User talk:Bring back Daz Sampson/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hi, Bring back Daz Simpson. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your joining. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place   on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Charlie Jeff (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marta Mateos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Almenara. 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) 09:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited María Alharilla Casado, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jaén. 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) 09:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Brøndby IF (women)— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CAPTAIN RAJU ( ✉ ) 16:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you
Hmlarson (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:DOPPELGANGER
It's not clear to me why this account was blocked. See WP:DOPPELGANGER > Clean start under a new name if you'd like to take steps to remove block on "master account" per this. Your contributions are appreciated. Hmlarson (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:DOPPELGANGER does not apply here ("") and WP:CLEANSTART is not available to users who have evaded a block or are making a new account to avoid scrutiny. If you would like to take steps to remove the block on your master account, or whichever account you would like to use as your only account, please read WP:STANDARDOFFER. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it may apply if the user has endured harassment. Sometimes people "act out" (in September 2015) when they've been poorly treated. If you'd like a few samples, let me know - but you can probably start with the top of this talk page. Hmlarson (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Am I really blocked for another six months, then? By my reckoning I got bombed out early Feb, came back early August, so I've already repaid my debt to wiki-society. If I was a bit keen and jumped the gun with my comeback I can sit out the 'residue' of a few days or whatever it was (although even that seems petty). Yet another six months is strikingly punitive, since the usual tariff for my (ahem) crimes is measured in days or weeks. Since doubts were expressed as to the suitability of my previous noms de guerre I ditched those and intend staying as Bring back Daz Sampson. I worry that sometimes editors caught up in the cut and thrust of policing wikipedia around the clock forget what it's like for those of us with one foot still in the real world. When you're back after a six-month sabbatical you naturally want to edit some articles, not spend ages wading through dry rules and regulations checking if it's okay. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe you that your desire to overcome your block and return to legitimate constructive editing is genuine, and I think that that's wonderful, but I have to correct you on a couple points: You can make an unblock request any time, but in my opinion it would be unlikely to succeed right now, and making unblock requests with little chance of success is considered disruptive and might lead to further sanctions. If you are serious about returning, address these points above before you make a request. If you have questions you can ask here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) You're not blocked for six months. Your block is indefinite, as most blocks for repeated sockpuppetry are, which means only that your block has no set length. It never expires, there's no set date where your actions are automatically forgiven and forgotten and you can just return to editing like nothing ever happened. Your block can be lifted, if you can convincingly demonstrate that you understand the behaviour that led to your being blocked and that you won't repeat that behaviour. If you can't do that, then you will remain blocked to prevent further disruption. You don't necessarily have to wait six months for that, although that's the usual standard for sockpuppetry.
 * 2) By your reckoning, you've forgotten that you edited in April as, and it's very likely you edited as an IP in July, so in fact you've persistently evaded your block. It will work in your favour to be honest about it.
 * 3) It's the Wikipedia community that will ultimately approve or oppose your unblock request, so it is strongly to your advantage to stop making disrespectful statements that your block was "grossly disproportionate", griping that you "had to bow and scrape before the blocking admin", and referring to users not having "one foot still in the real world". This is especially true considering your block originated in part from personal attacks.
 * 4) This last point I think you need to really understand. The Wikipedia community has an especially strong desire to deter sockpuppetry, because of the extensive severe problems we have had from users abusing multiple accounts. The fact that you made constructive contributions while blocked, no matter how well-intentioned, is a point which works strongly against you.
 * "It will work in your favour to be honest about it." - Isn't this what the editor said here and the request was immediately declined with no further explanation? For people who do not spend all their time in this realm of Wikipedia, there is a steep learning curve. From all of the disruptive editing and harassment I've seen, I agree that this perpetual block for an initial 2-week block for both editors is heavy-handed. I've seen lots of "sock puppets" over the years that do nothing but vandalize, troll, and disrupt. I don't think that's what's happened here and is clearly evidenced by the editing done by the accounts. You have stated a number of things that do not work in the editor's favour - what would? Or should the editor seeks some third opinions? Hmlarson (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

- if able, I might suggest adding the tag to other accounts besides your primary per this part of WP:DOPPELGANGER: Clean start under a new name: A clean start is when a user stops using an old account in order to start afresh with a new account, usually due to past mistakes or to avoid harassment. A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place against the old account. Do not use your new account to return to topic areas, disputes, editing patterns, or behaviors previously identified as problematic, and you should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny. A clean start requires that you no longer use your old account(s), which should note on their user pages that they are inactive—for example, with the tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet. Hmlarson (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Additional resources: WP:GAB, WP:NICETRY Hmlarson (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Hmlarson (talk) 05:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hmlarson, I really appreciate your efforts on my behalf. I suspect if I did all this there would turn out to be some pettifogging rule against it or it would turn out to be deemed "egregious" in some way. Haha. Anyway, I've said all the right things already, but bottom line: they don't believe me. Or they don't want to call out User:Bbb23, one of the 'all-day, every-day' brigade, on his initial misjudgement. Hence the ludicrous, Kafkaesque block of unknown duration. Anyway, even if I did get back my little harem of co-morbid obsessives would soon be on my case, trying to get me jettisoned on some other pretext! Kinda flattering in a creepy way, but sad and pathetic for what I assume are grown men. I might have a crack at Simple English Wikipedia next, hopefully clean up my prose and provide some respite from the attentions of my fan club. Some of the stuff might be transferable to here I suppose (although I'm sure point 7, paragraph 4 of schedule 159b expressly forbids it!) Keep up the good work, how you don't go potty I will never know. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - Wiki Loves Daz. That's for sure. His valued contributions - somehow overlooked here - will be missed. There's always the option of creating a WOSO-pedia starting with an import of existing articles as a solid start. I've considered this from time to time in lieu of going to the potty. There are also editors and admins in the community who can help provide some balance and a help shine a light on the path to re-instatement. Hmlarson (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Stories like this are also a huge motivator 1 - so I guess we'll be adding a few 100 more in Daz' honor until things can be rectified. Hmlarson (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * you've painted me as an enemy here but I'm honestly trying to help. If my interest was in keeping Daz blocked I just wouldn't weigh in here at all, the two of you are doing a good job of it on your own. I don't know what request you're trying to link to above, but my reply is on the assumption you are referring to this comment. What was denied was the request to run CheckUser, which I won't elaborate on here, but Daz's request is flatly untenable: they violated the multiple accounts policy multiple times and need to remain blocked to prevent and deter further disruption. If we let everyone who tried to make a new account to hide their past get away with it, the sockpuppetry policy would be meaningless. Daz's path to return to editing is to be unblocked through the proper process; I will explain why below, and that is my honest and true goal of editing this page at all. Mind you don't become a meatpuppet yourself: if you continue advising them to try to clean start and hide their abuse of the policy, I will ask at ANI to have you banned from this page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * see what I wrote to Hmlarson above; I am trying to help here. If you want to be unblocked, you need to own up to your past mistakes. I'm not entirely familiar with your history, I can only go by what I've seen, and what I can say about that is that if you were blocked for two weeks as a first block then whatever you did must have been reasonably severe in the eyes of the blocking administrator. Had you sat out the two weeks and then came back and did the same thing again, your next block probably would have been for a month or longer, but because you didn't sit out the two weeks but created sockpuppet accounts to continue the dispute while you were blocked, it was obvious you didn't get the point of the block and also escalated to abuse of multiple accounts, so you were blocked indefinitely. For an unblock request to be successful, you need to show that you understand why you were blocked in the first place, because if you don't genuinely understand why your disruptive behaviour was disruptive, you will not avoid that behaviour in the future.
 * I'm advising you to deal with your block through the proper channels, and not take Hmlarson's advice to clean start, because I am highly confident you will not be able to accomplish a clean start. Speaking as an SPI clerk, your edits are very easy to spot, editing as you do in a sorely "understaffed" subject area. If you try to create another new account to go back to editing here, your detractors (harassers, as you say) will identify you, and it will be very easy for them to build a case for blocking you again. Indeed, at this point, all they have to do is demonstrate that you are who you are. On the other hand if you have been properly unblocked and have not repeated the disruption, then when your detractors try to dig up your past it will be much easier to show they are not here to build an encyclopedia. You'll be far from the first productive editor to have an indefinite block in their past. So trust me that everything that I've written on this page is in the interest of getting you back to that point, but you have to do a lot of the work yourself.
 * First of all, your block is a CheckUser block (technical evidence proves you have abused multiple accounts) and policy says in that case the blocking CheckUser must consent to your being unblocked. That means you first have to convince that you have genuinely reformed. I've never known him to be unreasonable but I'm sure it will help immensely if you can stop insulting him in every comment you make. If you can convince him that your editing will not be disruptive, my guess is he will present your request to the administrators' noticeboard for community discussion, but he's not going to waste their time with a request that's obviously going to fail.
 * In the meantime, if you can productively edit other Wikimedia projects (like Simple English or Commons or other languages, assuming you're not also blocked on those wikis) then you can use that as evidence that your editing here will be productive. You can try to point to your edits here, I honestly don't know how that will go: some users will see a productive history while others will see you continuing to break the sockpuppetry policy with every edit.
 * Like I said, I am available to answer questions as best I can, but if you're obviously not going to take my advice then there's lots of other things I can better occupy myself with here. So it's up to you to decide how to proceed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again - It feels like you are trying to dominate and control this discussion. As you know, there are numerous editors in the community that can assist and contribute. Thanks for your efforts.  You've made your point clearly and can step away at this point. Hmlarson (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually not. I've revoked Talk page access, and I will probably revert any additional comments you make, . Your comments are singularly unconstructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - Please explain how so. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyone reviewing this thread and considering further requests should be aware that has subsequently and explicitly declined my advice via Simple English Wikipedia. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Appeal

 * Support - it seems apparent you know what went wrong that led to your block, and I don't really believe you ever really tried to hide the fact that you were using multiple accounts and you haven't continued since the last kerfuffle. Thus I don't see any preventive reason this block needs to remain in place. If in the future you feel you are being harassed, please see WP:DWH and/or contact an administrator for assistance. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with your block, but in light of what the editor has said in the unblock request above, and the amount of time that has passed, do you think it would be reasonable to give him or her another chance now? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi all, it has been a week now and I'm just checking that this request has not become 'stale'. At WP:UNBLOCK it says: "The process can take hours or a few days; for major discussions sometimes it can take a week or more." But there does not seems to be much discussion at all here? Therefore I hope it will not be regarded as an impertinence if I attempt a gentle nudge to proceedings at this juncture! The blocker has commented at their talk page, but has apparently not shown any appetite to respond here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on 's comment that "unblock requests from socks generally attract other CheckUsers", would other checkusers be willing to review? Pinging, . Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support a standard offer via discussion at AN. I'm not sure how this being a CU block would affect this however. SQL Query me!  01:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, after my extended sabbatical I don't suppose another couple of weeks here on the naughty step has done me any harm! But I'm just presuming to "check in" again as, in soccer parlance, my appeal seems to have been booted into the long grass. I wonder if the support !votes here are "quorum" to give me another chance, please? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks all, I will now be on my best behaviour! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

An invitation for you
(To subscribe, Women's football task force/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women's football task force/Opt-out list)

Subject of mass mailing: Women's Football / Soccer Task Force News: August 2017
(To subscribe, Women's football task force/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women's football task force/Opt-out list) – Hmlarson (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Invitation to join Women in Red
--Ipigott (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stefania Antonini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anne O'Brien ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Stefania_Antonini check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Stefania_Antonini?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

WOSO Task Force News: April 2018
Subscribe or Unsubscribe here. Sent by: Hmlarson (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fiorentina Women&#39;s FC logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fiorentina Women&. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adina Giurgiu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arad ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Adina_Giurgiu check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Adina_Giurgiu?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

File:C.F. Florentia logo.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Pink Sport Time Logo.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited KIF Örebro DFF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frida Svensson ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/KIF_%C3%96rebro_DFF check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/KIF_%C3%96rebro_DFF?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Växjö DFF logo.svg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Kungsbacka DFF.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

File:IFK Kalmar logo.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of S.L. Benfica (women's football) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article S.L. Benfica (women's football) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/S.L. Benfica (women's football) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SLBedit (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Logo-Campeonato Promoção Futebol Feminino.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello
Hi there, I noticed that you edit many articles related to Portuguese/Brazilian women's football. Just out of curiosity, are you brazilian or portuguese? Also, your edits are pretty good. Have you ever thought about joining the "the Women's football/soccer task force"? Your contributions could be very valuable to the project. Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi P.H.TARU (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:1988 FIFA Tourny ISL.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Ada Hegerberg
Any idea why you have removed sourced content and re-added unsourced content? GiantSnowman 20:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Your incorrectly formatted source was already in the article - and the swathes of stuff you took out was covered by the Lyon profile and the Soccerway source I added! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then remove the duplicate ref, and please directly cite in-line. GiantSnowman 09:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Katharina Lindner.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Bring back Daz Sampson, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3ABring_back_Daz_Sampson added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!  Schwede 66  18:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

File license clarification
Hi Bring back Daz Sampson. I'm wondering if you might be able to possibly clarify the licensing of WP:MCQ and WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Tampa Bay Extreme) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Tampa Bay Extreme.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 20:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Lebanon women's national team GA review
Hi, I've read your post on the WikiProject talk page inviting us to join the women's task force. I have added a lot of information about the Italy women's national football team, especially about Italy at the FIFA Women's World Cup. However, my work here on Wikipedia mainly specializes in Lebanese football and, unfortunately, there isn't enough information online about player statistics to be able to create their own articles. I have, however, improved Lebanon women's national football team and have nominated it for GA. I was wondering if it were possible for you to start the review? Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Nehme1499, thanks for the message and your great work on these articles. I'll hopefully be able to take a proper look and see if I can review it in the next week or so? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. Don't worry, the review is already in process. If you would like to add some comments feel free to do so! Nehme1499 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Johnson Hippolyte
Not sure what sources you have that meet GNG, but please can you add them? GiantSnowman 10:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Hi Bring back Daz Sampson. I know that you know that edits like this or this aren't appropriate. Please stop. Thank you,  F ASTILY   21:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Fastily - which part of the edits did you think was inappropriate? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)