User talk:Koncorde/Archives/2020/January

Liverpool Population

Hi you removed my contribs on the population of Liverpool City Region...I compared the Liverpool page with the nearby cities of Manchester and Leeds. Manchester has 3 sets of population figures in its intro paragraph, Leeds has 5!! Now you've removed the Liverpool City region population figures that leaves Liverpool with only 2. Firstly how is that fair? And secondly, don't you think this downplays the actual importance of Liverpool's urban area in comparison to these other similiar sized cities? How do you intend on amending the Leeds and Manchester pages? Richie wright1980 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

County Palatine of Lancashire

I was just wondering whether or not places such as sale and saddleworth from The historic county boundaries of cheshire and yorkshire are in the county palatine or not,or are these in the county palatines of yorkshire and cheshire.or does the county palatine of lancashire cover all of greater manchester. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.226 (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Explain please

Could you please lists The Districts that fall under the County Palatine of Lancashire if youd be so kind.If even you agree about Greater Manchester being in the palatine of Lancashire,this should be mentioned on greater manchester district pages,instead of just saying Historically a part of Lancashire all the time,as this makes it sound as if the places have got nothing to do with Lancashire at all,which if they are part of the county palatine of Lancashire clearly they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.226 (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Have a Grudge Against My Editing?

Send me an email: my personal email address is pcnw35083@blueyonder.co.uk I attempt to post other people's personal information on Wikipedia, so why not send me an email at my personal email account?.Shannon bohle (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pity it's not my email account. I posted no information about you so I'm not entirely sure where you got that from. If you will register items on the internet under your name and then attempt to skew wikipedia to reflect and source your own website then that's your own problem. I was happily not paying any heed until archivopedia was drawn to my attention. If you go around posting so much of yourself, regardless of your good intentions, someone will take advantage of that information to glean more. You even invited KathrynLybarger in an attempt to defend your actions - so if you must 'blame' someone for the fact you left your garden gate wide open then let it be yourself. Amateur.--Koncorde (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for your kind comments.--Blue Tie 20:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Rotary guy

Thanks for the heads up. I read this guys other stuff and he is really wacked out! I imagibe he is beyond all reason. In anycase, thanks for trying to keep things fair and up to standard. 98percenthuman 18:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)98percenthuman

Mel Gibson

You didnt remove the Bounty reference from the Anglophobia section, i did, please remove this from the history.68.71.35.93 07:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The history cannot be changed (to my knowledge). You must have removed it with your last edit whilst I was also editing hence me not noticing.--Koncorde 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

West Ham external links

No problem, I'll trust your superior knowledge of the subject, though if its used as a general reference it should probably go in the References section rather than being a plain ol' external link. Oldelpaso 09:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

please cease and desist from tampering with my talk page

History of West Ham United F.C.

Hi mate,

The book sources I have used are the following:

• Blows, Kirk & Hogg, Tony (2000). The Essential History of West Ham United. Headline. ISBN 0-7472-7036-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Belton, Brian (2006). West Ham United Miscellany. Pennant Books. ISBN 0-9550394-4-4.
• Hogg, Tony (2005). Who's Who of West Ham United. Profile Sports Media. ISBN 1 903135 50 8.

There a couple of useful websites too:

• West Ham Statistics
• [1]

Happy history hunting!

--Spyrides 22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello mate

Sounds cool. I've got a lot on at work so I've been unable to do much wiki-ing lately. However, I've just been bought a new book about Thames Ironworks which is absolutely awesome. If you get a chance to get hold of a copy, do so.

• Powles, John (2005). Iron In The Blood: Thames Ironworks FC, the club that became West Ham United. Tony Brown. ISBN 1 899468 22 6.

It has all of the London League and friendly appearance data that is still in existence, and offers some well researched history.

Take care

--Spyrides 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Imus

Uh, excuse me, but how about getting your facts straight before you edit-summary attack? The citation that I was talking about was the Carter-Steinberg New York Times article that had been anchored in the lead as CartSteinTimes and was deleted without the deleter noticing that it was tagged later on - leaving a missing citation. The editor who did it apologized - it was not a big deal - so what exactly is your problem? As for my accidental caps - congratulations on your biting sarcasm. Must do your mother proud. Tvoz |talk 21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology provided with alacrity, and accepted equally so. (And if you spend any time on that page - which I don't recommend to anyone sane - you'll understand why I didn't go back and unlock my accidentally locked caps when I noticed it and just went for it. I've spent the last few days between Imus and Kurt Vonnegut - and the two of them make the Beatles' "t" vs "T" seem like a walk along the Serpentine.) Nice to meet you, Koncorde. I'm usually nicer than the above might suggest - I can get you some testimonials.Tvoz |talk 22:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave it!!!!

The 'leave it' comment has to do with areas of this article that I have added/edited.

A considerable amount of the statistics in this article were added by me, and the Trivia section in which the image appears was added by me.

200px is too small, 300px appears just right. If you want to size your pictures at 200px that's OK by me. But leave the ones I have added alone.

Mat macwilliam 10:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bubble Blowers

Please read the section I have added in the discussion. Importantly please read the virus warning.

Mat macwilliam 12:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Again all your references are non-West Ham related. Citing non-West Ham fans or clubs that use the term in a derogatory way. I have sent a question on the matter to the club historian, and will await the outcome of his reply.

One of the pages casued a virus to be downloaded to my computer. I have the latest version of two browsers Firefox, and IE, I have pop-up blockers and two anti-virus softwares installed.

Marcus A.T MacWilliam, MSc, CEng (IEEE), CEng(SEI), MBCS (CITP), BSc (Hons), BA. (I have forgotten more about computers and software than you will ever know).

Mat macwilliam 13:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Biographies

The statements were removed in the Adrian L. Peterson article because they are uncited. If you would like to add content, please add a source, otherwise it will be deleted per WP:BLP. Thanks. RyguyMN 22:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I may have been quick to add the information back in five minutes, but factual information should be sourced when possible. I don't believe it's overkill, it's a matter of having accurate information. Heck, some editor added to this very article that he returned a kick 109 yards! Should that be kept? Of course not. That's why I believe in citing information, especially for biographies. That's what it takes to make a good article, so that's the criteria I use. I stand by my practices. RyguyMN 00:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

James D. Watson

Hey, Koncorde. You partially reverted my edit to the James D. Watson article. I understand your reasoning, but you can't leave it in the state it's in. It uses unencyclopedic phrasing ("you should not..."), improperly begins a quote mid-sentence, and the whole thing is non-sequitur (one idea does not follow from another). Please see what you can do. Thanks. Robert K S (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Parts of the article are posted here for editing.[2] --Jagz (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Koncorde

Thankyou for backing me up on the West Ham Infobox header disagreement! Why it should take someone else to intervene before the constant reverting stops is beyond me. One thing though - in your edit summary you put "Sarumio is kind of right, but not in the place where he makes the edit. Have changed this based on other Premier League formats"

- How is your edit anything different to mine - also I was just trying to change it to the same format as all the other premiership clubs' infoboxes too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarumio (talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Comment on the Criticism of Holocaust Deniers

Your comment about the German uniform hit the nail on the head. I was about to add my own comment (and still might) when I read your entry. You pretty much shut down that argument. I just want to add one more point, though: the color bars on the collars of some of the soldiers in the background. Although the picture is fuzzy, you can clearly make out that they do not extend to the ends of the collar, unlike the uniform's Russian counterpart. I also am fairly certain—although my knowledge on military uniforms is not exhaustive—that these color bars were unique to the uniforms of the Wehrmacht. -Gravinos ("Politics" is the stench that rises from human conflict.) 06:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Roman salute

I thought you may want to take a look at the Roman salute article. I've made some alot of edits to it, including extensive citations.--Work permit (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

JH

Good grief. Our mutual acquaintance has been at this for a while, then? --Ibn (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

St Helens

Thanks for the feedback re Talk:St Helens, Merseyside#Confusion. The webpage I cited just happened to be the first authoritative one on Google. I note the warnings recently given for reverted edits to the article; hopefully the constructive responses to the talk page assertions will reduce the chances of escalation. Hopefully! — Richardguk (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright mate, I've been keeping an eye on the evolution of the article recently and am really impressed with everything you've done so far, keep up the good work! Duffs101 (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:StHelensBus.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:StHelensBus.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit

I read what you've been saying on Leigh talkpages and so I read a bit about St Helens, same sort of history, and also what the IP thinks! I'll do a bit more if you like, I find it theraputic sometimes!!--J3Mrs (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Drogheda

Hi, thanks for your message.

Re the 'factors', I think the sources bring the two arguments toegether, but I'll have to check and get back to you.

Re 'killing them as they ran', I think this is as clear as description of what happened as possible. Would it be better in your view to say, 'pursued and killed'? The retreating Royalists were pursued into the town and killed without quarter. There's no delicate way to say it!

Regards,

Jdorney (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

IP block exemption

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Koncorde/Archives/2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I appear to have acquired a blocked IP address (TOR) via my Virgin Media supplied internet connection. I would like to request an exception be applied, if possible, for my account. I believe the blocked IP range to originate at 92.235.0.1 (unfortunately I am unable to edit from my home address to even update this request with the relevant specific IP that I have, I think it is 92.235.239.x or similar). Any help would be much appreciated. Koncorde (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I've granted you IP block exemption —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

Please cease unnecessarily disambiguating page titles where the titles themselves are ambiguous. Jeni ^(talk) 17:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Strange Edit

I have no idea why, but this edit doesn't show up when I look at the actual page. Is that just me?

On that subject, I suggested to KittyBrewster that her statement was a bit rash. --Thepm (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Rainhill Station Bridge Photograph

Hello Koncorde,

I am commissioned to write a book about civil engineering structures for railway modellers. I would like to include the above illustration. I understand you have placed the image in the public domain. However, I feel it only courteous to seek your permission to use it.

I am a retired civil and bridge engineer now living in Spain.

Best wishes.

Brynduke2006 (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually

I thought I was saying dormitory town as opposed to suburb. A dormitory town is of necessity a commuter town. I'm also puzzled by 'Northwood' ward. The only Northwood I know is one of the original three divisions of Kirkby. As to the percentages travelling, these should be related to the percentage of the population that is of working age, and/or actually working. If that 10% is 10% of each ward, and one considers the high percentage of retired people in the Southport and Formby area, that is high. It's unclear how that figure has been obtained, and exactly what it refers to. I'll read it again tomorrow (or later if I have to take off to Leeds or Sheffield (or even Liverpool...)). Peridon (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Suburbs and Domitory towns, hey Koncorde someone on Litherlands page is trying to widen the boundaries again, i would like some help in changing this, i have had a heated debate over wether litherland is liverpool, (its not) haha, would appreciate your help thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scouserrr (talk • contribs) 11:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey again friend, just edited Formby but I think there will be some resistance as usual, once again people trying to enlarge Liverpools borders again, just a hits up, thanks for all your help! Really appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scouserrr (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You Vandalisaion of articles

Your argument doesn't make sense in you comments you list of what is in Liverpool Urban Area, you list Prescot which contains Whiston.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC).

Nationality

For footballers nationalities within squads, I suggest you read the policy MOS:FLAG. "Flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." I'd also like to draw your attention to WP:3RR. Regards, --Jimbo^[online] 21:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

West Ham Dream Team

Ok I fully accept your explaination regarding Trevor Brooking and the Number 10 shirt. I suppose my bias took over, and just because I and maybe some others belive he "owns" the number 10 shirt it is not always so. I also admit the first time round I didnt really see the bulid up statement of, in the 2003 book....! or that 500 fans were quizzed!. I orginally thought it was a single persons view and opinion. I admit it was a bad change on my part, and I am 100% in agreement with your undone revision. Keep up the good work...! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.128.31 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to S-Bahn does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! No big deal, but if you'd have left an edit summary, I could've probably saved quite a bit of time reviewing your edit . Thanks for your hard work! Jackson Peebles (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User: 81.111.255.155

I noticed your too have had issues with edits from this user, which was the reason our paths crossed recently as I was replacing the wording on the Scouse page that the user had changed. Do you know how you go about blocking or warning someone for their edits? Babydoll9799 (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Re:Arsenal Template

First of all, Bellerin did not play in the Premier League. He never did in his life. Akpom had a few minutes as a sub when Giroud got injured, that still does not qualify him for the list. The way the template works is like how the squad list on the Arsenal page works... the players must be listed by Arsenal themselves in the first-team section of arsenal.com (Here is that list by the way). On the page it can be clearly seen that Akpom and Bellerin are not on the list and thus should not be on wikipedias as well. End of story. As for Myron Fernandes, he is listed as a first-team player for Dempo S.C. which can be clearly seen here. Again, end of story. If you have any more questions then please don't be afraid to ask. If you disagree with me still then feel free to take it up with the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Troopers VS Weeman

Hey,

it is not totally impossible to add a column "Watch now!" for the spreadsheet. It would not only separate the click whoring but made it to an option. The link I am using is directly to the videos where you can CHOOSE which video to watch.

Nosepea68 (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Anjem Choudary, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

3RR courtesy warning

Please apprise yourself of WP:EW and the strictures thereof, and note that you have made three reverts on the Monckton BLP within a period of two hours, on an article which falls under the ArbCom General Sanctions rules, as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead for article "Rapid Transport"

I note you have reverted my changes to the lead paragraph of this article.

The problem I have with this article is that, in the opening paragraph, it only mentions the term "Rapid Transit". Rapid Transit is a North American term. It is not necessarily understood outside North America. The more common terms are Metro and Underground. These terms need mentioning in the opening sentence. They were in an earlier version of this article, but have somehow disappeared.

In the "terminology" paragraph it currently says "Metro is the most common term for underground rapid transit systems used by non-native English speakers" I contend that "metro" is the most common term for English language speakers, at least outside Noth America. Also many systems (prime case London) are known as "Underground".

As proof, read the article. There are more systems described as "xxx metro" than as "xxx Rapid Transit", and there is the linked article List of metro systems. You may claim "Original version" rights to call this article "Rapid Transit", which is a foreign term to many English speakers, but at least acknowledge the other common terms in the lead. TiffaF (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Your edit on Rainhill

If Peter Lloyd doesn't have a ref (admittedly not an rs) should he be removed from the list? —George8211 / T 19:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the answer. Notable people lists are always trouble-hotspots. —George8211 / T 20:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haydock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackbrook. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Standard GGC Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy under a 1RR restriction!

The Gamergate controversy page is under a WP:1RR restriction, imposed here, which your last revert there violated (here, here.) You should probably self-revert your second one! --Aquillion (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary

Hi Koncorde, you thanked me in the past 24 hours for a simple clarification I included on the Anjem Choudary page, and I'm curious as to why. While it is always nice to be appreciated for one's effort, I'm inclined to think you were commenting favourably on my objectivity in the matter. Just curious but, given my edit was barely worth a blink, can you tell me why so innocuous an edit garnered your approval? With thanx Mark^Dask 17:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"ridiculous claim"?

Davefelmer (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)please explain why you think a semi-profesional club should have a place in an article detailing the most successful PRO teams in Europe? Why not just populate the list with local teams then?!

Article does not say "Pro" teams. It recognises the top divisions. I'm not even inclined to believe it is accurate, or warranted, but that doesn't make removing Linfield any better. Koncorde (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There are other semi pro teams that have won a lot that could be on the list. Why aren't they then? Why is linfield the only one? Davefelmer (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism and honours

Getting into a group stage or even a knock-out stage of a tournament isnt an honour. And neither is restore it reverting vandalism. Murry1975 (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

LEVSKI

Your "source" for the trophies is one of the most unreliable I've seen. It isn't a club, a media or governing body's document. Unless you can provide one, the information can't stand. And what do you mean the club's site is "incomplete"? What a ridiculous notion. Every club lists their full honours on their website, your refusal to accept that any club, media or governing body's list is "complete" is ridiculous and is solely done to get your point of view across. When there is no credible mainstream source to define something, you use the closest thing to that, which here is the club website. Otherwise you don't say it at all.

On top of everything, the competitions were unofficial. This is reflected by them not being listed on any club websites and even CSKA Sofia's wiki page where this is noted. With no physical trophy count to prove your claims, they must be deleted and restored to the most reliable piece of evidence that lists the trophy haul. Which is the club website. Davefelmer (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Bulgarian Cup

"Non-official winners" need a separate page and add to the Defunct competitions of Football in Bulgaria. What do you think ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Cup of the Soviet Army (1946–1982) - Official tournament.

In 1981 they also created "Bulgarian Cup" - to be the country name in the name of the cup, for 2 unofficial editions. Practically 2 editions of Cup were played, Cup of the Soviet Army 1981 and 1982 - Official and "Bulgarian Cup" with not all division teams.

In 1983 they swap the names Cup of the Soviet Army became unofficial and Bulgarian Cup Official, this time Cup of the Soviet Army (1983–1990) with lots of low division teams and the big 2 : Levski and CSKA Sofia.

In 1983 Cup of the Soviet Army changed the name in "Bulgarian Cup" - Official tournament, and Cup of the Soviet Army (1983–1990) become unofficial till the end of the communist era, in 1990.

The RSSSF has the neutral information, and we should follow it, instead of Levski Sofia official page. Did you understand now ? Can you write there this in correct English ? Thanks.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course on their website (PFC Sofia - Levski Sofia) they will admite that they won 26, because they can write anything in their advantage, but it is obvious that those competition was unofficial. Check the Cup Winners Cup qualification teams from 1981-82 for the next season, and you will see is not Levski Sofia involved. Bulgarian Cup (1981–1982) with the 1981 winner CSKA Sofia and 1982 winner Levski Sofia are not official. The real winner are 1981- Botev Plovdiv and 1982- Lokomotiv Sofia --- teams who qualified for Cup Winners Cup.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me with this template Template:Bulgarian Football Cup seasons by adding the rest of the official seasons of the history, I do not know exactly how to do it. Thanks!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Balkans Cup

Can you improve also Balkans Cup seasons, there are not many games in one edition, just QF, SF and Final. Thanks.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Hey, I noticed you used a source on the Blackburn page that I couldnt verify by clicking on it. Is that allowed or do you need an actual verifiable citation (so I know in future)? I wanted to request a better source but figured to ask first...Davefelmer (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hey, check your sandbox. I sorted all the references; thanks for showing me how to do them! Did you now want to look at some of the wording of the edit? Davefelmer (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Updated the sandbox mate. Davefelmer (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you link me to the sandbox?

Hey mate,

Sorry i havent gotten back to the sandbox recently but I've been quite busy with school exams and stuff. Could you send me a link to that article so we can finish the job on it because I can't find it on your talk page. Thanks Davefelmer (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Further Revisions

Made some more changes on the sandbox as per your most recent edits. Think we should definitely move it to the actual page; really liking our work and how it looks and reads.Davefelmer (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Premier League Manager of the Season

You've done a great job making the lead more relevant. Perhaps the second paragraph could be merged with the one after, as it's only two sentences. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Levski

I have looked at the source you mentioned more closely and it does list the sofia championship wins. However, it still doesnt list two of the soviet army cup wins, which the RSSF and club website sources dont show either. so those two must go and they must be recognised as 4 time winners of that cup and not 6, unless sourcing to prove it can be found. also, in any case the sofia championship is a regional trophy so to mention they've won 70 trophies is pretty misleading as that is not what anyone has said. The club do not confirm that total so what should be done is if a number is absolutely a must in the intro, it should be the number of total national titles (60 after removing the 2 unsourced cups). Davefelmer (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:BritishPlateGlass.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:BritishPlateGlass.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 09:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate article improvement

Rhoark's been working on a draft re-write. It might be more productive to focus on that which looks like it'll replace the current article eventually. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Empathise with your comments on that article's Talk page. Suggest that there are a number of editors in the In that case, fuck it. I'll come back in another year or so. category. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you may like the general idea but take issue with some specifics of the draft. While in the process of writing from scratch, there was really no way I could do it except by sticking to my own vision, but now we're in a phase where I can be more hands-off. It would be an ideal time for you to jump in. Rhoark (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Liverpool

If you continue your edits to the Liverpool intro I will have no choice but to report you for vandalism. Your edits are not making any justifiable contribution to the article and you are not only reverting my edits but reverting the edits of others on a regular and persistent basis which is now vandalism. The current version is logical in that it builds up from the city to the county to the city region and ends with the Liverpool/Birkenhead metro area. This is a logical transition from the smallest area to the largest area and it is quite clear that Liverpool and its surrounding areas are included in that. I have no idea what your agenda is here but I believe you are politically driven to undermine the city, its status and its population at any given opportunity. Please desist or you will be reported. Richie wright1980 (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Koncorde. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Birkenhead

We can't allow edits to slip by disguised as a typo. I have no problem with 'probably' being removed. It just needs an explanation. JMcC (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent Edits

It seems as though you have an issue with my style of editing. While I am not an experienced editor, I have made a strong effort to follow and abide by the conventions and rules of wikipedia. Perhaps I am missing something, it is certainly possible. As far as SRS is concerned, I might suggest that you visit the subreddit when you have some time, and you will see for yourself the toxicity I was talking about. I understand that the subreddit itself can't be used as a reliable source, however it might give you a different perspective if you actually saw the level of hate and venom occurring there. Regarding the Rolling Stone article, I don't take something like sexual assault lightly, and I don't feel it is something that should be joked about, minimized or misquoted. That is why I have always tried to support my edits with direct quotes from reliable sources. There are enough vandals and troublemakers on wikipedia, I am not one of them, and I don't believe you are either. I am a little confused as to why you are specifically reverting my edits, when I have made so few. It's entirely your perogative of course, but we are actually on the same team in that we are both working to improve this project. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing re: Pizzagate

You need to read the sources. The claims are false and have been widely debunked as meritless. Policy and common sense requires that we describe false, defamatory claims about living people as what they are: false. As the cited article from The New York Times states, None of it was true. While Mr. Alefantis has some prominent Democratic friends in Washington and was a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, he has never met her, does not sell or abuse children, and is not being investigated by law enforcement for any of these claims. ([3]) Reliable sources are unanimous in describing the claims this way. If you revert again, I will request administrative intervention. You're a longtime editor and should know better. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

See this thread and this thread at the relevant noticeboards. I suggest you ask Acroterion whether your interpretation is correct or not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Info box help please?

Hello Konkorde,

I tried to add to the infobox of Prescot: Historic County - Lancashire, the same as can be seen on the Liverpool page, but despite copying the same format it doesn't seem to work! Please may I ask you to tell me how to add to the infobox part of the page?

Also, I am a great supporter of the historic counties of the UK so I am interested to know why in your info box it states you were born in St Helens Lancashire (in 1980, after the 1974 botch up) yet on the main page it states St Helens Merseyside? Would you not consider stating Lancashire throughout the page?

Kind regards, Andrew Donaldson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonaldsonAC (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Second city of the United Kingdom

@Koncorde, your recent redraft of the lead section is entirely persuasive; I concede the argument, (guess I should have read it before opining). Mark^Dask 00:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Jorge Paixão

Hello there, from Portugal,

thanks for your input in this article, I have made some more adjustments in the storyline (i.e. trying to avoid repetition of words in same line ("appointed", etc); one of your corrections left the storyline in the following display: "but reached the semi final of the 2013–14 Taça de Portugal of the Taça de Portugal", surely I can correct that; please let's try to avoid paragraphs of only one line), surely we can reach a compromise. A doubt: regarding your note "Also please watch your 'tone' on edit summaries" in your penultimate summary, do you mean my previous summaries BEFORE your cleanup or my last one? Because the latter was as unassuming as can be, the others were not I admit it, but you can surely agree with me the user's actions were very similar to those of a downright vandal. If not, that's OK too.

Attentively --193.137.135.2 (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Also, I can assure you that the refs titled "Liga ZON Sagres 2013/14" and "Sailing to the Jamor (2x0)" are not dead, even though you inserted a note remarking that condition. I just clicked on them now, they work perfectly. Continue the good work (should you be so kind to reply but choose to do so after 3PM, please use this address (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.242.133.151)) --193.137.135.2 (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we get some input in resolving an edit dispute?

Hello Concorde. I am hoping that you can lend some assistance. Me and user GiantSnowman need assistance in resolving an edit dispute concerning the kit section that was in the Nigerian national football team article. He removed it citing WP:NOTGALLERY. I disagree with his interpretation and I have shared my reasons on the talk page at WikiProject Football. We request the input of members of this project in order to resolve this issue. Your assistance would be appreciated if you have the time. Thanks! unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 16:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian birth date source

I found a source that gives Anita's birth date: famousfamilybirthdaysbiofacts.com/Personality/Blogger_Anita-Sarkeesian_Birthday-Bio-Fact-Age/ August 15, 1983

Political correctness ... IPs

I've added the 'new' IP to the list at SPI, textually S/he appears to confirm they are one of the prev. editors. I also asked for semi-protection on 'PC', since I am not prepared to waste time on them. Pincrete (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Lessons learned from GG

Screengrab everything. Artw (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Less attention spent the better. Koncorde (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Request your input

I wanted a better understanding of progressive politics so I put some questions/suggestions at Talk:Social justice warrior and Talk:Progressivism.

If you could review my input/comments, it would be appreciated. The reason I ask is that you were active on the talk page of the Social justice warrior article. Knox490 (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Ista Vista edits

Why are you so eager to revert my edits? My edits were perfectly legitimate. Ikrewrwe (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 202.159.191.219 (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Rapid transit

You and the other party are both warned per the result of a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. If either of you reverts the article again before you get a consensus in your favor on the talk page you may be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Ed, bit of a pointless exercise that. The IP contributes nothing, evidently has a bee in its bonnet about something or other to do with monorail, I revert pointless additions that contribute nothing (misused citation needed tags), then we 'both' get warned. That's like me tidying up after a puppy and both getting our noses rubbed in it. Koncorde (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing you to remove the 'citation needed' tags. The easiest case for an admin to handle is when only one party is edit warring. By keeping up with the IP blow for blow, you prevent that pattern from occurring and you eliminate the chance for a closure that would favor your position. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

So, to just random CN across an article with no explanation as to what is required is okay, and so long as if they start the edit-a-thon, the person clearing up their crap will always be in the wrong - so how is it likely to be found in anyone other than the IP's favour? This isn't / wasn't an edit war of content. It was a basic failure to follow WP:CITENEED when just tagging stuff they personally didn't like, then resorted to Admin noticeboard rather than do the right thing.

In the end I have about 3/5ths of fuck all regard for Admin processes as it stands, and this is yet another example of why it's pointless (even by the standards of 3RR policy). You think a likely dynamic IP cares about a 'warning'? They didn't care about any other protocols other than to stir the 3RR shitpot for an established user. Another case of tail wagging the dog. Koncorde (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Archiving sources

Hello Koncorde, I wanted to ask you whether you know how to archive sources. I would like to do that with the ones in the List of Turkish football champions article, since they are important and can't be replaced if they should be deleted or get lost for some reason. Thanks in advance. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will try WebCite. On another note, could you move the article Türkiye Futbol Şampiyonası to "Turkish Football Championship" for me? That's the English translation of the Turkish name. For some strange reason I can't do it. Thanks in advance. Akocsg (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes I know, but still I would prefer theEnglish name, since the Turkish name really isn't a "trademark" or special. Akocsg (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Reverting

Please stop reverting, take this to WP:ANI or some other disputed sources if you have an issue. --American Canadian Expat In London 10404 (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Claiming 85% of an English seaside town has American Australian Canadian or whatever ethnicity seems exceedingly unlikely and not represented by any sources that I am aware of. A few residents may indeed originate from those countries, but highly unlikely that they are representative of the majority of residents. Koncorde (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

the above user had now been blocked. Thanks for the reverts. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Koncorde. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Koncorde. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Prime Minister's Cup

Hello Koncorde. I would like to know your opinion on the following matter: Talk:Chancellor Cup, conerning the requested move. And if you have time would you perhaps review this one: Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Turkish football champions/archive1?. Thank you in advance. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Old Castle Swifts F.C.

Hi Koncorde, I'm having a trouble finding a source for the bit on the West Ham United F.C. page that mentions the OCS colours ("The predecessors of Thames Ironworks, Old Castle Swifts FC, played in pale blue shirts, white shorts and claret socks as early as 1892"). Looking through the revision history, it was originally added by an IP in 2011. I can't find anything in my books or in contemporary sources to support this. The colours were added with the infobox on the main OCS page in 2007 by @Spyrides but he's not sure now where this came from (and I can't see any mention in the references added at the same time). The History of West Ham United F.C. page states that "The Castle Swifts colours were re-used on several occasions by the Thames Ironworks team as an alternative to their traditional Oxford Blue kit.", apparently referencing Iron in the Blood. However, I can't see this mentioned in the book at all (as an aside, I notice the page numbers are wrong for many of the IITB refs on the History page. They appear to be using the page numbers for the sample chapter, rather than the book itself). I did mention this to John and he thought it was OK but hasn't found a source for it. The only reliable source I've found actually contradicts this and suggests the OCS kit was similar to the early 'Oxford blue' TIW kit.[4] Everything else I've found seems to be basing their info on WP.

You might have noticed that I recently corrected a long-standing error in the 'Aston Villa kit story'. Whether it's true or not is highly debatable anyway, but the story came from Brian Belton's Miscellany book. Unfortunately, the wording is a bt ambiguous, so where it says "My grandfather, Jim Belton, told me that Charlie Dove, a local man who played for Old Castle Swifts, Thames Ironworks and West Ham, got the kits 'cheap' from his father William", this was taken to mean Dove's father, rather than Jim Belton's. This can be confirmed as Brian also mentions William in his War Hammers book (I'm also quite sure I've read in one book that Dove's father's name was George).

As a result of this issue, we can easily confirm that anything that mentions "William Dove" has based their info on (previously incorrect) information from WP so would need to be disregarded as a source. I'm not sure about that WH ref, but if we can't find anything else, I guess we'd have to run with that.. Nzd (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nzd, Old Castle Swifts definitely played in the sky blue shirts, white shorts and claret socks combo, this was drawn from contemporary images at the time and there used to be a website that had information about Donald Currie that said something like "the colours of the house flag were used for the works football team" or something similar. Spartacus is probably the source of the William Dove error (I have certainly repeated it based on whatever faulty source it originated with) unless a William Dove did actually also exist (grammatically it is less than ideal, summarised as "Jim Belton told me that Charlie Dove got the kits 'cheap' from his father William" is no clearer and it's obvious why the error was made).

I would have to say that the West Ham website looks like a mismatch of Wikipedia information, I would be wary of using any 'official' website as a reliable source. The blue kit definitely came with Arnold Hills, as it was also cited and used for his cycling and rowing teams etc (there was another internet page about him from the Vegetarian society and another from some page with newpaper clippings about the Memorial Ground saying as much).

Page numbering would surprise me, I own the book so wouldn't make a great deal of sense. Possibly someone assumed the preview copy matched the real thing and (for brevity and ease of access) used it. Or possibly at some point I actually tided up the references to the actual book in error but not the page numbers (which is possible if I haven't actually looked but known it was true when doing a find and replace marathon).

I will do a search, but I think unless it is a controversial claim, the presence is relatively inoffensive but would be nice to find a good source (but a local newspaper is probably the only thing that may be on record). Koncorde (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Koncorde. The Belton/Dove error definitely originated on WP as I've had conversations with Spyrides about this, but I agree it was a very understandable error. John Simkin (of Spartacus Educational) concurs with the OCS kit colours on his blog, except that he's got red socks, which I would say was more likely (the 1897-98 TIW kit colours, which are said to have originated with OCS, used scarlet socks).[5] There has been some debate at WP:RSN as to whether Spartacus Educational is considered reliable. Personally, I think it's fine, although I'd prefer to see his sources. I think the history articles on the West Ham site are usually written by John Helliar so should be reliable and I wouldn't have thought he'd be using WP as a source. I agree, though, that that bit doesn't sound right. I've sent Steve Marsh an e-mail to see if he has anything. I haven't seen any photos at all of OCS so if you come across any I'd love to know. Thanks again, Nzd (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Was the article you were referring to this Kumb article? BTW, I didn't mean to imply that the Dove/Belton error was down to you (it wasn't ). Nzd (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nzd I don't think so, but it's possible that Grants sources were the same ones that I could see online at the same time (2006 is approximately when I was working on chunks of West Ham articles). I notice another KUMB article has the old kit image, but it's credited as being a Thames Ironworks team, so I may be mis-remembering the images I can recall. Koncorde (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. That does state that the OCS kit was blue shirt, white shorts and "scarlet stockings", mentioning a newspaper report but I'm buggered if I can find it. It's most probably right, but I've failed to find a single reliable source to back it up. The linked forum post has some interesting titbits on the TIW/WH kits but is mostly 22 pages of frustration (I trawled through it last night). One thing I did glean though was the history of wrongness and the astonishingly low threshold of proof on Historical Kits! Steve Marsh has sent me a few other bits so I definitely have all the info I need to update the TIW/WH articles. I think what we have is mostly right, if a little incomplete. The Belton story is still bugging me though. Even discounting the Dove misinterpretation, it's still probably made up, and I'd love to find a decent rebuttal in an RS. Nzd (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI - I've written up the Dove/Belton confusion at Talk:Charlie Dove#Belton story. Nzd (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I enjoyed working with you to improve Daniela Vega. Thanks! :) HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

T. Motta - Reply

Hi there again Koncorde, from Portugal,

player has announced retirement, yes. Ligue 1 has still one match to be played before the season is wrapped up and he is 100% retired. Other than that i performed minor adjustments overall, you'll see that after my reversion i tried to reach a compromise with the IP regarding the intro.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Birkenhead

Yes, my mistake, which I was just about to correct. I misread the anon edit as including Birkenhead in the Liverpool built up area. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

your thoughts please

Hello I have looked at various articles related to the dead gamergate controvercy, such at Anita Sarkeesian and Tropes Vs. Women i nvideo game articles. What are your thoughts on claims that people make that the same users are showing ownership of the article due to them same users acting as a police force, including yourself, PeterTheFourth, DonQuixote (like that name BTW), and Cúchullain. I have over the various IP address I have edited form defended your guys's positions, and would like you guys to do something to address any future claims of wiki ownership of articles such as Anita Sarkeesian, Gamergate controversy, Tropes vs. Women in Video Games and this awesome Dutch game developer I'm sorry, I just love Zoe's games. Anyway, I have looked at the talk pages and it does appear that you guys are the only ones who call all the shots, is there a sollution you guys cam come up with to bring new parties and some outsider admins into the fray, this way we can prove me right that you guys do not claim ownership of the articles? thanks. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I say the various IP address I have edited from because I have lived in 8 different countries

• Norway
• Australia
• England (where I'm from)
• South Africa
• The Ukraine

and others. My job means I do have to move once in a while. I can't find all the IP addresses I would use otherwise I'd link you to where I have defended you guys before. thanks/ 23.151.192.180 (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

A final note I will make is that a defence I have given, though I will continue to cautian you guys on, is that you guys do not own these articles, rather, this is a case of stewardship. My advice for you guys is to tone down on the stewardship. While stewardship is in my view a good thing, there are extents to which you guys have to say, does it look more like ownership or policing? If you guys could please help me out here that would be great, given that while I disagree with many positions of the subjects such as Sarkeesian (despite me liking Zoe's games), I do however strongly support your guys's positions of reliable sources. I turn t oyou because you are the first one I thought of. thanks. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Koncorde. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Political Correctness

Hello,

I considered starting a new section on the PC talk page, but I figured I'd ask you to elaborate first. What do you mean: There is first the term, then there is the pejorative use. On its own, it is not pejorative any more than "Health & Safety"? How can it not be pejorative?

Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

DI Stefano

Hes changed it back to São Paulo FC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.122.90 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This guy is performing Block evasion. It is locked in multiple accounts. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.154.129.183 / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.151.92.251 / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.144.222.45

Therefore, it is being reverted by administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcbjuvenil (talk • contribs) 10:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fcbjuvenil: You were evading blocks as well you hypocrite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.132.115.17 (talk • contribs)

DG Mester

I've left them a message. GiantSnowman 12:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! GiantSnowman 16:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Adrien Silva

The template (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Players) in question is obviously written for a current player. It is not ambiguous. In your edit summary you wrote 'template states "played for", not "plays for"'. However it clearly states "Tim Template (born 1 January 1985) is a Templatonian[1] professional footballer who plays as a striker for Template City of the Templatonia Premier League."

I have no idea why you have said that this relates to a retired player or quoted it inaccurately in your edit summary. You seem to be intelligent so is this a case of dishonesty? Or is there another reason? --hippo43 (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

United-Liverpool page

Hi mate,

On the United-Liverpool rivalry page, I re-established the prior wording but removed the 'major' trophy line that we agree is entirely subjective. I reverted simply because although we can agree that 'major' is subjective (and I do believe that not using the term is a general project policy), what is not disputable and corroborated by multiple reliable sources listed in the article is that United have more trophies when counting all official honours. From an encyclopedic standpoint, the only way to really define success is by counting all such official titles without arbitrary weightings like 'major' and 'not major', and with the likes of the BBC and SKY Sports (the most authoritative sports news sources in Britain) amongst others highlighting this count, there is really no need to create more awkward phrasing that goes against the info of several already very reliable sources depicting a full account of teams' silverware fit for encyclopedic content. I certainly dont think we should act hastily just because of a few IP-edits that took exception. If need be, the page can be IP-blocked for a period of a week or two just so that any attempts to insert arbitrarily defined trophy counts not corroborated by reliable sources can subside, but in the general absence of an encyclopedic alternative backed by reliable sources, there is no reason to change the general wording, as both clubs get their fair share of credit towards being more successful than the other. Davefelmer (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi there. I'm in the process of drafting a topic ban (and possible indef block) against SNAAAAKE!! for the admin noticeboard. I'll post you a message when it goes live. If you've got any examples of diffs showing blatant disruptive comments or anything else he's done that you think should be mentioned, please point that out to me. I'll be posting the proposal tomorrow sometime. Cheers. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

SNAAAAKE!!

I'm glad you pointed out his "boys will be boys" shit on that talk page. It influenced my decision regarding his ANI. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Names

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

AFD != CFD. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to know what to say

It's completely insane, this constant circular reasoning reasoning. EEng 11:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Host

Before a name you use the word as a noun, so you have no need to apply the "s". Adding an "s" changes the noun to a verb. The verb should follow a name, not before it. [6]. Govvy (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

O well, guess people don't want to listen to me, I am only repeating what my gf told me who has an English Masters degree! heh. Govvy (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Your recent contributions at Sunderland A.F.C. appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Sent to all involved Leaky caldron (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Matthew Kelly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to British

Sunderland A.F.C. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charity Shield

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

To our wikiproject football discussion

Got to say upon going over our chat and the information available, I came round to your way of thinking in regards to making a page for the clubs in the world with the most trophies. Not enough sources for the data, a few variables that had to be considered and all in all it ventured too far into original research territory. Cheers for the discussion! Davefelmer (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see discussion on Ukrainian oligarchs page

Thanks The unrelated kinsman (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Liverpool

Please cease making unnecessary edits to the intro for Liverpool. It is clear that you have a POV issue in relation to local authority boundaries. It is an established fact that cities are not wholly synonymous with local authorities. Until you can demonstrate that this is the case, please cease editing the intro. Correctus2kX (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Honours Liverpool

Okay that’s good to know, I was under the impression there was, somewhere, something that constituted what was a major honour, thanks for the heads up. From viewing past discussions, I agree we should just go with ‘overall trophies won’ - excluding pre season friendly competitions of course.

Can we get the FLSC added to the opening section (outlining honours won) and to the Honours section, under Domestic and Cup? Can I do this or is it down to you guys? Solid Snack90 (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: Facebooks ban - something to read

Hello,

Here you claimed the following: "This "because Facebook threats blocking every paper which prints Voldemort's name, and no paper can afford such a block, as usual I am not allowed to link to source" meanwhile is probably one of the finest works of fiction I have ever read."

The internet seems to be full of this "fiction": WaPo Mashable The Verge CNBC. And there is a ton of others.

Meanwhile, Breitbart's Allum Bokhari noted in an article I must not link to: "Numerous conservative media outlets, including Breitbart News, were prevented from posting stories naming [Lord Voldemort] as the alleged whistleblower on Facebook. The stories are still available on the websites of those news sites, of course. But in a world where 52 percent of Americans get their news directly from Facebook, that’s becoming less and less acceptable"

And Breitbart's Joel Pollak wrote: "Second, the tech companies punished news outlets that dared to publish the name of the so-called “whistleblower.” Though tech giants like Facebook enjoy immunity from libel lawsuits under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, they behaved as if publishing the “whistleblower’s” name would expose them to serious legal risk. Any media outlet that wanted to share its content online — in other words, any media company that wanted to stay in business — had to suppress the name of the so-called “whistleblower” in impeachment coverage."

So, yeah ... just read. Wefa (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)