User talk:Kingjeff/Archive 2

Owen Hargreaves
Why did you undo my edit again on Owen Hargreaves? I've compromised by leaving him as still with Bayern, and just tidied up other areas. I also added new content, such as persondata. So why have you just undone the edit? By all means edit on top of it, but don't just undo it. robwingfield «T•C» 07:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde
User:Kiff3, User:Kiff4, User:Bert Patenaude, User:Tozzi Fan, User:Wervolnogs and User:Snoimaert are all Panairjdde. User:Kiff2 is not. Jayjg (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Miguel Negron
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Miguel Negron, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Miguel Negron seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Miguel Negron, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Miguel Negron itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Germany national football team
Done, thanks for letting me know about the voting, sorry I didn't answer straight away, I've been away for a few days. By the way, do you notice the new Starting Line Up and Germany II Team there? It did not seems right, some players name are mentioned twice, and starting line-up is differs from time to time, its just pure research without proper reference, I think it should be deleted. What do you think? Anyway I'll raise the issue again on the talk page there. Thanks. Martin tamb 19:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. What I mean is the Starting Line Up section in Germany national football team. It wasn't there few days ago. Martin tamb 20:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Borussia Mönchengladbach
Thanks for spotting the problem. You could do us a favour though. To comply with the the terms of the GDFL licence we have to move the article rather than cut and paste it. Sometimes you won't be able to move the article in question, but any administrater can, so please contact myself or any other admin of your choice. Agathoclea 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Breach of WP:3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Dave101 →talk  19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert 1 Revert 2 Revert 3 Revert 4 Clarification per your request. Dave101 →talk  20:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Dudesleeper only made 3 reverts, 4 reverts are needed to breach the 3RR. Also please do not label this as a "personal attack", assume good faith. I am only giving you this message so that you are aware of your mistake and therefore do not get a ban. Dave101 →talk  20:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree there were 7 consecutive reverts. However, your previous edit (Revert 1 above) was also a revert, which unfortunately meant you breached the 3 revert rule. Dave101 →talk  21:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. This has been debated to death now, but here is the definition from the Reverting article: "A revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical in content to the page saved at that time. However, in the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article." By this definition, whether you agree with it or not, makes the first change you made a revert. I really hope this clears it up for you, thanks. Dave101 →talk  08:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mexico national team
YOU are the one vandalizing the page. It's useful information and it's not news. Scope (and your demand that all games be listed) is another arbitrary policy demand. Do we need to add the top 100 scorers to keep the top 10? No. If you do not find information useful, ignore it. It selfish to deprive others. Estevanbonilla

It's not your place to define when content is news and when it isn't. This type of information exists throughout Wikipedia. The end of the story will be when you realize that this information is more important to Wikipedia users than your personal affection with policing policy. --Estevanbonilla 16:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mexico national team
You have a history of personal attacks which makes me hesitant to even respond to your last comment. However, I believe user feedback within the "Schedules & Results" discussion I've started with this article should settle this contention; not just your opinion or mine. --Estevanbonilla 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR report
I'm not blocking Estevanbonilla, in part because he wasn't warned, but also because he's very new. Instead, I've left a message on his talk page directing him to Talk:Mexico national football team. I suggest the same to you. I think this situation could have been handled better. In edit-wars it is generally better to do several things: Finally, please be careful not to bite new editors. You've been here long enough to understand most of these points. Help the new editor understand them, too!--Chaser - T 05:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Try to hold yourself to 1RR. If you're right, someone else will revert, and you will avoid approaching 3RR.
 * 2) Ask the disputant (politely) for discussion on the article's talk page. Focus on the talk page instead of the article.
 * 3) Don't call good-faith edits vandalism. They're not.

WikiProject Redirects
I like to say I appreciate your valiant endeavors at canvassing; however I must ask you to stop immediately. Canvassing is highly frowned up by the community-at-large, and what you're doing (trying to solicit support for cross-namespace redirects) is clearly canvassing. Cross-namespace redirects are avoided if at all possible, and putting WikiProject Comics is a redirect from the main to Wikipedia: space is one. The exception to this is our WP:, WT:, CAT:, and C: pseudo-namespaces. Once again, thanks for your zeal, but kindly cease. ^ demon [omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">15:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Attempting to re-add it will only result in blocks. I would not recommend it. As for DRV, you had a fully legitimate DRV. You attempted to overturn a deletion that was fully backed by policy, so there was nothing to discuss. ^ demon [omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">15:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree all you want. DRV is not a solid vote, and it's not an attempt to revisit a deletion you did not like. The RfD was closed normally and fully within policy. Your only reason for wanting to keep the redirects is essentially WP:ILIKEIT. ^ demon [omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">15:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * At this point, your actions regarding this issue of crossnamespace redirects is borderline trolling. If you please do not cease asking for the redirects to be restored (they will not be), the next course of action will be blocking. Please do not take this message lightly. ^ demon [omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">16:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When you keep posting in multiple places asking for them to be restored (or that you will put them back yourself), using convoluted misreadings of policy, it crosses the line from civil discussion to trolling. ^ demon [omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">16:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While we're all entitled to opinions, I suggest you take in the advice given to you here. ^ demon [omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">16:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please. Agathoclea 17:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject redirects
I noticed you have been canvassing about cross-namespace redirects for wikiprojects. There has been broad consensus for a while that redirects of the form WikiProject Foo are not allowed per the self reference policy. Redirects of the form WP:Foo are permitted; you can choose a convenient abbreviation for your project and make a redirect of that form. The RfD discussion was correctly performed, and not even really necessary, as so many of these have been deleted already that the rest could be likely be deleted on sight per WP:SNOW. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Andriy Shevchenko
On User:Bobo192, Kingjeff said: The difference is the non-domestic league games which shouldn't be in the table. The table clearly states domestic league only.

That's fair enough. I was slightly wary of the information because it did state to be league games only - presumably the information as stated is currently correct. Bobo. 01:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Bayern
Hi, thanks for the invitation but I'm not sure what Bayern is. Did I edit some page about this subject in the past? I don't remember. Badagnani 03:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I watch the World Cup only. I find it more interesting to see national teams play one another rather than for-profit company teams. Badagnani 03:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not much of a Bayern Munich kind of guy myself, though they're my favorite German club. I am more a fan of English football, specifically Arsenal F.C. Thanks for the invitation anyway. — An as  talk? 10:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think that'll work out
A heads up with respect to your invitation to User:Kay Körner. The guy is not capable of rendering translations and he's a less than civil editor, with a POV problem, and he's a Dresden guy rather than Munich. You might want to re-consider or make sure you keep him on a short leash. Wiggy! 03:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor Edits
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! ^ demon [omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">13:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

FC Bayern Munich Taskforce
Would you like to join a FC Bayern Munich Taskforce at WikiProject Munich? Kingjeff 20:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation. I will consider it. I might be able to join later because right now I am in the middle of doing too many multiple tasks in my every-day life. Wars 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Extra task forces
I have added a FC Bayern task force switch to the Germany template. Yuo can activate it using <tt>FCBayern=yes</tt> in the Germany project template. See Talk:Andreas Ottl for an example how it looks like. I haven't set up the whole category system for automatic updates yet. If you want, I'll go and do that so you get automated assessments (right now the banner mostly advertises your task force).

I am not quite sure what you want the banner to do for the translation task force. Do you want to use it for a "current translation" thing? It clearly doesn't need an assessment system associated with it. Kusma (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: If you have a better free image to use for the FCBayern task force, please tell me or just insert it. Kusma (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer...
Thanks for the invitation to the Wikiproject, but I'm not intrested at this time. Maybe someday, I might join at that Wikiproject when I have a chance :).--<b style="color:red;">Pre</b><b style="color:brown;">ston</b><b style="color:#6495ED;">H</b> 22:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

MS 1860 Munich
Thanks for pointing it out to me. I've deleted it (well, actually, 6 hours ago or so). Pascal.Tesson 04:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Bayern Munich task force
Thanks for the invitation Kingjeff! Unfortunately I am not really knowledgeable enough about Bayern Munich to join the task force, but I will keep an eye on it and help if need be. <u style="color:black;">Dave101 →<i style="color:#AE1C28;">talk</i>  18:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Munich
For GA, article length is not that important (unless it is not long enough to meet the broad requirement, by covering a variety of topics pertaining to the subject). Also it is best for the article to not be excessively long (we recently had one at 93kb and recommended it for FAC instead). For the Munich article, it is of about average length of other large cities. If you're still curious, look at cities that are currently GAs to see the difference and also to look for other ideas of what to include in your article. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Nehrams2020 03:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich
Thanks for the offer, but I'm from Berlin. I couldn't join the project ;)). Lectonar 09:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above was a joke, alluding to the fact that normally Berliners can't stand people from Munich. Lectonar 09:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Opalfrost
Does he still need to be checked? He doesn't seem to be editing. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Two answers
1) About Panairjdde, he was actually present in here recently ranting about the ban he received. Have a look at this archived AN/I page for details. 2) About football association logos, many of them just missed a fair use rationale, that is why they were threatened to be deleted unless a fair use rational would be provided. In any case, the issue seems to be resolved now. --Angelo 01:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Error in Chris Benoit Article
There is an error in the Chris Benoit article and since its talk page is locked I'm putting this on your page. It says he killed himself late Saturday or early Sunday. That is WRONG! He killed his son at those times. He killed himself on Monday. How can a dead man send text messages?

Bayern Munich task force
Thanks for the offer, however I don't think I might offer much more than a short contribution on Trapattoni, Rizzitelli and Toni's articles (by the way I am quite not a supporter of the latter, he left Palermo in a very bad way). In any case, I'll try to make something for the articles I mentioned as long as I can. --Angelo 00:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now I just shortly expanded Ruggiero Rizzitelli's and Luca Toni's articles. --Angelo 01:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup
Why can't I edit this page? I'm trying to help! I know I've made a few mistakes, but please, I'm trying to help, I have no intention of vandalizing it. Radical3 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for that. Radical3 21:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, are you using SoccerStand.com? I am. Radical3 22:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I know he got two yellow cards, but I don't the time of the first one AND soccer stand says it was a straight, so I go with the website. Radical3 01:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it's too wide"? Is the map cut off when it's on the right of the table? Couldn't it be a screen resolution issue? I see it perfectly well, it doesn't cross the right margin. Just trying to understand. If yes, then I won't insist.  Parutakupiu  talk 04:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Germany national under-21 football team
Thanks for letting me know about the merge discussions. Martin tamb 04:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They are doing the same to the Israel national under-21 football team article. Could use some help. -NYC2TLV 02:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This hasn't be dealt with to my knowledge
Thanks for trying to remind the admins. I guess a coordinated effort is needed to get this problem solved. -- Matthead discuß!    O       16:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Some dealing has been done last november, but not much since. -- Matthead discuß!    O       17:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning
I don't know what you were thinking when you made this edit. But let me make it very clear that if you do it again I'll report you for personal attacks.Rex 19:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Similaun
Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re User:Rex Germanus
Did you not noticed there are 2 cases against him? Kingjeff 04:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes i did. Please do not escalate matters further. It is his time to argue and explain what's going on. I can't do any action now. -- FayssalF  - <sup style="background:gold;">Wiki me up®  04:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It might not be going that much further since I might be going to community sanction place to get him a community ban. Kingjeff 04:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As you see it. I personally believe he still has to say his word. If it convinces admins and/or it is w/in policy then no problem. If not then he will be blocked w/ a community ban or not. I just would like to see you calming down as it is not helpful for admins. -- FayssalF  - <sup style="background:gold;">Wiki me up®  04:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen his record since he's been on probation? Kingjeff 04:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Kingjeff :) I've seen that as well. Just be patient. If he is going to be blocked he will, if not he won't. -- FayssalF  - <sup style="background:gold;">Wiki me up®  04:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hallo kingjeff, danke für Deine Anmerkungen
Hallo kingjeff, danke für Deine Anmerkungen zu dem User Rex Germanicus! Die Logik von Rex germanicus ist simpel: Alle Deutschen im 2WK waren Nazis, somit war die Deutsche Wehrmacht eine Nazi Armee und alle Soldaten die Ihr angehörten somit auch alle Nazis. Dagegen habe ich opponiert und klar zu machen versucht das dies keine Fakten sind(die Wehrmacht wurde von den Allierten nicht als Nationalsozialistische Organisation angesehen) sondern nur seine persönliche Meinung ist! Daraufhin wurde ich von Ihm in einer Art "Pawlovschen Reflex" als Veteidiger der Nazis bezeichnet. Das ist wie wir wissen ein Totschlagsargument mit dem er offensichtlich versucht jede Diskussion über Inhalte zu untebinden wenn ihm Argumente fehlen. Meine Auslassungen zu den dunklen Kapiteln der holländischen Geschichte waren duchaus provokativ dem bin ich mir bewußt! Sie hatten aber nicht die Intention die Verbrechen die durch die Nazis begangen worden sind zu relativieren! Vielmehr war es Ziel meiner Polemik Ihn von seinem hohen moralischen Ross zu holen. Wenn es um die Bekämpfung von Nationalismus geht, sollte jeder erst vor seiner eigenen Türe kehren. Bei ihm habe ich aber den Eindruck ist diese Agenda die er sich lauthals auf seine Fahne geschrieben hat nur vorgeschoben. Er benutzt seinen Kampf gegen tatsächliche oder vermeintliche Revisionisten,Nazis etc. als Deckmantel für seine tiefgehende Antideutsche Haltung. Seine Sichtweise scheint geprägt von einem zu tiefst dualistischen Weltbild, das nur Freund und Feind, gut und böse kennt. Für eine differenzierte Wahrnehmung von Geschichte und ist hier kein Platz. Somit ist für ihn jeder der dieser vereinfachten Sicht nicht zustimmt ein Apostat der "Reinen Lehre" und muß als Häretiker(Revisionist, Nazisympathisant) gebrandmarkt werden. Er gebärdet sich als eine Art Großinquisitor wenn es um die deutsche Geschichte geht, in der nur er im Besitz der absoluten Wahrheit ist. Getrieben von geradezu missionarischem Eifer und Überlegenheitsgefühl findet er offenbar seine Selbstbestätigung darin sich moralisch über die Deutschen zu erheben. In seiner vorgefassten Meinung das jeder der hat er nicht einmal bemerkt das ich kein Deutscher sondern Grieche bin! Ist schon kurios wenn man als Grieche von einem Niederländer als deutscher Nazi beschimpft wird ;-) Vieleicht hab ich ja germanische Vorfahren ohne es zu wissen :-) Man lernt eben nie aus im Leben... LG aus Nürnberg der Stadt des Pokalsiegers ;-)

Christos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheiron1312 (talk • contribs)

Blocked
24 hours, canvassing is not acceptable, and you were aggressive. Moreschi Talk 17:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do that at all. Kingjeff 17:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Block extension
Hi. Your block has been extended to 48h as per the | outcome here. Apart your block reason of Moreschi, you have participated at the reverts at another user talk page as noted here. Please note that a user is free to remove all correspondence from his/her talk page. -- FayssalF  - <sup style="background:gold;">Wiki me up®  20:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Old match reports
I'm worried about the fact of “match reports” disappear of the FIFA site? The 1994 WC reports are gone!!! There is some wikipedia procedure to solve this problem? Or ideas to deal with this? Thanks Luisfilipemiguel 23:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Markus Pöttinger
A template has been added to the article Markus Pöttinger, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.165.52.192 19:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The same right as everyone else. If it was against the rules, I wouldn't have been able to do it.  If you want, I will sign in and prod it.

And while we are at, what gives you the right to right an article that is that incomplete? And why are you here when your page says you left?172.165.52.192 21:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * YOu happy now? If I have to, I will take it to AFD unless of course you do the right thing and improve the article and address my concerns.
 * My point is it shouldn't matter.  If you have an issue with people who aren't signed in prod'ing things, then take it to the appropriate place to see that it isn't allowed to happen in the future.  But between now and then, it is allowed.  So deal with it.  As long as the prod is for a legit reason, it shouldn't be an issue.  I can see if you had written an excellent article and I prod'd it because I didn't like the guys name.  Fine, complain.  But you wrote a one sentence bio.  That to me is a legit complaint.  The issue you are going after is wrong, IMO.  Go after the reasons for the prod, not who prod'd it.  Postcard Cathy 21:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I was here on Wikinews business and why can't you follow instructions?
Why the attitude? Come on! You wrote a poor article. It deserves prod'ing. Don't take it so personally. And I did follow instructions in that a person who is not signed in is allowed to prod. If you don't want your articles prod'd, then don't give people a reason to do so. Improve the article and the prod goes!
 * PS and what instructions are you talking about?  The not signed in people are not allowed to prod instructions?  Must have missed that one as well as the software people as it happens.
 * NOt acting as a sockpuppet. At the time, I was cooking dinner, did not anticipate staying on as long as I have and did not sign on.  Had I anticipated staying on as long as I have I would have signed on.  And you still haven't told me what instructions I did not follow.
 * PS Forget answering. You are upset about something.  If you are upset that I prod'd your article, fine.  If you are upset about something else, fine.  I don't wish to argue about something that I consider trivial.  I am tired of it.  If you don't want the article to be deleted, improve it and I will gladly remove the prod.  That is all I ever wanted.  No more, no less.  Now I am signing off in anticipation of a thunder storm arriving.  If you want someone else to have a hissy fit with, find someone else.

Butt
What the hell is this about? Who does that...? -- Y not? 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK... but summary reversion is not the same thing as reversion plus sourcing - which is not what you did. -- Y not? 03:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And, you didn't even check what you were reverting... You're quitting Wikipedia? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. -- Y not? 03:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Owen Hargreaves' height
I beg your pardon? I revert one of your edits to reflect proper Wikipedia policy, and you call me a Nazi? Grow up, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. - fchd 18:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What policy do you think I am trying to change? I'm merely using the standard usage of British terms for British subject articles. fchd 19:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So you've now gone from accusing me of "changing policy" and calling me a "Nazi" to accusing me of "inconsistency" - so far so good. Look at a few hundred British football player articles. How many of them have feet/inches as the primary units of height measurement - well over 50%. They also use British spelling and phraseology. That's policy. You don't need consensus to apply policy. - fchd 19:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Bayern
the FC Bayern Munich article has one indiscretion I dont know how to fix. it shows four (4) stripes on our home jersey, do you know how to fix it to be the correct number of three (3).

thanks --Jadger 18:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

see here: shows clearly only 3 stripes, the wikipedia article has 4 on it.

--Jadger 22:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wanna get blocked again?
I don't need these kind of provocative remarks of yours. Unless you're looking for trouble again. You'll probably say no, but then again what's your word worth or is this some weird German way of leaving wikipedia?Rex 18:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Ice Hockey August 2007 Newsletter
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="8" style="background:#FFCBDB; border-style:solid; border-width:2px; border-color: 		#FF0000"
 * valign="top" style="padding: 0; margin:0;" |

Note: You have received this newsletter because you have added your name here. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter, please remove your name. From the automated Animum Delivery Bot (delivered on 19:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)).

Hello WikiProject Ice Hockey/Participant
I am an advisor to the National Hockey League. With your help over the next few months I plan to review and correct any information on wikipedia relating to the National Hockey League, its franchises, players, executives and partership organisations. I am here to provide you with information. Your work is appreciated. --NHLsource 18:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What's a word worth
Most people, when they say they are leaving wikipedia actually leave. But from your recent 'contributions' I can see you're just unable to do it. Addicted to conflict?Rex 21:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League 2007-08
The changes regarding including/removing the seedings seem to be heading towards an edit war. As the change seems to be controversial I would suggest discussing this change on the talk page Talk:UEFA Champions League 2007-08. Thanks. John Hayestalk 21:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that the draw information is duplicated on the article for the group phase itself. Having it in two places is indeed redundant. If you had pointed this out on talk instead of continually deleting, you may have won consensus support. I will not reinstate it again, but the converse goes for what you said, someone else probably will. I am, however, reinstating the information about the date and place of the draw, as this is consistent with the remainder of this year's article and past years' articles. —Ed Cormany 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the change you made, but as Ed says, it would have been better to suggest it on the talk page first. John Hayestalk 06:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also be careful, you are getting very close to breaking WP:3RR. John Hayestalk 06:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the seeding pots and especially TV pairings are irrelevant for the competition as soon as the draw is done. Conscious 07:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sweden's football women and the Olympics
Hi Jeff!

I was just looking for the source that stated that Sweden and Denmark would play a play-off when I found two colliding press releases: UEFA says indeed that Sweden has qualified whereas FIFA had stated before the tournament that in the case that has arrived now there would be a play-off. So as there there are two different releases: what to do?

Greetings. --EBB 14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit: Found the following information from the Swedish national association which states that there will be a Olympics qualification against Denmark in November. So I'll change back the entry for the Olympics for the moment. Greetings. --141.35.12.160 14:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Second edit: To make things even messier Denmark's FA has not (yet?) included such a match in its schedule. --141.35.12.160 14:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Benders
Hi, the articles you mention do not state that the players have actually played in the first team or I wouldn't have PRODded them. The articles don't give any information about first team appearances, should they do so they would clearly meet the notability criteria. Without stating that they have played the articles do not asset notability. I hope this answers your question. English  peasant  19:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: TFC Roster
Thanks for the clarification, I had completely forgotten to check the roster page at TFC for confirmation. I guess it's probably that it is so infrequently updated. Lucky Strike (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

If the "Changes for/during the 2008 season" is fit for Wikinews, alright, but do you not think it would be good to keep it with the main TFC page for the sake of having everything in one place? Cheers! Lucky Strike (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

How about the signings of Laurent Robert and Amado Guevara? These were made in-season; what's your take on those? In your opinion, should there be a list for them (and other potential roster moves during the season)? Lucky Strike (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

I just saw and it works for me. Very nice, good work! Lucky Strike (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Lckystrke

Statistics
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia by updating the statistics in. Unfortunately your recent edit(s) has been reverted. This is because the guidelines from the WikiProject on Ice Hockey state that season statistics may only be updated when the season has ended. This is for maintaining a high standard and accuracy on all hockey players articles on Wikipedia. We understand that your edit was in good faith and hope that you understand our objectives. If you have any questions, please visit us at the WikiProject on Ice Hockey's talk page. Djsasso (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008 edition of the WikiProject Germany newsletter
This newsletter is delivered by a bot to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, -  Newsletter Bot ' Talk  15:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)''

DFB Pokal 2007-08
I need an explanation or apologize about your revert on UEFA Cup 2008-09 article. The two teams of the DFB Pokal final are Bayern and Dortmund, but your revert shows that Dortmund won the DFB Pokal. However, DFB Pokal final HAVE NOT take place. It seems you are crystalballing. Please give me a proper explanation. Raymond Giggs 02:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I admit that is a good method. Raymond Giggs 03:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um... I think do not have to do so. When we started to work on the article when the competition starts, the qualification does not important then. Raymond Giggs 04:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops! You are right! Sorry. Raymond Giggs 04:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries
But at least now you know how edit summaries work. Have a good one. --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  14:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bundesliga league table
Why did you revert my good faith cleanup of the Bundesliga 2007-08 league table? As I saw it, the numbers were all out of alignment, and my edit reduced the file size of the article by more than half a kB. Furthermore, the E# column made no sense, as it is intended for use in leagues that do not involve ties. The Bundesliga, however, involves drawn games, and so the E# is irrelevant. – PeeJay 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your point, but why does the Bundesliga table need this column in it? Is it really that important? IMO, the only things needed for a league table are Position, Team name, Games played, Games won, Games drawn, Games lost, Goals scored, Goals conceded, Goal difference and Points. Anything else is just superfluous. – PeeJay 15:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the formula is really poorly explained. Honestly, I see this as a really lame attempt by Americans to introduce yet more pointless statistics into sport. The number of useless statistics in baseball alone should be an indicator of that.
 * Also, how was Bayern's "magic number" calculated? Why is it 25? – PeeJay 15:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

CL Bracket
Hello! After seeing you and Grant.Alpaugh revert each other on the UEFA Champions League 2007-08, I made some adjustments to the bracket template. I also had MU on two lines before (on my 1024x768 resolution), and now it's fixed. Please inform me if now it shows up fine on your computer too!   A R  TYOM    15:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, wos up?
Grant.Alpaugh called u a vandal :) He's thinking that he is a one can changing the MLS page! US - Jimmy Slade (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh
You're not alone :) US - Jimmy Slade (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Following?
I saw the comment about the Bundesliga on your page like three sections above this one. I know PeeJay from our work on the UEFA Champions Leauge and UEFA Cup brackets, and I made a comment on his page about a rather arrogant and dismissive remark about Americans he made on your talk page. Please, don't flatter yourself. --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jimmy is a troll who has been linked to multiple instances of sockpuppetry. I called him on it and his vandalism of the Major League Soccer article and he has continued to harass me since.  Take a look at User:LASurfer if you don't believe me.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  17:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, he's not a sockpuppet, LASurfer, which no longer exists thanks to the admin who settled our dispute, was a sockpuppet of Jimmy's or a friend of his. It's unclear, but until he decided to start messing with the Major League Soccer article again today, he wasn't a problem for a few days, so maybe I will.  One thing is for certain, he's definitely annoying.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

NHL Coaches
I only did that for consistancy's sake. Except for Tortarella and Maurice, the other 07-08 coaches didn't use that format. Mr. Vitale (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok well its not important to me, but most coaching articles have generally used the other format. And most have had the team's name in initials (like PIT for the Pens) instead of writing them out. Mr. Vitale (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Any coaching box I have made has not used W-L records for the playoffs. I've only included result (round in which they lost or if they won the Cup).Mr. Vitale (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooops, sorry. I misread. But yeah, you should put those in, the more info the better the encylopedia, right?Mr. Vitale (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bayern Munich
Both Hamburger and Stuttgart can still overtake Bayern on goal difference, so they can still finish 4th/5th Even if the league goes on head-to-head record, Bayern and Stuttgart stil have to play each other.

In respect to which UEFA spot they get, I always interpretted that the cup winner place took priority over others by UEFA rules. It happens in England anyway. If you're sure about Germany then I'll have to take your word on it. talk 22:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, judging by your response I think you've misunderstood me. It doesn't matter though. I'll trust you're right. Aheyfromhome (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Cup entrants
I don't know if that is always the case but it is the case in Scotland. Last season Aberdeen finished third in the league and started the UEFA Cup in Round 1 whereas Dunfermline Athletic were in the Cup Final and started in the Second Qualifying Round. Darryl.matheson (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's because Dumfermline were the losing cup finalist and not the winner. Losing finalists get the worst entry point because, well, they haven't technically earned it as such. The regs] explain that part, but the priority of places awarded isn't explicitly explained. CW places are definately given out first if it makes a difference in entry point, and I swear i remember examples when it hasnt made a difference and the CW is given out first. I'll dig around for my own curiosity and let you no if I find anything solid. :) Aheyfromhome (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Soccernet vs. BBC
Yes. I don't think "reputable" was the right word to use. It's just that the BBC is from the relevant country so it's a bit closer to the source. Aheyfromhome (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Addbot (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC) This has been an automatic notification from .. If this was reported in error, please contact the bot's owner.

Bayern Munich
Yeah, which is why they get a mention in the referencing note like eveyone who hasn't got a definate entry point.Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews
Wikinews articles are intended to be placed on articles that they are directly related to. If there was a Wikinews category for articles related directly to Manchester United or the Champions League final, then perhaps we could link to those, but an article about the Champions League semi-final is not related closely enough to either topic to warrant a link to it. – PeeJay 16:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And another thing... It's not even a good WikiNews article! – PeeJay 16:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Cup
In the unlikely event that the game starts but it is cancelled half way through for whatever reason (bad weather, terrorism, etc.), then UEFA may call for a replay. In thise scenario Pogrebnyak might be able to play a replay. Also, Zenit could appeal the yellow card and get it rescinded. Bottom line is that Zenit are still active in this tournament and therefore so is Pavel Pogrebnyak. --Tocino 21:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA, WP:GOODFAITH
Please refrain from making personal attacks against me on my talk page or I will report your behavior. Also, please assume good faith regarding my discussion posts. I added a vote to a previous reply, but it was removed because of an edit conflict, and I neglected to readd it until I noticed the other vote was the first one saved. You're taking this all much to personally, and I would advise you to rethink your tone in this discussion. --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm saying your attempts to call me a coward were a personal attack. My lack of a vote until after there was another vote was oversight on my part due to an edit conflict.  I moved the block reply text I had added and did not think to move my vote.  I only noticed my oversight after there was another vote (which only happened to be for WDL) and I added my vote.  Please assume good faith in the future and refrain from personal attacks.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  19:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you talking about? --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  21:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why I said nevermind. I was unclear about the threshold.  You have my apologies.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  00:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Before you go all nuts on me, I'm not a sock. I got my roommate in my apartment (we're on the same internet connection) to make an edit, just as you called on User:Otav347 to make edits for you in order not to violate the 3RR.  You asked him on his talk page to take over for you because you were out of reverts for 22 hours.  I didn't do anything worse than you did, I just happen to live in the same apartment as my buddy.  Calm down.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  02:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the copy from his talk page:


 * Can you revert Template:2008 MLS standings - Eastern, Template:2008 MLS standings - Western and Template:2008 MLS standings - Overall. I'm at my 3rd revert on each of them and can't make anymore for like the next 22 hours. Kingjeff (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But he has made 3 reverts by reverting my 3 reverts on each of them. He isn't entitled on making anymore reverts on these 3 templates. Kingjeff (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So if I'm guilty then so are you. --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  02:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also think its particularly hillarious that you accused everyone who voted along with me of being a sock of mine. You do realize that a number of those people have disagreed with me in the past about a number of footy issues, don't you?  Your attempts to make frivilous accusations against me are petty, and constitute a personal attack.  This dates back to some disagreement we had months ago that somehow involved User:US - Jimmy Slade, someone who actually is involved with sockpuppetry.  Does that make you a sockpuppeter as well?  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  02:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You've made repeated personal attacks against me on my talk page, article talk pages, and user summaries, regarding this dispute. If I don't recieve an apology for, or a striking through of the comments, within a few hours time, I'm reporting you for violating WP:GOODFAITH and WP:NPA. --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  02:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're taking this way too seriously and personally, Jeff. Your last comment on my talk page was a blatant violation of WP:GOODFAITH.  I've done nothing to warrent these attacks, aside from disagree with you on a talk page.  Please, stop.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  03:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good faith is always required, especially when I haven't done anything to make you doubt it. I haven't done anything to you other than mistakenly call you a vandal in an edit summary a month ago, and now I'm being dragged through the mud not once but twice, first with US - Jimmy Slade, and now about this article.  Seriously, man, give it a rest already.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  03:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The repeated personal attacks have nothing to do with that, though, and they warrent an apology. The IP edit is no worse than what you did with Otav, so don't be a hypocrite.  You're taking this personally, which is never kosher.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  03:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing I have done has warrented personal attacks. That is simply inexcusable.  You threw good faith out the window well before this IP issue, and you have repeatedly called me a coward, and repeatedly insinuated that I am some kind of shifty jerk that shouldn't be trusted.  Otav was a bigger man and admitted he took things too personally, why can't you?  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  03:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's another personal attack. That's it.  I'm seeking an admin's intervention.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  03:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

W-L-T
I took the liberty of changing back the 2008 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup qualification page because he did the exact same thing there, not talking about it first. --Otav347 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC) I wish I could change them back right now, but the guy just won't give up. I keep throwing more ammo at him and he gives me the same lines like "well, ESPN and FSC use them" and "it's the international standard". --Otav347 (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of sock-puppetry
I can't believe your accusation and inference that I am a sock puppet of another user. Just because I happen to agree with Grant Alpgaugh (on this occasion) and disagree with you, does not mean anything other than I can think for myself. Please remove my user account from the list of accounts you are accusing. - fchd (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To add to the above, whilst I am assuming good faith in your conduct, I find it quite amazing that you have also added my name to that list. Try checking my profile. Try checking my edit history and my profile. You are making totally unfounded accusations (and very easily proven false accusations which are also frivilous in the extreme) against me simply because I chose to vote in a poll and you disagree with my vote. The only reason I even voted was because it was brought up at the WP:FOOTY project, which I have been a member of for some time, asking for input. So I voted. I find it quite appalling that you have included my name in that list. Please also remove my name from that list and pease refrain from making accusations against other users without evidence. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 15:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "templates", by which I presume you mean userboxes, on my userpage and everything to do with the easily proveable fact that you are 100% wrong in your accusation against me. I also never said that it you were wrong because of "templates" on my profile. I said you were wrong simply because you are wrong. I note that you didn't mention though that a quick check of my edit history would confirm I am no sockpuppet of anyone. I don't care about your disagreement with Grant.Aplpaugh. Nor am I really that bothered about the template issue, I only voted the way I did because I thought that was the best way. If it is WLT then fine, it doesn't really matter to me one iota. All I did was react as a member of the WP:FOOTY project, which I have been a member of for a long time, to a request to look at that poll. And by doing that you have simply chosen to accuse anyone who voted in a way you didn't like to be a sockpuppet. I am quite happy though to wait for the result of the sockpuppetry case as you are in the wrong. I don't "play games" and once this has been proven I would hope that you have the good grace to withdraw your accusation and apologise. All that needs happen now though is for you to wait and see the result. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 19:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is very simple, you will be proven wrong when I hope you will have the good grace to apologise. I have also never at any point said, nor implied that I was "worried". Quite the opposite - I have nothing to worry about and am quite happy to wait for the result. I just find it quite sad and a litlle concerning that another wikipedia user chooses to accuse other users of "voting fraud" and sockpuppettry based on a vote in a poll and nothing else, simply because they don't like the way they voted. And to be honest I had thought of striking my vote before all this arose as I thought that maybe I was an outsider. I would though ask you to wait now and stop discussing this with me until this has been resolved. Then we will see who is right and who is wrong. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 19:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for at least offering to apologise to "the innocent users" which I can assure you will include me. Unlike some people though I don't appreciate things like this when it is based on a vote and nothing else and also when a check of my edit history and the articles I edit, would show that virtually all of them are related to British topics, English football, British tv etc including I'd Do Anything (BBC TV series) - an article I created about a current British tv programme which I edit every week live as I watch it, and Jodie Prenger an article about a contestant on that show from Blackpool, whcih I created. And articles I have created such as Yorkshire Seasiders, Leyland & Chorley Seasiders and Kincraig Lake Ecological Reserve - about a small lake near where I live in Bispham and which has photographs that I took and added to the article. It would not have been hard to check my edit history before including me in all of this rather than just diving straight in. But as I said above, we shall see when the issue is resolved, which will hopefully happen sooner rather than later. And again I would ask that you now wait for that result. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 19:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
Hello, Kingjeff. I realize that given events with which you are currently involved you may be upset and that this is likely a sensitive issue, but I'd like to ask you to please be careful about the tone of the comments you make to and about User:Grant.Alpaugh, with whom you are evidently currently involved in a content dispute and against whom you have lodged allegations of sock puppetry at Suspected sock puppets/Grant.Alpaugh. It is not my intention to inflame the situation. I am hoping to de-escalate tensions pending resolution of the issues between you.

The situation was brought to my attention on my talk page by Grant.Alpaugh, with whom I interacted briefly in early April after his page was vandalized by what investigation held to be a sock puppet of User:US - Jimmy Slade (see the log for the blocked sock account.) I understand following the message Grant left me that the tone of your conversations was probably set by his misidentification of an edit of yours as "vandalism", here. I am explaining to him why such misidentifications are themselves problematic with regards to the civility policy and WP:AGF. But regardless of the history between you or the ongoing investigation, I am asking you please to avoid making personal comments about this user, such as your recent reference to his "little games". They will not help resolve the question of circumventing 3RR or resolve the content issue; they only run the risk of putting you afoul of policy yourself. Your concerns about his behavior will be addressed through process, and it's important that we keep the tone appropriate throughout.

Please let me know here if you'd like to discuss this further. I prefer to keep conversations in one location and will be "watching" your page until I'm reasonably sure that you do not choose to respond. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) Thank you for following up with me, Kingjeff. I'm responding here as this remains where the "bulk" of the conversation has occurred. Again, I'm watching your user talkpage, so if you choose to respond here I will see it.


 * I agree with you that the edits of the IP editor in question are a matter of concern. Even assuming good faith and taking Grant's word that this was his roommate, these edits are inconsistent with Sock puppet, and I've pointed out to him the sections dealing with "meatpuppets" and "roommates" to explain why requesting that his roommate make any edits to the article is not a good idea. I'm not suggesting that you withdraw your complaint or trying to imply that it's ungrounded. All I'm requesting of you is that you restrict your comments about this editor to the issues to try to remain within the boundaries of WP:CIVIL as all this is resolved. It will simplify matters all around. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've responded at my talk page, since there's a new conversational thread, but I just wanted to thank you for the tone of your communication there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As would I. Thank you.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  03:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thanking you for improving your tone. --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  04:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

MLS edit war
As the edit warring has continued I have protected the templates. It was either that or block you both. 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. As it states on WP:3RR, Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser
Hi Kingjeff. You may have noticed I alerted the various accused "socks" as to the accusations you were levelling against them. If this sort of thing should occur in future then I'd encourage you to at least let the people you're accusing know that you're accusing them. Also, since the accusations have now proved unfounded, I recommend you make a personal apology to each of the editors in question, not just a general, single-sentence apology on the sockpuppet page. It wouldn't do any harm to speak personally with those editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think you e/c beat me to it. Nice.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is you dragged several completely innocent editors into a debate over sockpuppets. They deserve your apology.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw that but I think it would be a good gesture to apologise personally. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Kingjeff, you have not apologised to each of the users as you have simply left a general apology about "having to" involve innocent users (without saying who nor apologising to each user individually), in this on the sockpuppetry page. Whilst I do applaud you for adding the general apology on that page, when you say in reply to the above that you have left it there "for everyone to see", you do realise that not everyone you accused might even read that page and therefore not be aware that you have apologised? The only reason I know is that I chose to add that page to my watchlist otherwise I would not know. And when you say "Apologies have been made to inncent individual users involved" again no you haven't you have left a general apology on that page only. You made it quite clear initially from your comments on my talk page when I asked you to remove my name from that list that you did not believe me and you should in my opinion be apologising to each user individually. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 18:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Kingjeff, I'd rather you reserved your opinion on the matter of socking until the SSP case is closed by an uninvolved admin, to be honest. Furthermore, re. comments like this where you talk about "deal[ing] with people like" User:Grant.Alpaugh, may I remind you about our policies on assuming good faith and personal attacks upon your fellow-editors. May I suggest you withdraw somewhat from all this as it's clear that you are taking this matter far too personally - A l is o n  ❤ 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "If assuming good faith was mean for every situation then nobody would ever get blocked in Wikipedia. I did assume good faith at the begining. Assuming good faith doesn't mean turning a blind eye to how he has acted with me." - rubbish. People are blocked all the time.  Your good faith extended as far as Grant, and then following a content dispute with him, you implicated a number of other editors who had done nothing other than to disagree with you.  I think the phrase "trigger happy" applies here.  Hurling utterly unfounded accusations at established Wikipedians will not end happily.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You managed to identify that Grant and his IP had edited the same article. As for the other editors you embroiled in your crusade?  I repeat, hurling utterly unfounded accusations at established Wikipedians will not end happily.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And besides the fact they disagreed with you (and goodness me, I've known hundreds of Wikipedians to disagree with me) what additional evidence did you have to convince you the accounts were socks? You took far too many steps into the unfounded I'm afraid.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "As I said before, the accusations were thrown at Grant. " sorry - you namechecked half a dozen established editors (without notifying them) claiming them to be socks of Grant. Imagine how they feel?  I think if you'd have spent five minutes looking into the edit history of the editors you accused of being socks, this whole sorry episode would have been avoided.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't get it. Some of these editors have been around for months/years, editing in different articles, with different styles and opinions and you accused them all of being socks.  It was poor behaviour.  Simple as that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "You're allowed to your opinion. " very generous. And I'm also here to ensure you don't wreck other editor's time by false accusation.  You know about the boy who cried wolf presumably.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, and in reply to this message you left on my talk page, "I'm not sorry for accusing Grant of this but I'm sorry he forced me to have to involve innocent users." That really is not on. You are still not taking any responsibility for your actions and you are now blaming someone else (Grant) for you involving me and for you accusing me of Voting fraud. Grant did not force you to involve me one iota - no-one did other than you. You did that yourself without anyone else telling you to do soand it really is time that you accepted responsibility for that instead of putting the blame solely on Grant. You are both responsible for this and I have had enough of it. You are resonsible for your own actions, no-one else is responsible for your actions in the same way we all are responsible for our own actions, myself included. Also you involved me in all of this without even a grain of evidence. As Rambling Man says above, can you not understand how I feel about this? You didn't even bother to tell me or any of the others you accused about this. I had to find out from Rambling Man who informed everyone involved. I really do not care about your dispute with Grant it is between the two of you. And whilst you have apologised in general on that page, and whilst you have also apologised (eventually after it being brought up and mentioned to you) to all the other users on their talk pages you have still not apologised to me other than "I'm sorry he forced me to have to involve innocent users" which is not an apology, which takes no responsibility, and is still blaming Grant for your own actions. However, I really have had enough of this now and of your refusal to accept any responsibilty whatsoever. This is all about something ridiculously trivial. You have brought all this on yourself (both of you). Please stop and think about how others feel.

edited to add: I will also add that I have done nothing to deserve all this other than try and contribute to wikipedia. It is not about "opinions" it is about respect. You informed no-one they were accused of being a sockpuppet other than Grant. You only apologised on users pages after a number of messages left on this page suggesting you do so, and you are still coming across as not accepting responsibility for your own actions, preferring to blame others. It has come to something when a simple vote on a poll is the sole reason used to get a user listed as a suspected sockpuppet and accused of voting fraud. And what you don't even stop to think is that you could very easily have persuaded me to change my mind over my vote as I mentioned to previously had you been less antagonistic and insistent in your accusations. And with regard to this left on Rambling Mans page, "They didn't need to be notified since this was about Grant and nobody else". How on earth can you say this was this "about Grant and nobody else" when you included me and numerous others in this, and you made accusations against us? As I said above it is about respect. I'm sorryt but to not even bother to inform us shows a total lack of respect. You involved us. You then gave us no right of reply. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Bavaria
I added a comment to WikiProject Bavaria proposal. -- GregManninLB (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikinews
I added a comment to WikiProject Wikinews. -- GregManninLB (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews invitation
Yea that sounds interesting. How do I go about this? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did make an account yesterday but I haven't checked my email for the verification code. I will for sure get started on there next week as I am very busy this week and I want to get some more work done on here aswell (I want to finish those Hoffenheim player articles!!!!). But I will let you know next week sometime for sure. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Euro 2008 standings
Portugal and Croatia are guaranteed group winners' because even if Czech Republic or Germany level on points in the last round, their head to head records against Portugal and Croatia is not enough to win the group (Since Croatia have beaten Germany, and Portugal have beaten the Czechs). Timbouctou (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Championship
I assume what y9ou mean by magic number is how many poinst they need to put Vancouver out. But that doesn't matter. Vancouver will win, balls to the wall. Sebrango shall get a hat trick in each game against Toronto. NeilCanada (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball Newsletter
--  jj137   ( talk )  03:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

TFC Page: "Other Matches" Category
Hello again! I feel really bad for saying this but the coaches table was not meant to take into account friendlies and other pre-season matches. I've wanted to place a notice to this effect, visible only while editing but I was never sure how. As for the other guy who keeps reverting me (he replaces "other matches" with "Canadian Championship), well... I guess I'll deal with that. I figure he means that only Canadian Championship matches have been played thus far, but it makes sense to have the category include all competitive matches other than MLS matches and playoff matches. What's your take on that one?

Lucky Strike (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

---

I see where you're coming from but with a separate column/total for the Canadian Championship AND the SuperLiga AND the CONCACAF Champions League, the table gets to be pretty unwieldy. Ideally, people should be able to have a quick glance and instantly know what's what. Lucky Strike (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

---

It makes sense but your reasoning is exactly why I believe there should be a catchall category. Because participation in Superliga and CONCACAF Champions League is not guaranteed, we may end up seeing a ton of zeroes or dashes indicating that no games have been played. It would make the separated categories redundant. Lucky Strike (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

---

But that's just the thing, there WILL be other matches and a good records table should take that into account. But even setting that aside, why remove the playoff portion? They're an integral part of the MLS. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't follow why the table shouldn't be comprehensive and complete. I understand it when you say that there haven't been playoff matches or Superliga and Champions League matches, but it seems that people who read the article should know that the potential for these matches exists. Lucky Strike (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Lckystrke

---

I was saying that with separate sections for all three tournaments we would get a ton of zeroes until some matches are played. With all three competitions rolled into one, we avoid that.

P.S. Somehow the table got all messed up by an edit - I restored it to the previous format because I wanted to include the most recent 0-0 draw into it. I didn't do it out of disrespect for your opinion, it's just that I'm familiar with this format and wanted to keep the table up-to-date. It would have taken me longer to de-bug the table and include the new results. I do indeed want to continue the discussion. Lucky Strike (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

Re: Stephan Fürstner
Hi Kingjeff!

I would not presume to be 100% sure, that he has not been loaned out. But: a) there is no article to be found, that he has been loaned out b) he is on various nonofficial sites listed as part of the team c) Bayern lists him still as part of their amateur team d) he has a professional contract at Bayern since 2006 till 2010 e) he had just one appearance in the two recent years

As wikipedia is an Encyclopedia I try not to be guessing, but the only logical explanation I have for that is, that he is not considered to be fully a part of the professional squad, though he has a professional contract. Question is whether he should be included on the Bayern-wikipedia page then.

Actually, I think this is something other people would wonder about, too. So if you don't mind I'd like to copy the content of our discussion (if you care to name it so) to the Bayern-Talk page.

Regards, OdinFK (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. – PeeJay 16:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't give me that crap. You're both involved because neither of you refuses to back down. I know I'm probably the last person who should be giving advice about how to handle an edit war, but if you could have just left it until the situation was resolved on the talk page, maybe the page wouldn't have had to be protected. Same goes for Grant. And yes, I know I'm involved in the discussion, but someone had to give you both a warning and it might as well have been me. – PeeJay 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You should both back down as you're both being arrogant assholes. Wikipedia does not work by people reverting each other ad infinitum until the other one backs down. An addition to the article has been presented and supported, I'll grant you that. However, it has also been opposed. Therefore, a discussion should be conducted to determine consensus on whether or not to include said addition. Until said consensus has been determined, the addition should remain un-added. – PeeJay 20:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You would be right if reverting an article three times within 24 hours wasn't an offence any more. Nevertheless, that's what you did. I gave you a warning for it, so let's leave it at that. Contribute to the discussion, and please, don't be afraid to compromise. – PeeJay 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I've never been to Egypt. – PeeJay 22:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Cup 2008-09
Hi Stifle,

I think you should revert the last edit before you protected the article. If no consensus is reached then I think the 2nd last edit would stand as what it should be. Kingjeff (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Even admins shouldn't edit protected pages other than to fix typos or remove libel etc. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. But I'm not asking you to just make any edit. It should be to what version you think it should be at. Kingjeff (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not my job. It would be against the protection policy for me to revert and then protect, or to protect and then revert. If you feel the page should be at another version, just come to a consensus on the talk page and request unprotection. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vote move
To be honest, I would accept any decision as long as the edit warring will not start again once the protection is lifted within two hours time. Hockey-holic (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was aware of that. Sorry, I might occasionally express myself a little too vague or unclear due to a recent lack of English language training. Hockey-holic (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Goal line
I have played and watched football for more than forty years, and I have always known the lines either side of the goals as the bye line. Where does it say they are known as the goal line?


 * Hmmm, that's a new one to me. Why is bye line informal and goal line not? Jack forbes (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also the term bye kick. Surely that's not informal to, or am I oldfashioned? Jack forbes (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Trust me, it used to be called that, ask some of the older referees. But if you tell me it is no longer termed that way I will take your word for it. :) Jack forbes (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Scotland, Glasgow to be specific. Perhaps your right. When you are brought up using certain terminologys you tend to think they are official. Jack forbes (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your post
I don't know anything about the subject, but I've asked a question on the article talk page. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Max Grün
An article that you have been involved in editing, Max Grün, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Max Grün. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? TerriersFan (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

October Baseball WikiProject Newsletter
--  jj137   ( talk )  00:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Munich
Portal:Munich, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Munich and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Munich during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. B (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hertha BSC
You may want to poke your nose in at Talk:Hertha_Berlin as we've got a consensus shaping up as to where the Hertha Berlin article should reside and you should be aware as an interested editor. Thanks. Wiggy! (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Overall Standings Template
We're having a conversation here about the standings template creation/usage and my guess is the discussion is about to get interesting (shortly after 4:55pm PST to be exact ). It would be great for you to share your opinion on the matter when you get a chance. --SkotywaTalk 23:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that a request for comment on Grant.Alpaugh has been opened and your experiences are welcome. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Current sport
Regarding this edit: So? Once again, please read Template:Current sport, especially the part that says "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic". The UEFA Cup 2008–09 certainly is a major tournament, and by common definition it is a current event, but it is not a current event by our definition. These templates exist to warn our readers about rapidly changing articles, they do not exist to tell our readers that something is currently ongoing. --Conti|✉ 09:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

UEFA Europa League 2009–10
I can't see why you have reverted by edit on the above page, all I did was add the current article name as the link, while leaving the reduced name as the display name. This is the standard way of doing that sort of thing on Wikipedia if you don't wish to display the full article title within another article, and simplifies the load for the servers as they don't need to process a redirect when loading the page. - fchd (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bayern Munich protection
Hi -

Thanks for the message. I'm not a soccer fan so I can't pretend to be familiar with international roster rules. I'm an NFL and MLB girl. If you would like protection lifted sooner or feel that protection should be extended, you know the way to RFPP, or you can ask me and I'll take a look. :-) Thanks again. - Krakatoa  Katie  00:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay - I'll put it on my calendar. Thanks! - 00:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Transfer Windows
Matthew_hk  t ' c   Matthew_hk   t ' c  15:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Matthew_hk  t  c  15:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Group Stage (2nd place)
Hi! Your good faith edit at the template was reverted, because though the stats you posted indeed are Russia's stats, games against the 6th ranked team in the group should be excluded on that listing, which leads to the stats that were listed beforehand.Lejman (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, they should have 7 games played.Lejman (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

German sources
Perhaps you can help w/the discussion here?--68.173.96.196 (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Kingjeff! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Marius Ebbers -
 * 2) Oliver Schröder -

CfD nomination of Category:Munich sports
I have nominated munich sports for merging into sport in munich. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Svick (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Medicinernes Skiklub Svartor
Hello. I am contacting you because you are listed as a participant for WikiProject Norway, and the above-mentioned article is sourced by all Norwegian-language references. Moreover, the references do not appear to support notability; they might be mere trivial references to the subject. Since these sources are all offline, and I do not speak or read Norwegian, I'm hoping whether you can assist me in determining whether the article qualifies for speedy deletion. Many thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh
Nice to see that your userpage is still as misleading as ever, Jeff. Nevertheless, thanks for the vote of no confidence, but I hope to prove you wrong. Joking aside, I'm sorry for all of the conflict over the years, and I look forward to working with you productively in the future. Have a good one. --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  19:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of all, I think it is the sunny disposition that you project into your correspondance, which people find endearing. For the record, we've been in communication since at least 2008.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  02:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  15:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

An honest question: Does "Bayern" translate as "Bavaria" or "Bavarian?" --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  01:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

2009–10 UEFA Champions League
What makes you think that this article is worthy of Top-importance? Just because it is current? – PeeJay 07:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The importance of an article should not change depending on whether it is current or not. It should be judged based on the importance of the article to the Project. A single season of the Champions League should be no more important than any other season, and hence they are all rated as Low-Importance (or Mid-Importance at the very most). No individual season article should ever be rated as Top-Importance. – PeeJay 20:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw it, and it wasn't a very good reason. People don't read articles based on their importance rating. That rating is for the Project, not the casual reader. The article should be rated as Low-Importance. – PeeJay 21:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on your opinion of the issue, I'd say I am more of an authority on this than you. Please see WP:WPFA and you will notice that season articles should be rated as Low-Importance. – PeeJay 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've shown you why you are wrong. Please don't make an issue out of this. Just accept that your change was wrong. – PeeJay 21:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because you are. – PeeJay 21:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of degrees of wrongness, you're just wrong. No individual season article should be rated as Top-Importance for any reason. Top-Importance is reserved for articles that are integral to the topic, such as Association football, FIFA, UEFA, etc. – PeeJay 21:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You may think that an individual season of the Champions League is integral to the topic, but it really isn't. Even the UEFA Champions League main article should only be High-Importance. – PeeJay 21:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't understand the situation. Take it up with WP:FOOTY. They'll tell you exactly the same as I have. – PeeJay 21:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Invite
Jeff, thanks for the invite, but due to my having just gotten a new job, I've greatly reduced my activity on the site. So, I'm greatful for the invite, and I'm more than interested, but please know that if I join my input will be minimul for the next several months. All the best. --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  00:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm definitely interested. I just wanted to emphasize that I won't be playing that significant a role for the next 6 months or so.  I'm working for Bill O'Neill on his campaign for the United States House of Representatives in the Ohio 14th, so I'm booked pretty solid until November, much like Wyclef.  --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  01:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for my invite as well. I'm not a huge football fan. I only follow to clubs and have been trying to add to the Canadian pages and the USSF-D2 pages a bit. I don't know what I would have to offer. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: 2009–10 in Austrian football
Sorry, I have to disagree. The sections were removed from all 2009–10 UEFA league season articles a couple of days ago because they were not within the scope of these articles, which is the summarization of the results and events of the domestic league season only. However, more input on the matter would be good, so I would suggest to take your proposal up for discussion at WT:FOOTY. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * a. I don't know why the Austrian articles in general are neglected. I don't know either what this has to do with the issue.
 * b. Disagree again. The issue should either be discussed at the WP:FSATF talk page or at WT:FOOTY as this is a season-specific issue.

Toronto FC
Hi Kingjeff. I've removed your GA nomination for Toronto FC as the article would have failed the nomination if I did a full review. Particularly, there is a lack of citations in several sections that would have to be rectified before this article could be passed as a GA. Since you never added the GAN template to the article's talk page, I simply removed the nomination. If you would like me to do a full review anyway, let me know, and I'll give my thoughts. Thanks! Resolute 18:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll try to do an unofficial GA review either tonight or tomorrow on the article's talk page. Resolute 21:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Atletico Madrid
You mean if Athletico got a domestic spot as either cup winners or runners-up and then won the Europa League? Nah. The spot for the Title Holder is implemented as kind-of an after-thought after all the teams have qualified by their various means. The allocation spots for all the countries are filled up regardless of the situation, and then afterwards the Title Holder gets yanked into the Group Stage from whatever position they may be in. If they're already in Europa League then they get moved from wherever they are and the other entrants get moved around a bit to compensate, but their place isn't retroactively given to a different team from the same country. Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To your first comment// - Yeah, that's what 2010–11 UEFA Europa League section is all about. It explains which teams get moved about in order to compensate if one of Spain's spots is left vacant. The section got moved down a step in the heading-system and got buried in the text in recent edits. I might make it stand out a bit more.
 * To your second comment// - The article you read was probably concerning the possibility that England would get a Fair-Play spot (we were 3rd in the interim January list). There's been a bit of talk about that because Fulham were in line to get our Fair Play spot, but if they won the Europa League then that spot would instead go to Burnley, who were (interestingly) relegated from the Premier League. The article was probably saying that if Fulham won the Europa League, then Burnley would qualify for the Europa League, but that's only because of the Fair Play situation (which we haven't got now anyway) :) Aheyfromhome (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. My wires got crossed. Yes, the Title Holder is an added entry for their country and does not in any way affect the other qualifiers from their country (as long as the Title Holders themselves are not one of those qualifiers). Sorry, with your first question I assumed you meant something which was more complex than your question said. (and then I missed that 7 places + TH + FP = 9, not 8)
 * "Would the 7th place team not get in if Atletico Madrid win the Europa League?" - If Sevilla finish 5th in the league and win the Cop del Rey, then 5th 6th and 7th in the league will all qualify for the Europa League. If Athletico then won the Europa League, they would be an added entrant and would not effect the other Spaniards. Aheyfromhome (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Austria Vienna
A football club is not a "football competition". I also don't understand why you have set this up as a separate project. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:TPOC. Particularly, removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrator
Yes I am. What do you need? Resolute 19:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Off hand, I don't see anything that would require administrative intervention from your dispute with WP:FOOTY. On the surface, there seems to be a great deal of overlap between your proposed project and that of the season article task force.  Your best bet is to try and convince other editors interested in association football articles on the value of this separate project. Resolute 16:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As you are the only person advocating for this project against the objections of several others, consensus seems to be reasonably clear at this point. Reverting and protecting in the face of that would be an abuse of the admin tools. It might be more productive to work with the FOOTY project's task force. Resolute 19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Association Football competitions sidebar
Template:WikiProject Association Football competitions sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. – PeeJay 07:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Association Football competitions
Template:WikiProject Association Football competitions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. – PeeJay 07:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Bavaria
Thanks. I've done a few Bavarian articles already and am currently focussing on the Fichtelgebirge area (not least because we are holidaying there soon!). It's a great country! Gruß. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your creation of WikiProjects without authorisation. The thread is Creation of WikiProjects by User:Kingjeff. Thank you. – PeeJay 18:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: 1860 Munich
Your proposal sound interesting, however I don't actually know that much about the club, or the city of Munich. You'll notice that all my edits to the club's page have been about transfers. I must, therefore, respectfully decline your invitations. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich Task Force leadership
Thanks for your offer concerning the task forces, but I have to decline. I don't know what taking the leadership of a task force involves, but I'm afraid that it takes up too much time (and I'm already spending too much time on Wikipedia). --Jaellee (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich redirect
Thanks for the note; however, I'm not in the mood for an RFD. Unlike any of these five, the Munich redirect had already been deleted at RFD, so it qualified for speedy. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Owen Hargreaves GAN
Hi! I've had a look at the article, given it an initial review and placed it on hold. My comments are on the review page. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I had to fail the article as nothing had been done towards it and it still failed to give enough references. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Runner-up
Hi there JEFF, VASCO here,

Somewhere there is a discussion about football honours at the WPFOOTY forum (i remember i started it around April 2010, or early May), and there, there are many opinions that state that those should count, and i am one of them. Just think a while my friend, runner-up places in FIFA World Cups, UEFA Champions Leagues, UEFA Europa Leagues, etc, have all the merit in the world. You might say "so does a runner-up in the domestic league". Yes, but in the competitions i mentioned (in ALL), medals are awarded at the end, so it's an honour.

Also, i did not like how "user" 90.192.29.110 removed that bit in Hans-Jörg Butt, without one word in his summary, just removing stuff with a magic move. So, i reinstated it.

Cheers, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

MVG & MVV
The MVG is the Münchner Verkehrs Gesellschaft which operates the U-Bahn, Tram/Strassenbahn, and the vast majority of city-core bus service. The MVV is the Münchner Verkehrs- und Tarifverbund which is the regional transit "authority" of sorts, an association of numerous transit operators, the major two of whom are the above-mentioned MVG and S-Bahn München, a subsidiary of Deutsche Bahn. --Lapunkd (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ivica Olić
The article Ivica Olić you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ivica Olić for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. –Grondemar 16:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Milos Felix.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Milos Felix.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 22:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Image Screening Bot (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)