agathoclea22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I had absolutely no part in creating that template. I think it is very huge and hard to edit, read, display, and print. I assume whoever created it just wrote "For usage, see Template talk:16TeamBracket" because they based it off of Template:16TeamBracket (which is what I created) without giving much specific.
I assume the template parameters are the same:
RD1, RD2, RD3, RD4 — [OPTIONAL] The names of each respective round. Defaults to "First round", "Second round", "Semifinals", and "Finals", respectively.
group1, group2 — [OPTIONAL] The name of the first group of eight team, and the name of the last group of eight, respectively.
The rest of the parameters fill in the bracket and consists of the form X-YZ where
X is the specific round
Y is either the team's seed, name, or score
Z is the specific placement on the bracket, counting from top to bottom.
Neither the 1930-31 and 1988-89 pages are up to scratch at the moment - both need completion of all the tables and removal of all the filler data (as well as sorting out that nav template at the bottom). The pages 1930-31 in English football and 1988-89 in English football are on the other hand have complete league tables and thus provide more information than the Football League ones do. As I said in the edit summary, once a substantial number (you have only created two out of ten) of Football League season articles exist and they are all in a complete state then it'll be fine to link to them - until then it's best to link to the next best thing. Arsenal F.C. is a featured article and I don't like it linking to under-construction pages when there are existing complete and well-formed alternatives. Qwghlm01:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As a courtesy I've put {{Under construction}} at the top of both - not to annoy you but to make sure other editors don't try to nominate it for deletion or cleanup before it is completed. Feel free to remove it once you've completed each page. Qwghlm01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the invite to the Wikiproject but I am busy enough maintaining the Arsenal pages and being an administrator here, I'm afraid I do not have the time to work on the project as well. Best of luck though - ask over at WT:WPF if you need assistance, there might be people there with more spare time than I have. Qwghlm01:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Stephan Furstner
I can't quite understand why you reverted all my edits on the Stephan Furstner article this morning. To summarise my reasons for these edits:
You don't need a full name field if it's the same as the display name
Adding his career details for FC Bayern II
Adding two links to provide background and sources (albeit in German)
Removing the stats box because fussballdaten.de does the job a lot better.
Setting accurate youth career details (from his profile at fcbayern.de)
I can understand why you wouldn't want the stats box removed, and I'm happy to compromise on that, providing people are willing to update it. But I don't get why everything else was reverted. ArtVandelay1316:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If you don't need a full name, why is it there to begin with?
For players with a middle name, or for (say) Brazillian players known by a nickname.
Why add his career details for FC Bayern II? I don't think stats from the reserve side meets the notable criteria.
They play in the Regional Third Division, which is a high level of senior football.
If fussballdaten.de does the job a lot better why not use it as a source then for the stats?
Sure, but why remove it altogether?
We both know that the youth system for Bayern contains more then just a reserve side
Bayern Munich has children as young as 8 or 9 in their youth system. You might want to look at Bayern Munich Junior Team.
I know this. What have I said or done that contradicts it?
Why remove fussballdaten.de? It was under external links. Not under references.
It's more than just a reference, it's further reading. To me, adding that link a) adds more detailed stats, b) verifies the info on the WP article and c) saves WP the bother of updating the stats.
They play in the Regional Third Division, which is a high level of senior football. Well, this is still not a career for Bayern Reserves. We both know that every member of the reserves wants to play for the 1st team.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but FC Bayern II is part of career, and that's the case if he makes it into the first-team, if he doesn't, or if he was signed purely for the reserve team.
For players with a middle name. Are you saying he doesn't have a middle name?
No, but if we do, it's not known (it's not in the article). If he doesn't have one, then the 'fullname' field is a waste of space, as it's the same as the 'name' field, and if he does have one, listing his full name as merely 'Stephan Furstner' is misleading. ArtVandelay1318:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no intention of editing your user page again, but please note that there are types of content that are not permitted and should be removed on sight. Whether the hoax banner qualifies is currently under discussion, but a guideline existed at the time of my edit.
I understand what you mean, but please see Help:Minor edit. By Wikipedia's definition, minor edits are things along the lines of vandalism reversion and spelling/formatting corrections. —David Levy02:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
So you think it's a major edit and I still think it's a minor edit. There is no need to argue over something so little. Kingjeff03:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but from my own interactions with User:David Levy I happened to notice your talk. You might be interested in joining the discussion he made reference over here or here. If you'd rather not be bothered anymore with this I invite you to either just revert this talk or straight archive it. Cheers. (→Netscott)03:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Holy cripes, I somehow managed to completely miss that request of yours (I blame Ralbot, of course!). Terribly sorry about that. The templates I made were modified from somewhere else (can't remember where I got them from, might have been fr: or de:) and I really didn't understand most of what I was doing, but got them to work averagely well. As for a 6 round bracket, I've attempted it before and haven't managed to make something that looks decent on an average size screen. There is, however, a {{64TeamBracket}} template which might work for you. Category:Tournament bracket templates is a great place to look for these (or find someone with more skill than I have). Again, sorry about the delay in responding--hope this helps. -- Jonel | Speak07:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I've tried the one in that category and it doesn't seem to work. The 64 team bracket only works for so many brackets. Kingjeff16:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you give me an example of what you'd like to use the bracket for? I can't promise anything, but I might be able to work up something that fits what you need. -- Jonel | Speak21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, alright. Think I found the error in the template code. Try it out now - the repeating bracket should be fixed. -- Jonel | Speak22:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I've tried it out on that page ([11]). Looks to me like it's working now - go ahead and double check it (feel free to revert my edit if there's a problem with it). -- Jonel | Speak05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That's contain a semi-vandalism. I mean if the change have to make THERE, all sub-articles have to change too, i.e.: Hamburg has contained in the third qualifying round, why don't delete that link in Group Stage? Another thing, if the changes make there, all title about UEFA Champions League and European Cup have to change - from 1955-56 to 2005-06. It is not a good idea to delete that link. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS05:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I added back the piece of trivia stating Kaka is of Portuguese decent that you had removed with the reason given "That's obvious since he's Brazilian". Most Brazilians are not of pure Portuguese decent and many not at all. Check the Demography section of Brazil, many immigrants especially the poorer members of the population are either indigenous Indians or descendants of slaves who were brought over by the Portuguese from Africa. I think this information is actually quite relevant to the article as other football players from Brazil such as Ronaldo are not of Portuguese decent and grew up in the favelas. Ronaldo especially did some work to help the shanty towns of Rio de Janeiro.
Correct me if I'm wrong as I have only been to Brazil once, but when I went I really got the impression there was a huge status difference in between people of different decent. --Jackaranga10:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Boston redirect
Something's wonky with the redirect template. Go to [Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 4|this page]] for the Boston redirect discussion.--Bobblehead05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have removed the FC Bayern Munich logo from your userbox for FC Bayern Munich fans, as fair use images should not be in the template namespace. Plus, I have replied to your WP Munich comments. Thanks. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY12:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Thanks for the invite to join WP Munich. At this stage i'm going to have to say "thanks but no thanks"
I'm working on getting the various german football stadium pages up to scratch and it's a much bigger task than I first though.
Thanks again, the invite is much appreciated.Tancred01:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Kingjeff. I have accepted your invotation to the with pleasure and I feel honoured to have to have received it in the first place. Of course I did not do this lightly, as my experiences o the field of german soccer tell me that there are some users about that remind me of Iggy Pop and think that they have all the wisdom.
I am sure, we can demonstrate competence, strength as a group and that type of fotitudes, which will surely bring forward Munich realted articles and Wikipedia as a whole! Mye heart is definitelyu in it! After all, I have lived in that city for a good part aof my life and received even my priomary education there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oalexander-En (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
WP Munich members
maybe we should clarify and define what each section is, because I don't know which one I think I'd fit in. I watch the Bayern Munich related articles because I'm a fan, and edited the Munich Barons article (because I'm Canadian, lol) but other then that I don't see much else I would be helpful with.
You still broke 3RR. If you want to avoid being blocked, it might be a good idea to roll back your own changes to show your good will in this matter. Please consider doing that. Balcer03:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Block
You have been reported for 3RR violation on Talk:Karlovy Vary and I have blocked you for 1 week, as this is part of an ongoing pattern of editwarring and 3RR violations, based on your block history. Please note that the 3RR policy does not depend on the merit of the edits - it is a simple mathematical rule that says you can't revert more than 3 times per 24 hours. Kingjeff, please take the time off to carefully review our WP:3RR policy and to reflect on your future conduct here. You can decide to edit collaboratively, observing 3RR limits, or you can continue to violate the policies and be blocked for progressively longer periods of time, eventually permanently. I sincerely hope you make the right choice. Thanks, Crum37504:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
A one week block is really to harsh here. If you take a look here, here, here, here and here then you'll see that I have tried to do this sensibly. As far as my history with 3RR, you can look here and here, you'll see that I was reported by User:Panarjedde. If you look here here then you'll see that he was a banned user at the time that he reported me for those 2 3rr violations. If you look here, you'll see that User:Jayjg, a Wikipedia admin, agrees with those blocks being erased off my record.
Decline reason:
You seem to be confusing content and conduct. No one reviewing your block cares if you were right or wrong on content. You need to break out of the mentality that if you are right on content, you can do whatever you want to keep it at "the correct version." It doesn't work that way here. You revert more than three times, you lose your editing privileges for a specified amount of time. You have been told this numerous times, but it seems like you don't get it. Instead of complaining about how harsh the block is (it's not harsh, actually, this was supposed to happen quite a while ago), perhaps you should learn the art of discussion and civil argument instead of blindly reverting. If you were right (or if you are convincing enough), naturally people will support you. — 210physicq (c) 23:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
A week is a bit much for this I think. User:Balcer reporting this guy on a simple technical violation in the middle of a fairly clean debate was rather mean-spirited and self serving. This really didn't deserve the five-minute major. Wiggy!05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I have an admin who will look into my case? I don't know why others are getting their appeals heard and not mine. Kingjeff14:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Kingjeff, here is your 3RR violation report. You can clearly see how you reverted 4 times within a 24 hours period, in clear violation of WP:3RR, after having a pattern of similar violations in the past. I hope this time around you'll have ample chance to reflect on your behavior and options, so that when you come back you decide to play by the rules. Crum37517:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
But the 3rr blocks was clearly about the ban user. I don't see how you can justly do this for a week. Kingjeff17:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest that who ever the admin is in looking at my appeal looks at the comments about the length of the block here. Kingjeff17:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Kingjeff: At your request, I looked into the events leading up to your one week block for 3RR on Talk:Karlovy_Vary. While a one week block for adding a tag to a talk page seems excessive, I'd like to point out that this was not an isolated case. You have been blocked no less than three times in the past for edit-wars, and that didn't seem to affect your behaviour much. It makes no difference who reported this 3RR violation; the facts here speak for themselves: you should have known better, and stopped as soon as you realized there was no consensus about the tag you wanted to add. I acknowledge the fact that you did try to reason with the other editor and reach a consensus, but when that failed, you just went ahead and forced your version on everyone. In light of all that, I am not shortening the block. In the future, please try to involve an admin or other editors before you enter an edit war. Owen×☎19:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
But I didn't force anything on anyone. In fact, it was User:Balcer forcing it on everyone else. The point I was trying to point out to Balcer is that it should stay up until a consensus is finalized. here is the proof of that. If you look here and here, you will see that other members in the debate agrees with me over this issue about the tag remaining until a consensus is finalized. Kingjeff19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you had to make that reversion four times is all the proof I need that you acted improperly. Whether or not the other editor had consensus to his version is immaterial; had he been the one to make the fateful fourth edit in 24 hours, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If, indeed, others agree with your version, you'd be wise to drop out of the edit war before breaching 3RR, and let others handle the discussion and editing. Owen×☎20:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The admin from the the appeal made the error of not looking at all the evidence. Most of the users who have spoken up says this punishment is too harsh. Physicq210 says I "should learn the art of discussion and civil argument instead of blindly reverting." What does he think happened before the block?
Decline reason:
It appears that this is your eigth block, your fourth for engaging in edit wars. It is standard to continue to extend each new block as the previous blocks clearly didn't teach the user anything. Maybe a week long block will this time. Denied. — IrishGuytalk01:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
WikiProject Germany says,
"This project covers the creation and editing of articles related to the nation of Germany, its cities, counties, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on. It aims to expand Wikipedia's resources on Germany in a fair and accurate manner."
Based on this and the comments that have been posted, this article seems to have a place in WP Germany. Not in a geographical sense like WikiProject Czech Republic but in a historical sense. Since there is sense before Germany became a nation in January 1871 and from a historical standpoint you would definetly have to consider German occupation of Czechoslovakia. Kingjeff18:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah? And I think New York City is in New Hampshire. It doesn't matter what you think. Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/game log. And all other articles. They are all like that, so the Orioles' article needs to be like this also. And besides, it looks all weird if there's some blue font and some black font. --22:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Ksy92003
Fine. Until then, let's keep it the way that it should be. --22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Ksy92003
Sorry for what? He wasn't banned. According to this, you have been blocked 8 times, and that page you linked me to in your edit summary had his/her IP address nowhere on that page. And also, read WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Don't hold any sort of vendeta against another user for whatever reason, expecially an anon who hasn't made any harmful edits, and even more especially because you've been blocked 8 times. --22:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Ksy92003
I still don't see anything there. What exactly does it say?
Anyway, he isn't banned, not yet, at least. And this is no place to hold a vendeta against somebody. Also, just stop making those reverts to the Baltimore Orioles game log template. They are doing a hell of a lot more harm than good. Thanks. --22:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Ksy92003
Yeah, I get that. The one thing that bothers me is that you said in that edit summary "Undid revision 121279600 by 81.211.198.6 (talk) reverting banned user". When you put that edit summary in there, he hasn't been banned yet. So that's proof that you are just out to get him. That's the only thing that bothers me. You can't just declare somebody banned. Be aware that placing an un-justified blocking warning is like a boomerang; it comes right back at you. You may get blocked for that, so be aware of that. Let the process occur naturally.
Hi. I didn't mean to sign up for the project and then disappear, life's just been a bit crazy lately. I've been meaning to start taking pictures of less-traveled areas for use in articles about all the parts of town. Hopefully I'll have time soon!
--Pete09:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Vendetta
I was reading your discussion with Ksy92003, to decide whether I would want to report your 3RR violation on that template page. But I think that I do not actually care about that template. I see that I failed to convince you that me and Panairjedde was a different user, well I couldn't care more about this. But one suggestion, if you reverting, do revert to a correct version, cause Italy NEVER has blue away shirt. 121.44.226.6015:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
RE WP:BB
Why do you keep changing the games from [[Minnesota Twins|Twins]] to [[Minnesota Twins|Minnesota]]? And its not just you, Ksy has gotten real bossy about another small thing with an anon. But please keep the style of the articles the same until a agreement is meet. I dont really have a problem with only having one wikilink per series, but dont change the Yankees to New York (AL) since the other 29 articles will say Yankees. ---CWY2190TC18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
RFCU
RFCU decisions are final. It's no big deal, though. There are other ways to prove sockpuppetry aside from RFCU. Dppowell02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
When Ballack was born in 1976, Görlitz was officially a city in German Democratic Republic. This was the official name of the country and East Germany was informal.
Norum 05:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
May 2007 edition of the WikiProject Germany newsletter
This is the first issue of WikiProject Germany's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members of the project to keep up with new developments and coordinate new collaborative efforts.
Other areas where you can help
Assessment requests: Some open Requests for assessment need to be answered. To see new assessment requests as they come in, you can watchlist the assessment page.
More task forces and subprojects: As this WikiProject covers a very large topic area, it is helpful to add more task forces that focus on specific aspects of Germany. Currently, we have a Mainz task force, a Munich subproject and some joint task forces with other WikiProjects. Any project member is invited to start a new task force. Suggestions for possible topics:
Transportation in Germany
German politics (the political system of Germany and the biographies of its politicians)
Categorization: Uncategorized Germany stubs need to be categorized
Project news
Criteria for B-Class status: The assessment criteria for B-Class have been changed. {{WikiProject Germany}} template now has 5 switches, B-Class-1 through B-Class-5 that correspond to 5 easily checked criteria that an article should meet to be assessed as B-Class. The advantage of this system is that now there is a clear boundary between Start-Class and B-Class articles. Authors of articles that were assessed as Start-Class now get more direct feedback what they should improve to attain a B-Class rating.
All of our B-Class, Start-Class and Stub-Class articles now need to be checked whether they meet any of the B-Class criteria. This is a major effort, and we need your help! If you want to help, but don't know how, please post at the project talkpage.
Cities and municipalities task force
A task force dedicated to creating and improving articles on all German cities and municipalities has been started and is looking for help.
Nah, he's around. I just came back from a wikibreak, and haven't had the time lately to go chasing after him. He's not the sort of guy who's going to quietly go away on his own. I'm sure he's editing, and when I have some free time, I'll find him. In the meantime, as long as he's not starting major trouble, I'm not too concerned. Dppowell04:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem with using the word "reportedly"; see definition:[12]. Using the word "reportedly" does not imply it is a rumour when the statement is backed up with a reliable source, in this case a BBC article. To stop this from escalating into an edit war, I have removed the word "reportedly" from the article. Are you happy with the line as it is phrased currently, or do you still want to remove it? Dave101→talk18:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
That may be true, but I'm currently watching the game on TV on ARD and following their ticker - and it says those times. But I'm not worried about any minor differences. - 52 Pickup20:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
How should I know that a Munich and Austria Project member and "German Wikipedian" is from Canada? Please add a warning sign to your page :-). Malc8215:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Can you refer me to a suspected sock puppet report? I make no judgement at all about what you say, but the back-and-forthing of the articles is bad for Wikipedia and we need to try to stop that. If you can supply me with some more background I can probably help. --Guinnog04:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I posted that before having properly read your post. Let me read up on this a bit... --Guinnog04:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
James Beattie
How exactly was my edit to James Beattie vandalism? I made a mistake in the coding, so you go and brand it as vandalism? I was infact fixing that and updating his stats while you were reverting my "vandalism", so there was an edit conflict. Mattythewhite17:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
And what was that? Having him down as being in Evertons squad for next season is purely crystal balling anyway. I don't think thats vandalism anyway. And can you please give me source which states that Varney joins Charlton on 1 July, I thought he already had. Mattythewhite17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well then, the most accurate thing to do would be to place all the seasons under his contract. We can't go round doing that to every player. Mattythewhite17:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Why thank you. I like being called names on Wikipedia! I'm going to take this to Wikiproject Football and see what everybody thinks about having seasons in which we don't even know a player will be playing in in that players stats. Mattythewhite17:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Please watch your mouth. Oh, so I shouldn't be allowed to get articles to FA status and make good edits to articles because I didn't know about some non-existant rule? How dare you. Mattythewhite17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well then, why have a blank season on his page? We don't know if he will be there next season, and that season has not even started yet. Its just pointless. And how can you compare my overall football edits to some unknown 'July 1' rule? Mattythewhite17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but by your idea it would be more encylopediac to give all his contracted years, not just the one that comes next. I disagree with that idea anyway. Mattythewhite17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Owen Hargreaves. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. robwingfield«T•C»23:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
