User talk:Strawberry on Vanilla

Hello, Strawberry on Vanilla, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Your first article
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on this page and someone will drop by to help. You can also contact me if you wish by clicking "talk" to the right of my name. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:1986 Copa Libertadores.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1986 Copa Libertadores.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:1986 Copa Libertadores.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1986 Copa Libertadores.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Intercontinental Supercup. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intercontinental Supercup

Hi there. I must admit you have me confused. It is yourself who moved the article from "Intercontinental Champions' Supercup" to "Intercontinental Supercup", so why would you now revert? --Muhandes (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Corinthians.png

Thanks for uploading File:Corinthians.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Strawberry on Vanilla. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 09:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 09:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Help

Hello, Strawberry on Vanilla. You have new messages at Carioca's talk page.
Message added 03:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

--Carioca (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Botafogo

For what reason(s) did you revert my edit? The IPA listed, in particular, has numerous problems and needed fixing. Transcribing and translating the full official name is unnecessary, since it's not used in English, is transparent in meaning (well, no less transparent than the English word "regatta" is), and is only present in the article title to disambiguate from Botafogo. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have given no explanation on any of your reverts of my edits. Generally, it's good form to put in an edit summary when you're reverting anything more substantial than vandalism. Some of those articles have unnecessarily messy introductions, and I'm pretty sure my edits improved things. As for the substance, you may want to familiarize yourself with the standards at WP:IPA for Portuguese and WP:PRON. If you prefer different transcription styles for Portuguese, like your [ˈsɜ̃ŋtus] for what we transcribe [ˈsɐ̃tus], by all means propose changes at those pages. But the transcriptions should conform to those keys, so that a reader unfamiliar with the IPA can use them to piece together the pronunciation. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't WP:edit war over this changes. If you continue, you may be WP:blocked. As Xyzzyva noted, your IPA is incorrect, but in any case the proper avenue is discussion on the talk page. — kwami (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an edit war (?). That is the right IPA I have gotten from pons. Corinthians is a VERY special case since its full name is actually English, or else it would have been known as "Esportivo Clube Corinthians Paulista". Remember that Corinthians was founded in homemage to English club Corinthians F.C., a club from London that came to Brazil and beat the s*** out of everyone they faced. One of their players was Charles Miller. That is why I listed Corinthians' IPA in English.

And the IPA as I have seen in many GA and FA for football clubs are for the FULL official name. No use in just using a portion of it. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm glad we're finally discussing this. In general Wikipedia's IPA transcription tries to stick to the keys like WP:IPA for Portuguese (for the languages that have one, which is most major ones), and variant transcriptions from elsewhere should be adapted to that standard. This is because many readers are unfamiliar with the IPA, and a symbol like your /ɜ̃/, while in fact quite similar to /ɐ̃/, is quite opaque to most readers without being explained at that key. Just like in the English examples we use /ʌ/ instead of /ɐ/ or /ɜ/, even though many dialects have the latter two.

As for transcribing the full name, that's a judgement call. My general practice is if the title of the article is in a foreign language (or in English but with a counterintuitive pronunciation), that title may benefit from IPA transcription, so that an English speaker unfamiliar with the topic can talk about it. Portions unlikely to ever be used in common speech can be ignored. For example, the full name of Bangkok is Thai: กรุงเทพมหานคร อมรรัตนโกสินทร์ มหินทรายุทธยา มหาดิลกภพ นพรัตนราชธานีบุรีรมย์ อุดมราชนิเวศน์มหาสถาน อมรพิมานอวตารสถิต สักกะทัตติยะวิษณุกรรมประสิทธิ์—there's zero chance of an English speaker dropping that into a conversation, so only the common Thai (and English, if it's stable) pronunciation is relevant. Same goes for the translation in italics, which can be there to explain otherwise opaque meaning. Note that portions like Futebol Clube fail on both grounds, since it's generally not part of the common name of the club, and is obvious in meaning. So, in a lede with the full...

Santos Futebol Club (Portuguese pronunciation: [ˈsɐ̃tus futʃiˈbɔw ˈklubi], Saints Football Club)

...the only thing that truly adds information would be an IPA transcription of Santos. Everything else is just taking up space, and the one place space is precious is in the lede of an article.

Finally, as for the name Corinthians, that's interesting. Do Brazilians still perceive the name as an English word, and make varying attempts to approximate the English pronunciation? Or does it have a stable Portuguese pronunciation [koˈɾĩtʃɐ̃s]? The etymological argument alone doesn't suffice, see Sporting Clube de Portugal.

In any case, I look forward to further discussion on these matters. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed some pronunciation keeping the full name which you defended, but if want to revert, please discuss first, because reverting valid edits without explanation (here or in summary) will be considered vandalism and we will have to ask the intervention of an administrator.--Luizdl (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Id 8288 LOGO.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Id 8288 LOGO.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santos FC

Hello. Since you undid my edit to Santos FC in South America, perhaps you could explain why. The links you reinstated are clearly wrong -- Santos FC has never played a single game against anyone or anything listed on the page National. So, who did they play? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many teams named "National" that are simply not on wiki. On February 1973, Santos went on a tour to the Middle East, and two of the teams they faced were called National, one from Saudi Arabia and another from Qatar. Santos played the Qatari one on the 14th winning 3-0. Four days later, they played the Saudi one winning 5-0. Here is a blog dedicated to the history of Santos and a Brazilian site confirming the games. It took me a very long time to accurately build those tables (and I am still not done) which is why I am very wary of what info goes where. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Id 8288 LOGO.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Id 8288 LOGO.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1951 Santos FC season

Your new article, 1951 Santos FC season, falls under the criteria for speedy deletion (see CSD A3) as it only contains an external link at this point. While I will not nominate it for deletion yet, I will do so within an hour if the article still meets the conditions. Note that another Wikipedia editor may nominate it for speedy deletion if they wish. Rabbit fang 01:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Id 14232 meninos2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Id 14232 meninos2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

	best article ever read on WIKI
	Harsh Jindal 12:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

Hi, I noticed that you recently moved an article from Santos, São Paulo to Santos by cut and paste move. This is undesirable because it splits the page's edit history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. If you want to rename the Santos, São Paulo article, can you please list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves? That way the article can be properly moved with its edit history intact. Regards. --02:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've opened a move request at Talk:Santos, São Paulo#Requested move to discuss moving Santos, São Paulo to the base name at Santos. That way we can get the articles moves properly without splitting the edit history if consensus supports the move. --Muchness (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flamengo

The Taça Guanabara and the Taça Rio are part of the Campeonato Carioca, but they are at the same time regarded as separate competitions as well. That's why the three competitions are listed separately in Flamengo's article. --Carioca (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better now, but you need to restore the Copa União title (1987 unofficial Campeonato Brasileiro Série A competition), while it was not an official competition, but it was still a very important competition. You can place the Copa União in a different position, separated from the Campeonato Brasileiro Série A. I also moved Copa Rio de Janeiro to Copa Rio (state cup), as the competition is usually known as just Copa Rio. It is hard to find a free pic of this trophy. Regards, --Carioca (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be careful with rules in English. Abbreviations are NOT always in caps. http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/Mercosur Mercosur is not. Benelux is not. It's highly recommended to check language rules before claiming one that eventually will turn out to be wrong. Regards. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 13:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hino Oficial Do Santos FC

The article Hino Oficial Do Santos FC has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable football anthem for a Brazilian football club. Contained a massive copyvio issue (now removed), but without the copyvio, the page that is left isn't notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

Hi Strawberry,

You evidently don't understand the IPA, so please ask someone else to add in the pronunciations for you. PONS is in error: [ˈsɜ̃ŋtus] is an impossible pronunciation in Portuguese. I'm sorry, but we evidently cannot allow PONS as a reference on Wikipedia, because they are obviously unreliable.

People have complained about these edits before. Please stop. — kwami (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we move articles; we don't cut and paste them. All of your cutting and pasting will be reverted even if correct. If you can't move an article, please ask someone else to do it. — kwami (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Cities Fairs Cup (FC Barcelona Wikipedia page)

Hello Strawberry on Vanilla

After reading the discussion in the FC Barcelona page it apparently appears that the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is NOT a trophy recognized by UEFA, although it is seen as the forerunner to the UEFA CUP, currently Europa League Cup.

Then there is the question? Should we include it, but clearly state that is is not a recognized trophy by UEFA currently? If not, then you and other editors should remove the trophy from every clubs Wikipedia page.

I still think we should include it but clearly state that as of now it is unofficial according to UEFA (as I did in my edit, which you deleted) but still listed on FIFA's webpage and FC Barcelonas webpage (among others).

What do you think?

Not trying to start a edit war I just think we should discuss it instead of deleting it right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We agree but the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is still recognized by UEFA as being the forerunner for the current Europa League which makes it a bit different in my opinion. And since it also figures on FIFA's webpage I think we should include it in the main page, AlTHOUGH clearly state that is is not recognized by UEFA as of now.

It is also included in every other Wikipedia page of clubs who have won it (Leeds United etc.)

I really don't see a problem to include it on the main page (which it has been since the start of the FCB page on Wikipedia, more or less), as long as we clerly state that is is not recognized by UEFA as of now, which I did initially.

OR we could make a seperate section on the main page and call it unofficial trophies and include the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and the Latin Cup (forerunner for the Champions League) as other football club Wikipedia pages have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FLRC hidden messages

Not sure why you're making edits like this but I'd encourage you to stop, revert your own edit and get on with making your FLC on Santos seasons a better list. Otherwise I'll consider your editing behaviour to be disruptive and prevent you from becoming more disruptive. Revenge is worthless, please just focus on your own contributions rather than attacking those of others. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this; your mass tagging of talk pages for FLRC, especially without completing the actual nomination process, is a tendentious action and continuing to do so may lead to your account being blocked for disruption. Your edit on the Rambling Man's talk page is further evidence that you are being disruptive to prove a point: "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, enforcing it consistently... Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block (possibly indefinite) or ban. Issues with rules or practices should be addressed through plain discussion, not through parody or manipulation". Important guideline to read and follow. — KV5 • Talk • 18:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the above. Tagging dozens of articles to try and prove a point is petty and disruptive. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see you've been blocked, as I can see that you have the ability to contribute well here. I understand that you may feel you have not been treated well, but there is a specific issue of the 40 nominations for FLRC that you made. Perhaps you can accept that the FLRC process is designed to improve and save lists, not simply remove the FL status (other than as a last resort)? If so, on reflection, don't you think that expecting the relatively small FL community to deal with 40 FLCRs at once was thoroughly impractical?

If you can see your way to accepting that your behaviour was less than optimal, and assuring the admins that you would not repeat it, then I'm sure that an unblock request would be viewed favourably. An unblock request is not the place to blame others, just show that there's no danger of a repetition and you should be fine.

As a carrot, if you get yourself unblocked, I promise I'll work with you either to get a list of yours promoted or to bring one of the lists that you nominated back up to scratch - but not all 40, that's a job for when I'm retired! So how about it? Channel your energies into something achievable and put all of this behind you. Best, --RexxS (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Strawberry on Vanilla (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I accept my was probably not the best of options. I assure that I will not repeat it as I am withdrawing the FLC. Sincerily, the way it is run disgusts me and its not worth breaking my head over it. Regardless, I give my promise that I wouldn't bother with that again. It is no longer an interest of mine, anyway.

Decline reason:

Your block has expired. TN X Man 13:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As you feel so strongly that the manner in which WP:FLC "disgusts" you, perhaps you'd be kind enough, once the block expires or is undone, to tell the community at WT:FLC what, exactly, you object to. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Escudo-penarol.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Escudo-penarol.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"literal license"

I'm wondering where you get this phrase "literal license" that you use on quite a few pages, and what it's supposed to mean. You use it where you're explaining the etymology of a club's name when the name of the club is clearly just derived from its location. In my opinion these etymologies are not useful—no need to trace every word back to the dawn of time—and in some cases, such as Santos FC, just plain wrong. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please explain. This is English Wikipedia and I can find no clue as to what you mean, nor any evidence to support whatever it is you're trying to say. In the meantime I've removed it as not English and unreferenced in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Manchester United F.C. seasons/archive1

Please notify the major contributors and relevant Wikiprojects for this nomination. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the major contributors and relevant Wikiprojects you have notified to this nomination in place of "Example user" etc. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please complete the nomination process correctly. Also, is it "font" or "background" in all of your nominations, just to be clear? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nudge. Please add the names of those people or projects you have notified in each individual nomination and please decide whether it's fonts or backgrounds or whatever in each one because it seems you made a mistake and then copied-and-pasted it to every single one of your nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FLRC question

When you said in your unblock request I accept my was probably not the best of options. I assure that I will not repeat it as I am withdrawing the FLC. Sincerily, the way it is run disgusts me and its not worth breaking my head over it. Regardless, I give my promise that I wouldn't bother with that again. It is no longer an interest of mine, anyway., were you lying when you said you "not bother with that again"? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not lying. I meant it. However, that was in return for having the block lifted. It wasn't. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you are lying because you are now repeating the behaviour. I suspect this will not last too long. Please fix the nomination as I have requested above, and please do not re-factor other people's comments, to do so is rude and disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Negative on that. I promised to do that in return of having my block lifted and it wasn't; the time was simply allowed to run out. As far as repeating behavior...five FLRC compared to 40+?? Hardly seems detrimental. I will re-factor other people's comments, ESPECIALLY administrators, as they are supposed to uphold the standards. If you can't back up what you say, then it says a lot and, sincerily, that is what I am looking out for: double standards and hypocrisy. You are asking me to ignore those under the guise of being "rude and disruptive" which is highly insulting. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's clear we can't trust what you say. No you will not re-factor other people's comments as you did here. That's rude, and deceitful. And disruptive. And continuing to do so will result in your account being blocked again. Now fix the nominations, suggest you stick to one at a time, remove the other five and we'll all move on from here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can trust whatever you want; it is your right. It doesn't change the facts that none of those lists don't even come close to meeting the present standards. Show me a regulation stating how many FLRC can a user have at one time and I will do it. And I will quote any admin I want. I am considering using evidence of this abuse of admin power to get your priviledges revoked.

As far as why I chose 5 at a time...why not 4? Why not 6? I don't know...5 seems like a good number. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those lists are in very good condition and just adding row/col scopes will match them to WP:ACCESS. You'd be better off looking at some of our older lists, some of those definitely need some work. For my interest, what part of my "admin power" am I abusing? To be clear, you should not re-factor other people's comments, you should correct the nominations you've made, you should identify problems correctly... etc etc The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you raise a very good point. I'll start a discussion to limit the number of concurrent FLRCs to one as it's clear you are not going to be capable of keeping up with all of these parallel discussions. Thanks for the suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As your nominations have all been quick closed (partly because they held no substance and partly because they were malformed), I would suggest you desist from trying it all again a third time. Doing so will definitely 100% result in your account being blocked for disruption and pointed edits. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured List suggestion

I first became aware of your activities with WP:FL when nominating an article I had been working on, and found you were arguing with the same user who was reviewing my article. Because of your actions at that time, I made extra effort to be clear I was arguing against the points raised when I had a disagreement, rather than the user. I have to admit, that when I see an argument brewing on Wikipedia, I do like to keep tabs on it, to see how far both sides will go, particularly if someone seems to be really stubborn about something that seems (to me at least) to be completely wrong.

Now I didn't see the 40-odd WP:FLRC you nominated which wound up getting you blocked. I have seen the attempt you made to get unblocked. Just to remind you, you said:

I accept my was probably not the best of options. I assure that I will not repeat it as I am withdrawing the FLC. Sincerily, the way it is run disgusts me and its not worth breaking my head over it. Regardless, I give my promise that I wouldn't bother with that again. It is no longer an interest of mine, anyway.

(I've added some emphasis there of course.)

Less than 48 hours after submitting that plea, you turn around and do almost exactly the same thing again, and nominate another 5. The first couple I looked at didn't seem to have any serious issue, and only the addition of scope to the headers was required to bring them into line with WP:ACCESS. I've checked another one and have found only minor issues that were fixed in about 5 minutes, and I suspect that the same will be the case for the other two, if they aren't already fine. Not only that but you messed up the challenge of the readability of the colors used, as all but one combination of colors, a redlink on the "silver" background meets the requirement set out in WP:COLOR.

So now I come to the suggestion part. Obviously its advice only. I've got no way to force you to follow it. I'm not an admin, nor do I have an admin's ear, to put a block on you again or take any other sort of action against you. The choice is entirely yours, but I urge you to consider it. When you read this, if the nominations are still up, withdraw them and take any corrective action is needed to fix those articles. Then do one of two things:

Go back to the article you nominated for WP:FLC, and work through the points made to improve the article, and when its ready - and your ready - nominate it again, keeping in mind that you should assume good faith about whoever reviews it: they're trying to make sure its as good as it can be, rather than trying to find fault with your work.
Actually forget about WP:FL for a while, and find some other area in Wikipedia to put your efforts into.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, nor to be excel at all areas on Wikipedia. But when I see people doing the sort of things that you've done recently, it kinda scares me. It makes me think that other people who are trying (sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing) to follow the guidelines here and trying to contribute the best they can, that they might decide they don't want to deal with the hassles and problems caused by those sorts of actions. I get frustrated that others don't see things my way, and there are times I wish everyone else would go away and let me do my thing the way I want. But I like working on Wikipedia, and realise that the others on here do too, that they probably feel the same way, so I try to find a way to move on, even if it means leaving the hot-button issue alone for a while until things die down.

Like I said, its your choice. But don't expect to make friends if you continue the way your going. Afaber012 (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colors

Greetings,

Please do not add colors to the Campeonato Brasileiro da Série A templates. There is no reason for it. Not a single one in this category, this category, this category, this category, this category use colors (that's every top-flight league in the world. There is a reason for it. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, we are not talking about international tournaments. This is Brazil, thus, it makes sense. Just like the national team templates and squads, the national league and venues are no different. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, the categories listed above have the national leagues templates. Not a single one uses colors. Brazil should be no different. Digirami (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I see a a million people jumping off of bridges, it doesn't mean I have to do it, too. Besides, it is the national league of Brazil. Brazil's national color on it shouldn't be an issue. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is an issue when the WP:Footy tries to achieve consistency across articles and template. You're messing with that. Besides, you're using the official of Brazil, but the league itself as no official colors. Digirami (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask what is the issue? Is the Brazilian national team the same as the French? How about the squads?

Again, why should the NATIONAL league of Brazil not have the national color of Brazil i.e. the national teams, U-20, U-17, Olympics, etc. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, because the league has no official color. That's all that matters. You're equating the league with the country, which is something that can't universally be applied (think of the leagues of England, France, or the US... all of which has teams from other countries playing within them). Digirami (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does; it uses the same colors as the national team (since it is the Brazilian national league).

Plus, your point is moot. The Brasileirao only has Brazilian teams. Once again, this is Brazil, not England. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it goes to my main point of consistency across league templates, which colors does not achieve. Digirami (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian football champions

Following examples set by featured lists (and candidates) such as this and this, please use the original format of the Brazilian football champions list. It should be separated by league, without flags (there is no reason for it), and using the same format for the tables. In addition, most seasons did not have an official third place finisher and a fourth place finished... just semifinalists. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just finished asking a Brazilian moderator about this sort of thing since we are focusing on state flags. If he says it should be taken down, I will not bother with it anymore and leave it alone.

On the same note, I hope you understand that, unlike in England where the championship and premier league are almost counted as two different things, in Brazil the Taca, Robertao and Brasileirao are now the same thing. As for the fourth place thing, there was a full table made for each season stating 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. even in those seasons that had KO tournaments, more or less like the World Cup. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused. Achieving the same thing and being the same thing are two different ideas. The Taca, Robertao and Brasileirao all served to crown the Brazilian champion, but they are different. In addition, all champions list include the top goalscorer. As for the fourth places, no list goes beyond third. So it's pointless to include any fourth place finisher. Finally, there can be a clever way to rank the teams, unless an official third place was designated, there is none. Digirami (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are all national championships, which is all that matter. I am going to add the top goalscorer for each season in a few moments. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But they are different tournament. They should not be grouped together like how you're doing. Separate them. Digirami (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is Brazil, not England. All three tournametns are recognized as one and the same and right now I am working on merging the three. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are different tournament for the same purpose, just like the First Division and the Premier League are two leagues that serve the same purpose. Digirami (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's England. Brazil is its own entity and the CBF has declared that all three tournaments are one and the same. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, pretty much the same thing happened in England. But it's still differentiated. Digirami (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I oppose merging the three competitions, as they are separate competitions, despite CBF recognizing those as national championships. Also, the List of Brazilian football champions page lists the champions of all the three competitions, so there is no need to merge the pages anyway. Regarding the List of Brazilian football champions, I prefer Digirami's tables, and the "by state" table lists the winning clubs so there is no need to repeat the flags in the other tables. --Carioca (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Campeonato Brasileiro Série A ‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Torcida Jovem

A tag has been placed on Torcida Jovem, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Wgolf (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Id 14232 meninos2.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Id 14232 meninos2.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Id 8288 LOGO.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Id 8288 LOGO.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Estádio Urbano Caldeira nomination at WP:GAN

Please either complete the nomination or remove the edit you made to the article talk page as it's confusing. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add images to pages without correct fair use information. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the correct fair use rationale for the image you're using. Right now, there's nothing allowing it be used on Centro de Treinamento Rei Pelé . The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it for you. Please learn from your mistakes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're ready to actually complete the nomination, please don't add the template to the talk page. Thanks. And no, it wasn't vandalism, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for at last starting to complete the nomination process. Good luck with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to create the nomination sub-page as directed by the instructions in the template you keep adding to the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you manually add the nomination to the page with a fake date? The GA bot will add your nomination in the correct place. Please follow the instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, the bot did list in and then fail it here. On 27 August. Not 21 August as you appear to have listed it. I recommend you remove your fake nomination and let the bot do it for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hino Oficial Do Santos FC for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hino Oficial Do Santos FC is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hino Oficial Do Santos FC until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing deletion templates

Do not remove deletion templates as you did here and here. This is disruptive. Continuing to edit in this manner will result in your account being blocked again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war again

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Template:Infobox football tournament. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — KV5 • Talk • 21:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment below on WT:FLRC:

So when you and your friend revert anything it is called "editing". But when I do it, it is edit-warring...noted. Your hypocricy already showed when "enforcing" regulations. Now, it almost seems like I need a permission slip to implemment a letter or number.
— Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not responding there because there's no need for drama-mongering. As to your assertion that Digirami is "my friend" that's not really true, I have very little prior interaction with Digirami, but your multiple reverts of the same material are edit warring, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. You should read the definition of edit-warring here. We are trying to get you to understand that disruption to prove a point is inappropriate. Some other helpful reads might be WP:DISRUPT and WP:TEND. I strongly encourage you to reconsider your editing patterns. — KV5 • Talk • 21:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will remind you also to refrain from personal attacks, such as characterizing others' edits as "hypocricy". — KV5 • Talk • 21:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Hello Strawberry on Vanilla. I see that you have made attempts to improve some of the templates that are used on thousands of football articles across Wikipedia. This is not a bad idea, but since their use is so widespread, it is a very good idea to discuss your changes at Wikiproject Football before implementing them. That way, you can get some idea of whether there's a consensus for your changes. I have undone your modifications for the moment and suggest you start a discussion thread at the project so that everyone involved with these templates can voice their opinion on your ideas. Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Pelé. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Pelé's matches and goals for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Pelé's matches and goals is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pelé's matches and goals until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Giant Snowman 16:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock?

Out of courtesy, I feel I should inform you that you and your recent contributions under your current user name are being discussed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Corinthians.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Corinthians.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Corinthians.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Corinthians.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Centro de Treinamento Meninos da Vila

The article Centro de Treinamento Meninos da Vila has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A training ground for a youth football team, fails WP:N.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cloudz 679 11:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Centro de Treinamento Rei Pelé

The article Centro de Treinamento Rei Pelé has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication why this topic is notable. Unreferenced.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cloudz 679 11:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Id 8288 LOGO.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Id 8288 LOGO.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Id 14232 meninos2.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Id 14232 meninos2.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Logo CBS.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Logo CBS.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Copa1969.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Copa1969.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Santosfc usado sede.gif

The file File:Santosfc usado sede.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 1958 Santos FC season

The article 1958 Santos FC season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Created as part of a mass creation by a now blocked user with just a sentence and an infobox with information that can easily be found at List of Santos FC seasons or List of Santos FC presidents. If this gets deleted I plan on proding all the other years with one sentence and an infobox.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Trialpears (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 1914 Santos FC season

The article 1914 Santos FC season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Created as part of a mass creation by a now blocked user with just a sentence and an infobox with information that can easily be found at List of Santos FC seasons or other related articles. If this gets deleted I plan on proding all the other years with one sentence and an infobox.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Trialpears (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 1921 Santos FC season for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1921 Santos FC season is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1921 Santos FC season until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

1keyhole (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]