User talk:Alii h

kjetil_r 19:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to know why you have listed my photograph of Steven Gerrard for deletion?! My best mate took that photo standing next to me in the crowd with a zoom lens. It is perfectly legal in every possible way. Please reverse this stupid decision.

thankyou, Alii h 21:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer in your user_talk. kjetil_r 21:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sir are a jobsworth idiot. The big version is licensed one way. The small version is edited and licensed another way. Both licenses are within the ethos of "sharing". Both are valid in the eyes of the author.Alii h 21:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mr. Alii h, are you always so unfriendly? If the license used here at Wikipedia is ok in the eyes of the author, all right, then the image should noe be deleted. It would have been easier if you said so at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 May 10 instead of calling me an idiot here.

I can see that you have uploaded many images of Liverpool players, and this problem applies to all of them. The page here at Wikipedia says one license, but the link to flickr says something different. You should specify that these images are licensed under a different license at Wikipedia, so that other contributors do not think they are nc-only and then listing them for deletion. kjetil_r 21:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfriendly because I'm annoyed that the Peter Crouch photo was deleted without any notification. I hadn't saved a copy of the edit, and still haven't gotten around to redoing it. If you had honestly doubted the author's consent you could have mailed him via Flickr. Personally I think you just like deleting photos that people have put time and effort into uploading. I will at least credit you with notifying me this time. aLii 22:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. there are MANY photos of footballers that are MUCH more deserving of deletion. I suggest that in future you concentrate your efforts on the multitude that are stolen from comercial websites rather than photos taken by the public, but using two slightly non-matching licenses on different sites aLii 22:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right, maybe I should have mailed the author. I often do so in case of doubt, but for some reason I did not this time.

I am not sure why you think this is "anti-Liverpool vandalism", I have (of course) no interest in removing content from Wikipedia unless the content is a copyright violation.

If this licensing issue is solved, I will copy the images to the Wikimedia Commons, so they can be used in other Wikipedias. They are nice images, your friend is a very good photographer.

The uploader should according to the rules of Wikipedia always be notified when an image is considered for deletion. You should tell this to the person whom deleted it, beeing an admin he should know this. kjetil_r 22:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting late, but tomorrow I will mail your friend asking for permission, and then forward the mail with the permission to the Wikimedia foundation using the OTRS system. I will then transfer the images to Commons. This will prevent all future misunderstanding regarding this licensing issue. kjetil_r 22:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed him asking whether he could change the licenses. Having the image simply marked for deletion seemed a bit rude without any prior warning, hence my annoyance. The page Steven Gerrard gets vandalised pretty much everyday, again adding to my annoyance.

Regarding the Peter Crouch image, one day it was there and then it was gone. No explanation, no record of it ever having been there, so how am I supposed to follow it up with whomever removed it?! The photo on his page now should probably be deleted itself, ha, but I'll let you do that as you think yourself the expert in this situation. aLii 22:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can see this in the log. Your friend's image was deleted by User:Kungfuadam, with the cryptic reason "csd i3". I am not sure what is the maning of "csd i3", you should ask User:Kungfuadam.

The current image of Crouch is tagged as a promotional photo. This is most likely not correct, and I will thus list if for deletion as a (possible) copyright violation. I agree that there are MANY other photos of footballers which are more deserving of deletion than your friend's. kjetil_r 22:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright patrollers tend to be a bit cryptic at times! "CSD I3" means "Criteria for Speedy Deletion: Image 3" - the third image criterion reads: 'Improper license. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after 19 May 2005, and for which no assertion of fair use is provided.'. See WP:CSD. Hope this helps. -- Arwel (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thuresson 06:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Would you mind publishing the permission the photographer gave you? For instance on the image talk page, Image talk:Xabi Alonso.jpg? Thuresson 10:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not whether you think it is dumb or stupid. The point is to write articles to a high standard within Wikipedia's guidelines. By formatting dates that contain days, months and years, we enable the program's software to sort the dates according to a user's preferences. I have already asked you to visit WP:DATE and Help:Preferences#Date_format which support my reasons. Your reasons of dumb, stupid and bold text does little to strengthen your case. In the light of this, I have reverted as per wikipedia guidelines. Alias Flood 19:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alii h,

I have now received permission from your friend, and I have moved all the images to the Wikimedia Commons. Please see Category:Liverpool FC. Now the images can be used in all the different Wikipedias. I have already put all of them in the Norwegian, Swedish and German articles, and some of them in the French, Spanish, Dutch and even Hebrew Wikipedias. kjetil_r 00:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikpedia style is very clearly not to link the same words repeatedly, especially when they're close together. please don't return to that style again. It's not a good defence to say that other articles commit the same error. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you must insist on changing the style (pointless edit), then at least have the courtesy to not leave a careless typo and incorrect information! aLii 10:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see from other comments here that you are either unaware of or don't care about Wikipedia style. I strongly suggest that you remedy that. I more strongly suggest that you don't revert editors who are correcting articles in line with Wikipedia style; that behaviour is likely to get you blocked from editing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said Mel, I don't care all that much about your sacred style, but what I really care about is your untidy editing. You again edited the correct information away, leaving just a blank. I guess I should thank you for correcting your sloppy typo in the end though. aLii 13:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. What's with the threats?! So no-one is allowed to disagree here? I sure as hell am allowed to revert your edits if you're the one that causes the most damage to the page.

1. If you want to continue editing here, you should learn to care about Wikipedia (not my) style.
2. If you had changed the mistake rather merely mass-reverting everything, I might have known what you were talking about. Calm explanations are generally more informative and productive than tantrums.
3. You may disagree, but should be civil; you may not, however, insist on reverting good-faith edits that bring articles into line with the Wikipedia MoS. That is disruptive. Conformity with policies and guidelines isn't a matter for consensus.
4. I'm not threatening but warning. The pattern of your behaviour is familiar: aggressive bluster, refusal to reflect on your position, open contempt for community standards, etc. There are two ways it always goes: either you'll realise that your approach is counterproductive, change your ways, and become a productive member of the editing community, or you'll settle into a stubborn rut of reverting, waving your arms about, and making juvenile attacks on other editors — in which case you'll eventually find yourself facing a series of blocks and other sanctions. I'd rather that you went the former route, but it's your choice. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you shopuld consider the possibility that your confrontational response to my edits coloured my response to you? Your violent outbursts to other editors seem to have the same effect. My previous comments stand. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and perhaps you should apologise for your inconsiderate editing of pages that I've put a lot of work into? Your edit changed what I thought was a good format. Yes I know about overlinking, but whether something is truely overlinked or not is reasonably subjective. You didn't leave any kind of decent explanation for me until after we'd both reverted each other's edits a number of times.

• My edit had 3 links in close proximity. I had left them in the infobox for consistency of style, i.e. dates in black, teams in blue. There was nothing overly offensive about it. The article itself had no such overlinking.
• Your edit had a careless typo and some information removed. I saw it as careless, unnecessary and rude, and so I reverted you. You reverted me without correcting your mistakes, and so I simply reverted you again as you were being continually rude.

I may have come across as confrontational, but your continual "No, I am correct" revisions came across to me as confrontational. You started this. You are still being rude with your refusal to take any blame. As I read through your talk pages I see a lot of this arrogant "I know best" behaviour. Sure you contribute a lot, and probably do know the correct style better than the average contributor, but can you not accept that your behaviour in this case was far from ideal? I can accept that mine was, but as I have pointed out a number of times already you started this and I felt the need to defend my position. aLii 10:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was semi-deliberate - I saw I'd made the mistake but decided not to correct it. See also WP:ROUGE. Blimey, another football editing physicist . What with me, Conscious, Johan Elisson, possibly Philc, you'd think a physics degree is a prerequisite for editing football articles. Oldelpaso 19:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point of view, but I want to include the "tidbit" because I do find the fact itself very interesting. As Riise was one of the main involved, I believe it qualifies to be included in the article about him. Also, as Wikipedia is not paper we can afford to keep it there. The article is so well structured, that it doesn't ruin the readability. When it comes to your point about the info being more about the crowd response and rivalry, well that is down to the way it is written. Either way, I don't think it should qualify a removal! :) NuclearFunk 16:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for citing the unreliable sources, and thanks for understanding, so many times have I made similar mistakes and have some template intended for vandals thrown at me or similar treatment, so cheers for being nice. I had a look at verifiable sources page, and I think I get it now. But i cant understand why this event is so poorly documented, I can't find anything on the '84 Rome gang fighting, etc. anywhere except on dodgy pages and I can't find a copy of the Liverpool echo article mentioned in the article. I just seems strange. Cheers though. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the main page of the site to see wether it had links to any sources or anything, and curiosly the guy writing it seems to be convinced that Juventus have been relagated [1]. Am I missing something? Philc _T^E_C^I 19:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.europeancuphistory.com/heysel is a neutral site, it offers an insight into the event that is as true to the events that a neutral site will offer. Suggest you find a link for firefox, as it offers a useful insight from a neutral perspective. Londo06 14:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The socially accepted and the long accepted historiography is what I put forward, not a claim. Londo06 20:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to Left wing midfield, and not left winger midfield. What's bad about that?--M Johnson (talk • contribs) 12:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left winger could refer to anything however. It could refer to a left winging defender, left winging midfielder, or could he could be a left winging striker. I thought I was being helpful by clarifying this. However, I don't want ths to get out of hand, so I have no problem with you making the change if it's neccessary.--M Johnson (talk • contribs) 23:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK--M Johnson (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The club website itself uses Atlético. However the club originally used Athletic. The name was changed in 1941 when a decree issued by Franco banned the use of non-Spanish language names. If you read the main article this is explained in more detail. The situation is complicated further by the fact that Athletic Bilbao use the English spelling. I think this is were the mix up occurs. The version you used seems to be a strange combination of both. I would recommend using Atlético in reference to the Madrid club and Athletic when referring to the Bilbao club. Djln--Djln 21:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read WP:NOT before putting all those lists on afd, and I did so again after seeing your comment on my talk page. I still think that these particular lists violate policy. Our disagreement is based on our differing interpretations of WP:NOT: you seem to be focusing on the numbered lists while I believe that the introductory paragraphs for each subheading hold more weight. I say this because on my talk page you cited #1 and #2 under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" while ignoring the paragraph above it which states the following: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:...". The bold part shows the reason why I put all those lists up for deletion. The unbolded part shows that the numbered points are merely cases where consensus was already reached ("current consenses is that Wikipedia is not"), and that anything else is still an issue ("there is a continuing depate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries"). Look at the afd voting on these lists and you can see that the consensus is that these particular lists need to be deleted. I hope this reply is satisfactory. -EdGl 21:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I do not know if there is a policy on deleting content on one's own talk page, but if you find something about it please let me know and I will conform to policy.) Edit: Please reconsider your vote on the afd's. If you decide to delete/change your vote, then put "<s>" and "</s>" (respectively) before and after your vote, and then type your new vote after it. -EdGl 22:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is. This "stupidity and politics", as you call it, is called consensus. Without this fundamental Wikipedia guideline, the processes that go on at Wikipedia would be a disaster. I went through the correct process (AFD) and allowed the Wikipedian community to reach a consensus. Is there anything wrong with that? You're just an inclusionist, that's all. You just need to accept and live with the fact that a lot of Wikipedians are deletionists, whether you like it or not. I am not the worst of them; I don't know if I would even consider myself a deletionist. Nominating a mere 3 lists does not make me "nomination happy" as you call it. Don't call my actions "sad" just because you have different viewpoints. I respect your opinions; respect mine. In the end, our individual opinions don't matter, its the general consensus that pretty much governs Wikipedia. AFD is as fair as it gets, and there's no politics involved. -EdGl 00:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:POINT. Also, please assume good faith; I am trying to improve Wikipedia, not harm it. Let's be civil and drop this whole thing. Okay, deal? Can we be friends now? :-/ -EdGl 02:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I disagree. This article is not pointless, it is a stub. Stubs are considered valuable to the community (and if you haven't noticed, there are a gazillion stubs on wikipedia!). Stubs can be expandable, just like this one can. Don't worry, the article will expand in the future. It's not like I have all the time on my hands to work on it right now. Please read WP:Stub. -EdGl 16:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me the desire to improve B-Movie though! I already started as you can see. :-) EdGl 17:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

aLii. Thank you for your note. I have now commented on the talk page hence:

Firstly, I want to confirm that the AIias Flood that impersonated me was not me. I am the more conventional spelling of ALias Flood The imposter has now been banned. Now onto something much more important, this article and the external links it contains. As I have stated on this talk page under External Links (below), my understanding is that the litmus test should be that the information contained in the external link should enhance or confirm the details given in the article as well as being reliable, reputable and having a degree of longevity. Fan sites, other than the main official site, and fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included. My view is that this should also apply to forums. WP:EL gives more details on this. I would add that I applaud the webmaster of the unofficial website in question for their dedication but, as editors, we must be careful not to let Wikipedia become a repository for links WP:NOT. If the information on a website is notable, reliable and has a high degree of permanence, then let us put it into the article and cite that url as its source. Fan websites and fanlistings, by their very nature, do not portray a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and will rarely merit inclusion in my opinion. -- Alias Flood 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say good work on keeping tabs on all the vandalism on this page, and helping to keep it in good shape. I'm not a Liverpool fan nor indeed a fan of any of the clubs he's played for, but I do like him a great deal and I've been making my own little efforts to improve the page. Anyway, keep up the good work! Angmering 20:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah its from a TV screenshot i took with my HD capture card.

australian broadcast, is that all cool?

You support the *murder* of Italian fans at Heysel? Get a grip! You liverpudlians have a damn victim mentality, you MURDERED those people, among them was a child, does that make you drunkard racist UKIP supporters proud?

MALAKA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.0.221 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 July 2006

Moving references to before punctuation, as you did in Peter Crouch, is generally frowned upon; Wikipedia's Manual of Style states that references must go straight after punctuation, like this,^[1] not like this ^[2], or this. ^[3] smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; it's at Wikipedia:Footnotes#How to use. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it back to your version; technically having them inside is the British style, so it would make sense to have it in an article about an England player. It's not a big deal anyway. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Ali, it appears that I was inadvertently edit warring with you on the Pelé article. Whenever I made edits it came up with edit conflict page but I thought this was because I had two edit windows open. Apologies.

We do, however, seem to be disagreeing as to just how many goals Pelé should be credited with in the infobox at the top right of the page (as the infobox says, this should only be league goals). Which competitions do you reckon we should count? Do Soccer Europe follow an accepted norm when they calculate Pelé's league goals? Jim (Talk) 10:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I see your point regarding these other competitions. However, since rsssf.com implicitly define them as competitive (i.e., by not listing them beneath their list of friendly tournments), do you not think we should actually list the goals and appearances Pele recorded in these competitions? To add an extra column to the main table for each comeptition would soon get unwieldy, but a column for "other" competitions, with a full break down in a seperate, small table underneath, might be a good idea. Jim (Talk) 12:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know who Tommy Adams is? If not you might google him and/or the " Adams family Islington." It was not alleged during the 2004 'Wayne Rooney' trial that Dalglish brought Tommy Adams to a meeting. It was accepted by both the prosecution and defence. Normal people do not associate with the likes of Tommy Adams. Those in the public eye, no matter how good a footballer they were, have to be described in a comprehensive way. Dalglish has associated with a number of criminals and it is appropriate to comment on this. To selectively edit comments to paint Dalglish in the best light is inappropriate. The bona fides or otherwise of John Stretford evidence on other matters do not change the fact that Dalglish attended a meeting re Rooney and brought a convicted drug dealer with him. The police accepted it, the prosecution and defence lawyers accepted. If it were some how a gross libel, which it was not, why did Dalglish not turn up with his lawyer at a police station and defend his good name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.33.151 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 August 2006

I assume you read the above but you then proceded to change the aricle back to reflect your prejudices. It is easier for you to ignore all of the above. You are very quick to point be they real, or imagined, comments buy others that you assert do not confirm with Wikipedia's house style. That said you do not follow the rules yourself. For instance at the start of the article when you eulogise Dalglish the player as ' the greatest' etc where is your citation? It is not my problem that you did not watch the news or read a newspaper in 2004 when this trial was on. Nor do I accept your implicit contention that the fact Dalglish brought Adams to a meeting should be buried at the bottom of the article. That is even more offensive when you proceed to write a self-serving account of the trial. Yes-Stretford was found to be an unreliable witness but this was on the basis of his evidence over what point in time a contract started. There was no dispute that Dalglish brought Tommy Adams to a meeting in 2002. It was accepted as fact in court. Again I repeat- if he had some how been brought in to something that didn't happen by others with their own agenda- why did he refuse the chance to place the record state when the police wanted to interview him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.33.151 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 12 August 2006

Thanks for the note about where to place ref tags. I tried to make the note sound less mandatory - how's the wording of User:AndyZ/PR/footspace? AZ _t 21:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. See the intro heading on my user page. Mark272 22:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alii; as you too have violated the three-revert rule, you have been blocked for 24 hours. this edit war seems to be entirely between the two of you, so the anon doesn't seem to be going against the consensus version, and there are no excuses for violating 3rr! please try to come to some agreement over this rather than edit warring. thanks. --heah 00:40, 14 August 2006 (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).

Alii h (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was attempting to protect a poorly watched page in good faith. I also thought that my 4th edit was in the next day (GMT/BST difference). I'm sure I can get a fair number of other editors to vouch for me if needed.

Decline reason:

The block was for revert warring. We really don't like revert warring - it causes more trouble to more people than anything else. Please user the remaining 13 hours to cool off and step away from the article in question. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:00, 14 August 2006 (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.

Hi alii. the edits you were reverting were not vandalism in any way shape or form; what you were engaged in was a content dispute, so you can't quite take the position that you were "protecting" the page. (sorry, but i think this is clear if you look at the diffs.) You may not think that the content should be there, but the insertion of it isn't vandalism. second, for future reference--3rr has nothing to do with days, but rather 24 hour periods; its 4 reverts in 24 hours, and midnight doesn't change anything. I think that's pretty clear from the wording of the policy.

anyways. your block will be up tomorrow. it's not that big a deal.

happy editing --heah 02:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's not that big of a deal when we both have non-static IPs anyway. And the revert war continues. So Mr admin, would you care to mediate in this discussion? aLii 08:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Alii

As well as placing a paragraph on the article's talk page, I have also amended the disputed paragraph to reflect the report more accurately. Whilst I am still not perfectly happy with the weight of this section in relation to the overall size of the article, it would appear to be a solution. I have agreed to the use of the word "refused" as this is a direct quote from the newspaper article and could, in fact, be used as an inline citation. I hope that you will be satisfied with the compromise. Regards -- Alias Flood 17:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because I couldn't get the credit to work properly in the box. And I was trying to restore several pictures. Some of the others got moved back to teh box. The main thing is the credit. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On some of the pages I've been trying to edit I'm getting this message:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Sango123 for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "067970327". The reason given for 067970327's block is: "user...".

Your IP address is 66.230.200.195.

This is weird because

1. I can still edit most pages
2. My current IP is 86.130.105.111
3. User 067970327 doesn't exist (no user page, talk page, edits)

aLii 14:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I had the same problem, also with an 86.x.x.x address (I'm 86.129.77.199 at the moment). I didn't note the exact IP address the block was reporting, but it was also 66.x.x.x. I wonder if something somewhere blocked the wrong address range... That'll have caused a few comments, as the 86.128.0.0 - 86.135.255.255 range is allocated to BT so covers quite a lot of Brit editors :-) Tonywalton  | Talk 14:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Pelé has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Hi, I was wondering if you have some useful sources for stats like you used in the Kuyt article. I'm currently trying to fill in a similar table for Khalid Boulahrouz, but I'm having some trouble finding sources for things like the Dutch Cup. Cheers, jaco♫plane 19:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well thanks for your help anyway, take care, jaco♫plane 23:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added the comments you wanted on the Jamie Carragher page. I hope I gave enough details and enough comments, if not, ring me again and it will be my pleasure to help you more. Have a good day. Lincher 23:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hey Alii, thanks for your picture of Anfield. I am an Italian Liverpool FC fan and built the article "Anfield" in my language, wish you have a look. Best Regards, Sergio 151.47.109.138 23:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. The Liverpool F.C. Reserves article has been nominated for deletion. I really think that the information is useful and notable, but there's no way it could all be merged back into the LFC main article, which is already too long. I am so far the only person who has voted for keeping the article, and would appreciate your support in the afd. Robotforaday 18:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a page going at User:Robotforaday/Notability of Reserve teams which goes into some detail about why I think the Liverpool F.C. Reserves article should be kept. I would be grateful if you could take a look at say if there is anything more to add, as you have been making some pretty good arguments, and seem to have persuaded a fair few people of the mertis of an Academy article as well. Robotforaday 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I've suddenly started to ignore you if you reply but its getting late so I'm going to bed! Seriously though there is nothing vindictive about my nomination...I actually cheered Liverpool winning the Champions League final. You'll notice I have made suggestions in Liverpool F.C. talk about getting it a featured article and I genuinely feel from experience getting Everton F.C. featured that these reserves won't help matters. Its good that you seem to be arguing for the right reasons though unlike others in the discussion. As for my category suggestion if it appeals I'm willing to help. All the best. SenorKristobbal 00:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate where you are coming from and hope you are right about the article being reprieved. I am just trying to make a point. It should never have been nominated for deletion in the first place and the fact that it was nominated by a self-confessed Evertonian is just a joke. While I agree that an article on every Premiership reserve team would be excessive, I think articles on some of the bigger teams reserve teams would be appropriate. I am actually quiet surprised that Man U one has'nt been. Djln--Djln 14:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the FC article is large. That's the main reason I didn't just merge it myself. I'm not convinced of the notability of the song standing on its own merits. It's not a notable song in and of itself so far as I can determine. I thought perhaps that as a part of the rewriting process on the FC article, important parts that are notable in and of themselves might get their own articles and the chant might come inside the FC article in a way reflective of its notability. Erechtheus 18:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Glad you can see the funny side! Have a beer on me: — SteveRwanda 14:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's just that that option effectively excluded Pluto from renaming, whilst the other option didn't. And there were a lot of people going around talking about how the vote wasn't really valid, and my attempts to check there really was consensus and all options were considered were getting mockery and so on. I just wanted to make sure there was consensus.

Still don't like the inconsistancy with the trest of the asteroifd chain, but I'll give it a few months then re-raise the issue if it still seems important. Probably best to standardise now, deal with quibbles over how to standardise later - the other option is stress all around.

Still annoyed that my vote was closed only a couple hours after it started with no attempts to get an consensus to close, just people doing it, though. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Brazil 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.

== Image:Pepe Reina.jpg listed for deletion ==

== Image:Riise.jpg listed for deletion ==

== Image:Traore.jpg listed for deletion ==

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Liverpool F.C. has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Hi, thks for the copyedit! How could be possible that Javier severe injury was not mentioned in his article ?!? Jor70 16:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that all the quotes you have removed are actually on wikiquote. You might want to check before removing information from Wikipedia based on a stylistic preference, as it is annoying to those of us who sourced the quotes. Thanks. --Guinnog 20:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the copyright issue with that. Was not aware.

I am a new user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PanteraNegro (talk • contribs) 22:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"revert ridiculous revision to awful old version" is a rather uncivil edit summary. I really appreciate the time and effort you have put into improving the article, but remember this is a team effort and major changes to an article may cause trouble. Another time it would be better to discuss in the talk page first. By discuss, I don't mean telling us what you have done or what you are going to do, but an actual discussion. --Guinnog 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I support what you are doing. Still, keep the moral high ground by assuming good faith, eh? --Guinnog 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I say I appreciate your concern, and agree with what you are doing with the article. I thought though that you were a little sharp with me as well, which prompted my message above. It was meant to be helpful to you; if it wasn't then I apologise. --Guinnog 22:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revert to the version you prefer, it was just an accidental removal from User:ChinsuH, while dealing with vandalism. Keep up the good work! - Myanw 11:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reply to your message to me

Sorry for not knowing exactly where to put my message to you. I apologize for not keeping it in the correct format and after reading my message feel free to revert to the previous edit.

About the Pele revert that I did ... I accidentally chose an edit to revert to that was apparently done earlier than MyanW's revert of the vandalism. I never added or subtracted anything; I just accidentally chose the wrong edit to use and I'll be more careful in the future. What I should have done is revert to his revert; I'll know to do that in the future should I do it at the same time as someone else who is patrolling for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinsuH (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 March 2007

(edit conflict) As I explained above, the removal was accidental, I reinserted "He is of African descent", it should be okay now. Cheers. - Myanw 12:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To tell the truth, I think it's a bit awkward, IMO, it's pretty clear that he is indeed of African descent. Do as it pleases you the most. Happy editing. - Myanw 12:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please have your friend send his permission for you to release the photo under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and include this link in the e-mail? If you don't the photo may have to be deleted. Thanks in advance, Yonatan ^talk 09:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the page to your version, as it was better. But I'm now strongly suggesting that you take it to the talk. Please. --Guinnog 18:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great effort. Please don't revert the article again though. I am going to flag this one up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and see if we can get some help. I agree with what you are doing but as I have said all along we need some better consensus. Thank you for all your good work. --Guinnog 20:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Wembley Stadium has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Hi, seeing you have been involved in previous Afd debates on the subject I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 20:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Johan Cruijff has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Sorry to be the one to inform you that your perspective is wrong. We're supposed to add domestic league (which means *national*) goals only. And Campeonato Paulista is a regional league, not national. As you said yourself, all his goals are pretty much explained below in the great table. But within the info box domestic league goals only. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 14:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see? You don't even know what you're talking about, man... Campeonato Brasileiro (from 1971 on) was not the only "national league" that Pele ever played. Before it there was Torneio Roberto Gomes Pedrosa (1967-1970) and even Torneio Rio-São Paulo -- which from 1950 until 1966 had a "national" status.
And btw, I'd like you to tell me towards exactly what, this goal count is biased... —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 17:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely no point in adding two leagues by season. Only the main one has to be in there. The other ones are brilliantly described within that nice table. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was tagged for speedy deletion with this message: "OTRS ticket was closed unsuccessfully and commons copy of the image was deleted". I confirmed that the commons verison of the image was deleted and then deleted it. Do you have a copy of the email that was sent? No Wikimedia project is allowed to have a less restrictive free image policy than Commons - so if Commons deletes an image for licensing reasons, we do as well.

I checked with someone with m:OTRS access and from what he told me, the permission granted in the letter was "cc-by-nc-nd". (nc means non-commercial, nd means no derivatives). Neither restriction is acceptable. We need to have it released under a license that permits (1) anyone to use it, (2) for any reason including commercial use, (3) to make derivative works, and (4) sub-license and redistribute their derivative works. --BigDT 17:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Liverpool F.C. has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I'm 100% keen to get LFC to FA status. I've added a new peer review link to the article and modified the table at WP:FOOTBALL to make sure we get some other editors on-board for this drive. Let me know what you think we need to do, I'll do my usual copyedit of the article to find any WP:OR and tag it with ^{[citation needed]} so we know what to deal with. Also, I'd recommend looking at Arsenal F.C. (or even Ipswich Town F.C. <blush>) for ideas on getting the article up to FA status. I struggle to see how this is a B-grade article so let's make FA happen. Cheers for now The Rambling Man 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THe 2006 Scandal has a whole section dedicated to it in Milan's history section. The first few paragraphs are to give an overall history of the club. Two scandals are not notable enough for the first paragraph with the recent scandal hardly beig mentionable at all in MIlan's history considering the punishment in total was an 8 point deduction. Niall123 09:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org along with a link to the image showing the permission from your friend? Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 16:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend sending an e-mail saying, "I release the following photos for which I am the copyright holder under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License:

Link 1 Link 2"

and replacing link 1 and link 2 with links to the images would make a valid permission. All images you have uploaded that were taken by your friend should be included in the e-mail so the permission will be added to all of them. I'm not sure what exactly went on with the Peter Crouch photo but if he agrees to the above it should be undeleted. The Creative Commons Attribution license that he will release his photos under will allow anyone to use the picture for any purpose providing they give him credit. Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 23:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested using your Flickr photo for Broken Social Scene, which would be great. If you just go into your flickr account, you should be able to change the license to Creative Commons, either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA - this would allow us to use it. Or, you can upload it yourself at Wikimedia Commons under one of many licenses. Either way, this is a great photo and I'd love to see it in the article. --Padraic 21:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could explain exactly why you deleted my contribution concerning Gerrard's clumsy moments? I don't see what is wrong with giving his private life section a bit of colour, and I don't beleive Steven himself would be upset at the inclusion of this videos.Htb50 17:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you need a wabsite about Campeonato Gaúcho http://fgf.terra.com.br/portal/home.php here it is, I'm afraid to say it's in portuguese and R10 official website http://www.ronaldinhogaucho.com/ well that's everything I can help you. Até Mais. User:Vian br (12:11 13/05/07)

Thank You for the information. Zigurat 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you had edited at Broken Social Scene from which I just reverted several anon vandalism edits. If you're familiar with the article and band, please review to make sure the article looks ok now. Thanks, AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 01:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a good enough site about his stats not even on fifa or uefa sites but this link seems ok although its too complicated to be referred http://soccernet.espn.go.com/players/stats?id=24257&cc=4716 Greatestprateek 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've only changed his stats once. And I used Soccerbase, and also Naional Football Teams gives it as 84 goals. Mattythewhite 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I wasnt vandalizing the Yossi Benayoun page I was merely putting a new picture up and removing the stupid comments from immature people that keep innsisting on putting these comments sorry again though! Lfcrules 21:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alii thats not my thread on liverpoolfc.tv as I do not post on the E-season ticket forum only the transfer rumours forum under the name Kuyt07 and to me Liverpool FC comes before most things in my life, and so I would never intentially vandalize an LFC related article Lfcrules 21:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Alii keep up your good work on here!! :) Lfcrules 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The big deal with soccerbase is it is probably the only free resource to statistics to all of the PL, FL and Conference National. The stats it gives for Torres may not be 100% accurate, but it'll still be useful at least for when he's in England. Mattythewhite 19:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough with Torres. Although, I would say soccerbase does a darn good job with stats from all leagues though. Mattythewhite 19:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alii, I have replied on my talk page[2]. Cheers. --Malcolmxl5 20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you have made a number of edits to Liverpool F.C. related articles. You might be interested in joining WP:LFC. John Hayes^talk 21:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]