User talk:Oldelpaso/Archive 12

Neil Young et al
Hello. It's a very decent outline of Mr Young's life and career, and as you say well-timed, I hadn't realised he was that close to the end. As to St Andrew's, they probably assume away fans wouldn't start from there... we had a similar problem once at Upton Park. You could always email the club and suggest it'd be helpful to visitors if they put up a couple of signs. Unfortunately both ground and housing estate are right up against the railway; you were actually lucky the school are doing football parking again, it's a hell of a long way round otherwise. A walkway does exist behind the Gil Merrick, between it and the railway, but on grounds of safety and segregation it's not open for public use. I would have waved to you, but once your lot got the date changed I couldn't go :-( cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are Citeh getting relegated as well, then ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the match reports. That season article is getting out of control, but it's all facts and little depth. I have online access to the Birmingham Daily Post, but background stuff comes from more populist papers like the Sporting Mail or Birmingham Daily Gazette which sit offline in a library 170 miles away. Did you know... that for the April game against Ardwick, Matthews' BCFC Complete Record has an attendance figure of 1000, which makes it our extremely unlikely lowest crowd of the season, your book has 2000, and the Manchester Guardian and others have "about 4000", which is quite a range, even for guesstimates. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Daniels (footballer)
Hi there. I've created the article above, and after noticing the page you keep for uncreated Manchester City players when I was checking the links, I thought I'd let you know. Regards, —WFC— 18:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Unfortunately (as you may have guessed from the redlink) I have nothing beyond statistical info on him. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Malmö FF/archive1 FAC
Hi, Thanks for your review. I have replied to your comments. --Reckless182 (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers! I'm working hard to improve the article. I replied to your new comments. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed the section. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Razak etc
Neither of us are here for the purpose of arguing, I'm sure we can agree on that much. When it comes to biographies of living persons, yes, I am cautious. For example when Stephen Ireland first broke through, for some time his date of birth was wrong both here and elsewhere thanks to MCFC literature containing a mistake. Of course his level of experience at reserve level meant more sources on other biographical details were available for him than we've had with Razak. His rise from obscurity to the first team is so very unusual – he was not even listed in the match programme as having played at reserve or academy level (the Senior Cup match must have been after it went to press). No doubt with a potential 5 home games in 13 days he'll get plenty of space for a programme write-up (and some extra details) soon!

The unfortunate nature of talk pages is that they are more likely to carry disagreements than agreements, as silence usually implies assent. From your comments you have made it clear that your impression is that I consistently hold you and/or your actions in a negative light. Let me assure you that this is not the case. The three (I think) talk page discussions where I've expressed a difference of opinion are far, far outweighed by the number of times I have noticed your edits and thought they were absolutely fine. Its just that those don't require an explanation.

With regards to other activity, is 1967–68 Manchester City F.C. season the kind of thing you had in mind? It passed a WP:good article nomination only last month. I'm no photographer, as you can probably tell by the graininess of the Salzburg photo, taken with a completely inappropriate shutter setting. As you might expect, I'm usually more occupied with watching and hopefully enjoying the game than taking photos, and rarely have my camera with me. When I fluke a shot with some use, or if its of a ground that has nothing better in its article, I usually upload it to Commons. Maybe I'll manage a useful one in Thessaloniki. Oldelpaso (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your point that "silence usually implies assent" is well taken. WRT other activity, I've added a "Season review" section to each of the most recent season articles going all the way back to 2000-2001, with some of these sections being totally blank while others contain only a single paragraph stub of a possible review at best.  I wrote a four paragraph review of last season so that one probably requires less attention right now, not because I think that nothing more needs to be, or can possibly be, said there, but simply because it currently contains 3-4 paragraphs more than all the other seasons.  The review text in the current season article is way too premature - one should only write these things from the perspective of 20-20 hindsight - but it was added by me mostly to replace earlier text that I felt had been added to the article merely to undermine the club's reputation by pointing out how relatively poorly City performed during its pre-season campaign in comparison to its high rate of spending during the summer transfer window.


 * The text in the "Football League First Division" section of the 1967–68 Manchester City F.C. season article is exactly the sort of stuff we need added to all those currently empty and stubbed "Season review" sections. Not all seasons will require a match to be highlighted in the manner of the deciding match at Newcastle or the "Ballet on Ice" game, although the text for City's 4-3 comeback against Spurs most definitely should be added to that section of the season 2003-04 article.  For last season special mention of the end-of-season "Champions League Play-off Game" could be added, for instance.  There is already a brief mention of that game there but it could be expanded upon so that the coverage is more comparable with the one for the "Ballet on Ice" game (why is it always the games against Spurs that require these more detailed additions?!).  Similarly, the double over Chelsea and the games against Arsenal are also briefly mentioned, but the 4-2 win over Arsenal with the Adebayor episodes and/or the 4-2 win over Chelsea at Stamford Bridge with the Terry-Bridge brouhaha as background are other possibilities for more detailed expansion, as is the 3-4 loss at Old Trafford on extremely generous "Fergie time"!


 * Summary text similar to that of the "Background and pre-season" section of the 1967–68 Manchester City F.C. season article could also be added as lead-in to any of the season articles that currently contain a "Pre-season games" or "Friendly games" section (all articles since the season 2003-04 article, I believe). Finally, WRT photos, we probably don't need another one in the current season article, but the one we currently do have nicely fills up an area that would otherwise be "unused white-space" anyway.  If you felt that one of your photos from the Aris game is much better and more worthy of inclusion then we could simply substitute it.  My request pertained more to the other season articles.  Now that I've collapsed the whole of season 2008-09, there is a similar square of "unused white-space" in the "UEFA Cup" section of that article that could sport a photo image if you had one that was pertinent to the UEFA Cup run in that season. If we do flesh out the "Season review" sections of any of these articles so that they contain, say, nearer to ten or twelve paragraphs of text, then a more obvious place to include photos would be to visually break up and enhance such a solid block of text. Anyway, I'm sure you get the idea.   Mancini&#39;s Lasagne invite to Harry  Talk 21:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Association football
This article needs a significant amount of work to be brought back up to FA status. An editor has listed this article for FAR (see Featured article review/Association football/archive1), but due to the relatively new requirement that talk page notifications be made first, the review is being placed on hold. If work is completed on the article in the near future, the review does not need to proceed. You have been notified as you have been identified as a major contributor to the article. Please let me know if you have any questions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a look and added a few more references and cleaned up some old ones. I don't think it needs a "significant amount of work" though, particularly as it hasn't changed much since the last review.


 * Oh, and you only won because Houllier for some inexplicable reason decided to play the kids! ;) Woody (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Next issue is whether to update all the references to laws of the game in the references to the 2010/11 season's rulebook. I think it migght be useful, what do you think? Woody (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1969 FA Cup Final
The article 1969 FA Cup Final you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1969 FA Cup Final for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe Dorsett
I'll try and remember to take a look tonight........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm now re-united with my copy of Joyce, and he only lists one spell at City. He shows his career as follows:
 * Brownhills Albion (no dates)
 * West Brom 1908-1909 - 18 (3)
 * Man City 1910-1919 - 132 (17)
 * Colne (no dates)
 * Southend 1920 - 35 (3)
 * Millwall Ath 1921-1922 - 55 (0)
 * Dates given in the book always refer to seasons i.e. "1919" means "1919-20". So the above would imply that he spent part or all of 1919-20 with City, then went to Colne, before hooking up with Southend at some point in 1920-21.  The only way that fits with your sources is if he joined Colne after April 1920, then moved on to Southend at the start of (or pretty early in) 1920-21.  Not sure if that's really any help........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and MoS "debate" at 2010–11 Manchester City F.C. season
Sorry for the copy-pasta but I wanted to consult both yourself and PeeJay - I'm sure you'll understand where I'm coming from here. This is nothing more than a consultation, if I may? You may well already have seen the various stuff going on in the above linked article. While I don't disagree so wholly with the edits as Mancini's Lasagne does, I do broadly disagree with Digirami's assertion that it is an abomination that the said article does not look exactly like every other club's, nor that the existence of one infobox means that it MUST be used in all cases. However, I am unsure how to counter without simply be drawn into an edit war. Does Wikipedia policy really dictate that our article may not do things even a little differently, or is there actually a valid defence against Digirami doing what essentially seems to be a case of imprinting his layout of choice onto the said article? Falastur2 Talk 23:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * People are falsely using the concept of "consensus" to simply justify vandalizing articles. There is no consensus established for Infoboxes - it is something that is just talked about. If Digirami was really that concerned about consistency why is he not doing the same edits to the Chelsea and Liverpool season articles, for example. There is clearly a lot individuality expressed across ALL the Wikipedia football articles and I for one think they should be standardized, but without stifling the creativity behind them. My comment to Falastur2 on this matter six months ago (which I think he mistakenly took personally at the time) was that all the football articles looked like the product of a giant cluster-f**k. I'm all for fixing that. But only by keeping the good stuff and getting rid of / improving the bad stuff. Not by imposing all the chaff across everything else. You don't sacrifice quality in order to gain consistency. Nor do you have to, the two concepts are quite compatible.


 * What is happening to the MCFC season article right now is simply wrong. The changes Digirami is currently doing are only driven by a zealous attempt to force his own opinion on others by subverting all the standard methods established for harmonious editing. His initial edits were reverted first by me and then again by Falastur2. He hasn't yet established on the Talk page his case for doing any of his edits. Yet he is pursuing them anyway. Going ahead and redoing edits that have been reverted by two other editors is straightforward edit warring and is totally against the spirit and intent of Wikipedia. Whatever happened to the true concept of consensus? It's not the removed material I'm worried about (because I have copies of everything I like in the article (whether created by me or not) nor do I disagree with all the changes being done (because I prefer the sortable "Goalscorers" table).


 * The issue I have is that the process currently being executed violates every established Wikipedia principle for respectful editing. The grand fallacy is that it is all being done in the name of consistency. Right now, that article is no more consistent with the other season articles than it was before this whole process started. It is merely inconsistent with the other articles in a different way. The crucial difference is that the article beforehand was developed to a consensus where all edits were agreed upon and accepted, while the current version is simply the result of boorish and trollish behavior by someone who does not care a jot for the accuracy nor presentation of the information he is editing.


 * No wonder most people think that the only difference between Wikipedia and Unencyclopedia is that the former was written by editors who were not considered good enough to write the latter. Why, as an administrator, are you standing by and allowing this obvious partisan targeting of a single club to continue? Mancini&#39;s Lasagne invite to Harry  Talk 07:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Until this popped up on WT:WPF I hadn't been following it, as the only season article I have on my watchlist is 1967–68, and I don't tend to have strong opinions about infoboxen. I am in full agreement with what PeeJay says here. This is a discussion that should take place at Wikiproject level, so that the same business does not have to be rehashed for each and every club and season. This isn't so much about City as club season layouts in general.


 * Most editors seem to agree that to a certain degree achieving consistency is useful. The best remedy would be for someone to turn WikiProject Football/Club seasons blue, and advertise it widely, both on WT:WPF and the talk pages of editors who commonly edit club season articles, in as inclusive a manner as possible. Perhaps then we could get something that everyone is happy to call a consensus. Making barbed comments about other editors will get it nowhere. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like WikiProject Football/Club seasons is already blue, it just isn't linked from WP:WPF. It has also remained unchanged since its creation in September 2007, which is the problem in a nutshell. I urge all parties to head there. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As I clearly stated, I am all for achieving consistency. My issue is with the current attempt at trying to achieve it which is just not going to work. All it is going to do is alienate and drive productive editors off of Wikipedia. The process also smacks heavily of partisanship. The issue here is the process NOT the goal; the means NOT the end. In your response you failed to address the obvious elephant in the room (mostly, I'm assuming because you can't). The article right now looks like no other season article. One form of inconsistency has merely been swapped for another form. So the claimed goal of these edits has failed miserably. But somehow the basic logic of that point eludes others - including, it would appear, even yourself.


 * If the argument to defend what is going on is that the Man. City season article is being used as some sort of a strawman case, and other club season articles will follow suit in quick succession then I would still argue that that is quite the wrong approach. The strawman for this effort should be the WikiProject Football/Club seasons template with all major contributing editors of each football club requested to participate with developing it. Probably few will take up that option but that is their choice. The process right now comes across as being a handful of editors imposing their view on the majority having made their decisions behind closed doors. The aforementioned template is not a big secret and is obviously out there in the open, but if no one knows about it, what's the difference? All the heated argument and debate should be over edits and reversions to the template NOT to any one particular club's article. This is not something that should be done in the public eye (i.e., disagreeing Wikipedia editors should not wash their dirty laundry in public).


 * Nor is the process something that can be achieved overnight. It should not be an imperative to change any one club's article immediately. The various season articles have all been that way for years now so a few more months with them remaining that way until that template stabilizes (at the back end of a process of vigorous - and possibly very heated - editing) to the point that it captures the best ideas of the majority of interested parties, and would therefore meet little resistance to being imposed as a standard across the board. Dictating as a standard what is in that template right now would be asinine IMO. It is clearly very deficient WRT to what is currently in most of the major club season articles. My point is that this issue needs to be handled as a collaborative democratic process amongst willing participatory editors who buy into the process and the results, not as a fascist dictate from a cabal of one or two editors as it is being handled now. "The best remedy would be for someone to turn WikiProject Football/Club seasons blue, and advertise it widely, both on WT:WPF and the talk pages of editors who commonly edit club season articles, in as inclusive a manner as possible." EXACTLY!


 * Finally, what does it mean for something to be "blue"? Also, what is the significance of that template NOT being linked from WP:WPF and how do we remedy that, if indeed it needs to be fixed? Mancini&#39;s Lasagne invite to Harry  Talk 18:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer the last part first, by blue I mean a blue-coloured link that exists, not a redlink. I expected it to be a redlink because at the time it was not listed at WPF (I have since added it there). I didn't preview my edit, so I didn't see it already existed. Hence a link I expected to be red was blue.


 * If you want me to take action to end edit warring on the MCFC season article, there's not a lot to do right now as no one has edited it since this thread started. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And I suspect very few people will (other than Digirami). Most smart web users understand not to feed a troll nor waste their time trying to discuss an issue with someone whose behavior is repeatedly boorish.  The edit warring occurred last Sunday night (3 April, USA time) / Monday morning (4 April, UK time).  There is a clear violation of 3RR by Digirami who repeated a set of edits (that I had already reverted three times with a request to first discuss) a fourth time in a four hour period (never mind a 24 hour period).  Later that day Digirami added another dozen edits to that one - but since no other editor intervened I guess they simply count as an extension of the fourth edit violation of 3RR.  At this point (22:12, 4 April 2011) Falastur2 reverted all his changes again so now Digirami was in conflict with two editors.  Surely he would know better than to proceed again without first achieving some sort of consensus with them on the Talk page beforehand.  Apparently not.  All that happened on the Talk page was that both he and Falastur2 stated their cases.  No agreement was reached.  At 23:46, 5 April 2011 - ten minutes after Falastur2 posted his comments to him on the Talk page (at 23:36, 5 April 2011) - Digirami was off repeating his edits yet again.


 * He has since completely hijacked the article and done over two dozen more edits to it. It would appear that most of the other regular editors of that article are now avoiding it lest their edits appear as if they condone what has gone on.  I was preparing my own response to his postings on the Talk page when I saw him completely ignore Falastur2's comments and continue his edits regardless, so I felt there was no point wasting my time on them any longer because there is nothing to be gained trying to hold a discussion with someone who behaves so belligerently.  All I know is that a US administrator would severely sanction Digirami for such obviously hostile behavior (viz. edit warring and blatant disregard of 3RR guidance).  It was at that point that I made my initial post here as a response to Falastur2's post.


 * I have tried to leave my contributions to that "list of players" article in good shape and have hopefully responded to any outstanding comments on the Talk page. Revert the latest changes if you don't like them.  I have no interest in any further participation in this area of Wikipedia.  Mancini&#39;s Lasagne invite to Harry  Talk 02:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I've been invited to talk here... First off, I would reiterate that this is a issue of consistency across the board since it is a big pillar of the wikiproject on football. If you don't believe me on that, a quick examination of the competition articles from league seasons to continental club tournaments will demonstrate that to you. In fact, the MOS for a league season was recently "blued", but only after the issue was talked about at the season article task force in a lengthy discussion.
 * The next type of article that needed to achieve a level of consistency is the club season article. This is mainly because no one knew an club season MOS existed. WikiProject Football/Club seasons had never been mentioned in any for the discussion in the past year that I or anyone have started. But interest to come up with a consistent model has been around for at least two years, but input has been lukewarm at best. But it's there. A couple weeks back I bought the project's attention to Inter Milan's current season article and we were all in agreement that articles should look like that. In the most recent discussion to create an MOS, an article structure was more or less agreed upon based on the suggested examples of other users. That led me to create this (To Oldelpaso, I wanted the discussion to take place there so if and when it was agreed upon by project members, the discussion would be moved with the article via the move article feature). Tables and how information would be displayed was not discussed, because, well, baby steps and that can be agreed upon afterwards.
 * Now, my changes to the Man City article are not too drastic. So far they have consisted of adding the infobox, consolidating goalscorers table(s), removing stuff that really has nothing to do with the club, correcting a few links, removing unnecessary " " throughout the article, and other very minor stuff. But in the larger picture, not much has changed; it has just been tweaked. Trust me, if I really wanted to impose my "POV" on this article, this


 * would look more like this (but with an official match report)...


 * And you probably wouldn't have a goalscoring table since its redundant thanks to the table above it.


 * Club season articles are messy. Be assured there are people, like yours truly, who want it improve. Digirami (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (unhelpful flippant comment by MLITH removed) Oldelpaso (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, to MLitH, I suggest you improve your understanding of what constitutes vandalism. Just because you do not agree with good faith edits, such as mine, does not mean they are acts of vandalism. Digirami (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I fully understand what constitutes vandalism on Wikipedia, but thank you for patronizing me anyway. Unfortunately, edit summary boxes only allow limited text and there is no other word I know of in the English language that describes your sort of contributions to Wikipedia.  Because I'm not exactly sure what to call the edits of someone that only removes stuff from articles without making any constructive contribution to them.  Late at night, with a severe character limit on my ES comment, "vandalism" was the best word I could come up with off the top of my head.  Plus I am still yet to see that your edits are indeed in "good faith". It may just be me that's dumb, but I fail to see why approximately 50 consecutive edits by you to ONLY the Manchester City season article in the last week, with not a single similar edit made to any other club's season article, is going to somehow miraculously make all the Wikipedia club season articles consistent. OTOH, if I wanted to vandalize perform good faith changes to another club's article I would probably go about it in exactly the same manner that you are doing. Namaste.  Mancini&#39;s Lasagne invite to Harry  Talk 02:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, if I had it my way, all the club season articles would look more like the 2011 LDU Quito season article. But, for the most part I leave club season articles alone because by and large most are on the same page. But I'll edit one if it really needs some help, tweaking, or somethign is grossly wrong. I'm not just "picking on" MCFC. I've edited season articles on Inter Milan, Real Madrid, Flamengo, Sao Paulo, Barcelona, Nacional, and Napoli, among others. And it usually happens if I run into the article; I don't go searching for it. I have a long history of making useful and necessary edits to article relating to football. You may disagree with some my edits. But if you cannot take my edits in good faith like so many people have, it is your problem, not mine. Digirami (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(to MLITH on 3RR) Blocks are preventative, not punitive. No administrator would hand out a 3RR block when it occured days before and edit warring has stopped on the page in question. For a prompt response from an administrator who is currently online, Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is the best place to file a 3RR report.


 * I know that blocks are preventative rather than punitive (or at least common sense had led me to believe that, since I've never seen it so concisely stated elsewhere). But where exactly did I request that you perform a retroactive block?  You just assumed that.  Please stop assuming things.  Assumptions indicate a bias and as an administrator you are meant to be impartial in these situations.  The précis of events I posted was to demonstrate that the situation that article is currently in is due more to the restraint shown by Falastur2 and myself (and perhaps other prior editors of that article too) in this dispute versus the more belligerently conflict-oriented approach to an almost guaranteed edit war situation adopted by Digirami.   He has gone well beyond "being bold" because he was reverted four times and yet he posted again a fifth time without first attaining any consensus ... that is clearly EDIT WARRING according to Wikipedia guidance.


 * My précis merely attempted to point out that both Falastur2 and I have already adopted a stance of not pouring fuel on the flames in this disagreement for the greater sake of harmony - that is, each of us appears to have voluntarily adopted a "cease-fire" approach rather than one more akin to "mutual assured destruction" that is usually the norm in these situations. Falastur2 is his own person and I cannot speak for him, but I know that personally when I saw Digirami's blatant violation of the 3RR my first reaction was to report him.  Then I thought what exactly would that achieve - after a ban, should he even be banned, he would only come back again, but this time in an even more hostile mood than before.  That same logic also applied to his confrontational repeating of his edits a fifth time even after he was reverted again by a second editor (an action that also made the reporting of the first 3RR violation unnecessary).


 * My concern at this point was that perhaps I should have reported him for 3RR when it initially occurred last Monday, or even subsequently reoccurred on the Tuesday, since our mutual lack of yet another reversion appeared to be interpreted by Digirami as some kind of final tacit agreement to what he did or some other form of weakness of resolve in this matter. Your statement that blocks are "preventative not punitive" is not strictly true.  They work exactly the same way as bookings in football.  Although yellow cards are really designed to be "preventative warnings" by the referee to make the player "cool it" and let him know not to cross that line again, if that player accumulates another "preventative warning" in the same game it now does indeed become part of a punitive action (the player is sent off), and similarly if the player accumulates more than five such "preventative warnings" in one half of a season he receives the automatic "punishment" of a one game suspension.  My understanding is that multiple blocks work in a similar manner on Wikipedia although I couldn't say what all the relative thresholds are as I have no intention of ever getting myself in a situation where I need to know those limits.  I'm sure Falastur2 feels the same way - at least that was the impression I got when I read his first post on this topic above - and my concern when I responded to it was that we were now suffering for our mutual non-confrontational stance in this matter, and that if I had reported Digirami for his first 3RR violation on Monday he probably would not have been quite so belligerent in his actions subsequent to his second reversal by Falastur2.


 * When I posted my question re your "standing by and allowing this obvious partisan targeting of a single club" it was done in a hope that, as an administrator, you understood the spirit and intent of the WP:STABILITY guidance which I believe pertains to this situation, and that you might have accordingly brought a bit of common sense to bear on the situation. There is currently no MoS guidance style for season articles even if there was/is an effort underway to produce one.  Therefore, none of the club "current season" articles are in violation of any MoS guidance until such a MoS guidance is firmly established.  WP:STABILITY mandates "that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style."  The MCFC current season article was not in violation of any established MoS guideline-defined style - because, as yet, there is none - it was only in violation of one editor's POV of what that guidance might look like if he had his own way about it.  WP:STABILITY continues: "revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.  Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." (My emphasis added.)


 * Thus, according to that guidance, Digirami's revert warring over MoS style and his imposition of an optional style (because ALL styles are optional until a MoS style for these articles clearly exists) - particularly a style that is merely his POV - is considered to be unacceptable disruptive behavior in order to make his point, and he should have deferred instead to the original style of the article (until such time as an agreed-upon MoS style has been established) and made his point by more harmonious alternative means (such as Talk page discussion). What Digirami does in his own sandbox has no bearing on this issue, nor is it an "established agreed-upon MoS style."  This has been my own stance in this matter all along.

I have removed your sarcastic reply to Digirami above, on grounds of incivility.


 * WP:CIVIL does NOT define sarcasm as uncivil behavior. Mostly it's profanity, verbal abuse, personal attacks and harassment (there may be others I've overlooked) that constitute such activity, but most certainly sarcasm (which is humorous) does not fall into that category.  However, even if sarcasm did violate WP:CIVIL, WP:TPO clearly states: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism.  This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; 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." (My emphasis added.)


 * So your removal of my post is WRONG on both accounts; first in misclassifying humor as being uncivil, and then removing it from a Talk page (even if it was). Also, if you actually read WP:UNCIVIL you'll see that one of the first things it states in a "This page in a nutshell" bullet is: "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others."  This is EXACTLY my objection(s) to Digirami's behavior in this whole affair.  In everything he has posted on this matter (including his sarcastic edit summaries) his supercilious and patronizing attitude throughout has been that HE IS RIGHT AND WE ARE WRONG.  In doing so he is zealously expressing his POV while not giving any credence to Falastur2's or mine.  There can be no progress made in any situation where you disagree with someone when that person does not have the respect and courtesy to acknowledge that your contrary POV is equally worthy of consideration as his.


 * It is because of:
 * (1) Digirami's repeatedly boorish attitude;
 * (2) your inability to constrain it in any way (no blocks required, just a reminder of the Wikipedia guidelines would have been sufficient);
 * (3) your inability to understand that changing ONLY the MCFC article right now will do nothing at all towards achieving consistency across ALL season articles thus the edits in dispute are a meaningless effort towards achieving that goal; and
 * (4) your continual demonstration of your own lack of understanding of Wikipedia guidance (not only WRT this issue)


 * that I decided yesterday that what passes as acceptable behavior here is in reality a cynical subversion - in some cases intentionally, in others due to ignorance - of the true spirit and intent of how Wikipedia is meant to function. I cannot single-handedly change the current "culture" so, as stated yesrterday, I decided I no longer wished to participate in this (soccer) area of Wikipedia.  Your latest postings have only strengthened that resolve.   Mancini&#39;s Lasagne invite to Harry  Talk 02:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From CIVIL: It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page. (emphasis mine). The comment's target has most likely read it, but restore it if you like. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(General comment on the season taskforce link posted by Digirami) As I don't edit season articles often, I'd completely forgotten that we had a season article taskforce. Others are clearly way ahead of me on the club season MoS front, and the discussion there is encouraging. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you really want to know why an edit war occurred in the first place, one would also have to look at Mancini's actions. My first two edits to the page (replacing a made-up infobox with Template:Infobox football club season and removing superflous " s" through the articles) got reverted because it was "vandalism". They were clearly not vandalism. It grew into an edit war when Mancini and Falstur did not revert when necessary upon additional edits I made to the page. They simply accepted all my edits as "disruptive" and could not see the useful contributions I made to the page. Ya I know I messed up with the edit warring (which it takes two to do), but that does not mean Mancini and Falstur are squeaky clean in this matter. Digirami (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All parties (myself included) could have handled this better, I recognise that. We look to be well beyond the stage of this particular thread resulting in dialogue of use in resolving the dispute, so I won't comment further unless pressed to do so. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Stadium Capacity
Shakhtar Donetsk's attendance against Barcelona in the second leg was also higher than the capacity stated in Wikipedia. Syjytg (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Tranmere history
Hey there. Thanks very much for your helpful ideas during the Tranmere history peer review. I've tried to incorporate all your suggestions, and am considering trying for GA status. Would you mind casting your eye over it before I do? Thanks! U+003F? 16:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 1926 FA Cup Final
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Stoke? Posnan? Wembley?
What a curious season, eh? And potential now to overtake the Gooners. Wonderful. I hope (and I'm sure) you had a great day. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and if you fancy some help getting the final article up to GA or whatever, give me a shout. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I certainly did. Getting up early today for long-scheduled participation in the Great Manchester Run was less enjoyable. Given the acronym, I'm surely now obliged to spend the close season getting it to FA. Far too long since I last took something to FAC. Maybe I should challenge Struway2 to a cup final article based race. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I heard that, but am ignoring it :-) Congratulations, you must feel like I did a few weeks ago. Still can't help smiling every time I hear Mr Blue Sky on that BMW advert... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What does it feel like to win something after a long gap? Just want to know... ;) I'm also happy to offer any assistance I can for any FA push. Woody (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

GAN, 1926 FA Cup Final and Robin Friday
Well done on the cup victory! I know exactly how you feel about that kind of thing just not sinking in, though it will with time, have no fear... Anyway, to business. I've been doing a lot of work on the Robin Friday article (never heard of him? Quite possible. You'll enjoy reading it a lot if you haven't) and it's presently at GAN. I see that your 1926 FA Cup Final article is there too (you probably noticed, I did a load of work on the references); would you mind running your eyes quickly over Friday, if you get the chance? Judge it against FA standards, because that's where it's aimed. If you like, I can have a look through Cup Final '26 in return. Cheers! – Cliftonian the orangey bit 20:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't feel obliged, it's just if you get the time. I had considered the one-source problem when it comes to FAC, but I think that so long as all quotes and so on are credited an exception can be made. The book, which I have in my hand right now – and which is, as you say, well worth reading – is made up almost entirely of interview extracts and match reports taken from the Reading Evening Post and South Wales Echo. It's going to be hard to avoid relying largely upon it, but since it is itself taking from many sources which it openly and obviously cites, the argument could be made that it isn't over-reliance on just one source. What do you think? – Cliftonian the orangey bit 16:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help with Friday, and well done with the 1926 Cup Final! Keep well now. – Cliftonian the orangey bit 21:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You lucky.....
How was it? Was jealous enough about you attending the semi against United, but the final? What a season eh? Could quite possibly clinch third too which would avoid a Champions League play-off which would have 'typical City' all over it. And thanks for reviewing the Manchester City F.C. supporters page, haven't had time to address it yet, but hopefully I will over the coming months. Over and out. Stevo1000 (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Bryan Gunn/archive1
Thanks for your comments. I responded to them at the FAC. Interesting and thought-provoking. --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Should be all done, now. --Dweller (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

GA – 1926 FA Cup Final
Hello. Letting you know I've officially placed this on hold till you can address the remaining three points. It's very close to a GA now. --Mykleavens (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Eastlands
Ah! Good job you brought this to my attention, I was planning to mention this to a few blues on Wikipedia actually. My understanding from the Premier League 2010-11 document was that the stadium had a capacity of 47,405. And this season's derby attendance was not actually higher than 47,405 if the BBC Sport match report and City's website report  are correct, which I assume they are as trustworthy sources. So I'm confused.... Stevo1000 (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've spotted an article (comparing other stadiums for some reason) on the MCFC website which states CoMs capacity is: 47,805. So higher than we thought, but I knew something wasn't quite right about the 47,726 capacity as that came from a book which was published a few years back now. I'm happy to use the 47,805 capacity on the CoMs page as its straight from the horses mouth (which is what we were looking for) if you are happy too? Stevo1000 (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Been very busy lately hence the belated reply but I am happy to go for it. I've added the 47,805 capacity to the City of Manchester Stadium with the reference. Stevo1000 (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

2010–11 NK Maribor season
OK, thank you for your Peer review. I will look into it during this week and try to solve the problems.Ratipok (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Kinkladze
Hello, are you going to get Georgi Kinkladze to FAC? Claptonish (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Manchester derby all-time results tables
Hi mate. Since the conversation at Talk:Manchester derby seems to have ground to a halt, I wondered if you had anything more to add to it. Any new thoughts about the situation? – PeeJay 21:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Oldelpaso. I am sorry to bother you but if you could comment here I would be appreciative. Even if you support the proposed topic ban I would like you to comment. Thank you. Adam4267 (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Prenton Park
Thanks a bunch for the suggestions. I think I might try and squeeze the HMHB reference in, see how it flies. But for some more serious material, if you could send on the section from The Football Grounds of Great Britain, that would be very helpful indeed. U+003F? 18:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Inglis
That's okay, I'll get my own copy next week. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

liverpool F.C. FAC
Just to let you know I've responded to all your comments. Thanks for the review. NapHit (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Note
nominated List of Manchester City F.C. seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Oldelpaso. Take no action on this.  Unless you really want to.  I would suggest that if you can make minor adjustments where required (row/col scopes if needed) then do so.  Otherwise, the list is in fine shape in my opinion.  Sorry for the disruption. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On a closer look, it could use moving those awkwardly placed images from the lead, and revising the "This a list of..." intro. Would you be able to do that?  Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Darragh MacAnthony
Oldelpaso you have obviously kept an interest in the [|Darragh MacAnthony] page because I have just been reading your comments so would like to point out that Wiki10writeris at it on the [|Darragh MacAnthony] Page again and from 1st August he has completely vandalised the page putting stuff on there I don't consider suitable... It was Rachmha last time but is probably one of the same person. The additions contain nothing but publication of information generated solely by MacAnthony, I think, to try and keep bad news about him out of the top of the search engines, I am sure this is not allowed on Wiki.

If I go and remove this self promotion I will be accused of vandalism and not trying to keep a balance of truth and information for people to search. References are to his own websites and press releases of his own and not facts.

See:


 * 1) www.darraghmacanthony.com
 * 2) www.darraghmacanthonyschooltools.com
 * 3) www.darraghmacanthonyinventorsfund.com
 * 4) www.darraghmacanthonycollegebookfund.com
 * 5) www.darraghmacanthonysportsdays.com
 * 6) www.darraghmacanthonyscholarshipaward.com

In my opinion very very 'cheap' self promotion for someone who is supposed to be such a pillar of the community and multi-millionaire - inspect the POSH accounts closely and you will find he is not so generous as he likes to tell every one.

I could add details of his pending criminal trial in Spain, which he lies about on his own blog, if needed but unless convicted would not be suitable for Wiki. This self promotion and cyber play by him may be to try and stop people finding anything about the trial when it starts and about his crimes, as claimed on the www.mri-sg.org MRI Support Group blog.

Please advise me if I am paranoid or does Wiki allow this self promotion and abuse of their systems.HuttonIT (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI case
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion here regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Adam4267 (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Suit of Lights (band)
Hello '=) In 2006 somebody suggested to delete the article about the band Suit of Lights and today I saw that you posted the result.  I was looking at the history of the article and saw that somebody moved it to "Suit of Lights (band)" and later it was moved back to "Suit of Lights".  I really think it should have "(band)" because when people say "suit of lights" in English they're not talking about that group.  Like in that U2 song "Gone", he's very likely talking about an actual suit of lights '=D  I don't want to start an edit war though, and I was afraid that if I start a discussion there nobody would ever see it.  Do you have any suggestions?  Thanks for your attention '=) Bernardo.bb (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man '=) Bernardo.bb (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Eastlands infobox picture
I'm not too keen on the new one, which looks dated and old, but neither was I keen on the old pic with exaggerated blown colours. What do you think of having the panorama picture in the infobox or a good exterior shot:. Ideally, we'd have an aerial/elevated view like the Stamford Bridge picture or the Reebok Stadium  considering CoMS turrets would make a great aerial picture. I've had a look at Flickr for a non-copyrighted aerial image but I've had no luck so far. Shame really, because although the article is FA status, it just lacks a quality picture. Stevo1000 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. managers
I've stuck this up for Peer Review. Would you mind casting your eye over it? U+003F? 17:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a go at expanding the History section. Would you mind having another look? Thanks! U+003F? 18:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Steve Eyre
That's fine, but I would maintain that if there is no evidence of nationality or PoB on the manager's article, we should not have it at the list of managers. I hope if you have biographical evidence, you will add it to his article. Kevin McE (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

1933 FA Cup Final
I have reviewed the article here. I have placed it on hold, but there are no real problems. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically, a week is up. I've no intention of failing it for this reason, but do you have any idea how long it will take? Not a problem if you need longer (as long as it is not going to be weeks and weeks). --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've passed it now, well done. And I remember last year something similar happened to me on moving house; it's always the way! Best of luck with that. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Livingston F.C.
Hi. You previously did a peer review on Heart of Midlothian F.C. that i requested. I was wondering if you would take a informal look at the above page. its currently labeled as start. ive spent the last few days referencing it from very little to what you see now would like your opinion on it. Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

New Task Force
Hello. I saw that you are on WikiProject football. I was wondering if you would like to join a task force on national teams. To join, go to here and add your name. If you don't want to participate, then just ignore this message. The task force has not yet been created, but if enough people join, it will be created. Happy editing, <span style="-moz-border-radius:1em;border:1px solid black;font-size:11px;background-color:red;color:white;padding:1px 4px 1px 5px">Bar Code Symmetry   (Talk) 23:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 FA Cup Final
Yes, it is gradually getting there, hopefully it will be my first GA article. It would be nice to see it as a GA article, particularly as a few other FA Cup final articles with City in are GA or FA status. Just thought I'd explain my rationale for some aspects:
 * Community Shield looks overemphasised in the lead. Unlike Europe, nobody goes into a cup final thinking of the glorified friendly it could lead to.
 * Does anyone outside the Nike marketing department care about the ball?
 * I've tried to make the final broad in scope so the reader isn't disappointed. Maybe the ball is a bit trivial.


 * The part about the match itself sort of has a mini-lead separated off, I think it would be better as a purely chronological section.
 * I preferred it sub sectioned to be honest, made it more readable as it was in chunks.


 * Descriptions of match events probably need to be more densely cited lest anyone accuses them of being POV. I've found in the past that quoting reports and specifically attributing them in the text works well (see 1933 FA Cup Final to see what I mean)
 * I was concerned about this. For the match report, I've linked all incidents to 'as-it-happened' pages from BBC, Guardian etc. which list any chances/incidents etc. with the minute.


 * The text is bit journalistic in places. As that style is how we most often read about matches its easily done, I'll run through it at some point to see if a fresh pair of eyes can help.
 * Feel free to edit any 'tabloid' sentences or which seems out of place. I feel my prose can be a bit too informal at times.


 * The programme image - generally these only get used if there are no freely reproducible images of a match available, so I'm not sure the fair use rationale is valid in this case.
 * The positions listed by the player names look suspect to me. Silva is no winger. Pennant most definitely is. The source used states no positions other than goalkeeper, we should do the same.
 * No reference for the formation has been stated by the reviewer. I haven't been able to find a source which states formation strangely enough. Any ideas?
 * So yeah, I agree with most of the points. Also I'm going to be busy over the next 3 or 4 days (which is inconvenient) so it will limit my ability to get it passed in the 7 day deadline so feel free to tidy up the article if you wish. Regards Stevo1000 (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Goalgetter
Haha, oh right, I knew it has been deleted by PROD but didn't know it also went to AfD under a third name. Was it created by the same editor? If so, we should have a polite word with him... cheers, GiantSnowman 21:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, World Goalgetter is different to the article that was AfDed - the article that was deleted by AfD is now at The World's Top Goal Scorer 2011. GiantSnowman 21:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll TfD IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year and go back through the editor's contribs to see of there's anything else... GiantSnowman 22:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Zishan Engineers Article
Hi!,

I have improved the article and added a section. Also note that recently, a news article relating to the organization has been published which I believe does establish notability. I would really appreciate if you could have a look at the article. I would request your feedback before I move it to the main page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mecheng761/Zishan_Engineers

The news link is reference number 20. Mecheng761 (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you say/check a viewdel, if this draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zishan Engineers has some more references than the deleted versions? (or do the deleted versions have other useful references which are not in this draft?) If this draft is good to go (in your eyes), would you move it and move the talkpage again to the correct place? <b style="font-family:Courier New; display:inline; border:#009 1px dashed; padding:1px 6px 2px 7px; white-space:nowrap; color:#000000; font-size:smaller;">mabdul</b> 13:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Another admin said to me that there wasn't any new great improvements and thus I declined. Feel free to overturn my decision. <b style="font-family:Courier New; display:inline; border:#009 1px dashed; padding:1px 6px 2px 7px; white-space:nowrap; color:#000000; font-size:smaller;">mabdul</b> 14:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. players
I've stuck this up for Peer Review. Would you mind casting your eye over it? <tt style="color:gray">U+003F</tt><tt style="color:red">?</tt> 16:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can I ask what the book's about? <tt style="color:gray">U+003F</tt><tt style="color:red">?</tt> 09:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary
Wishing Oldelpaso a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Let's talk <sub style="color:#008000;">about my edits? 03:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Samaras
Cheers Old El Paso, I'll try and tidy it up a bit more. Thanks for your help. Adam4267 (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting last five minutes of the season
Good to see the practice in the third division came in useful. How's the book going? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Manchester City QPR
Hello, Oldelpaso. My mind is stuck in a warped trance of Aguero's goal. Still hasn't sunk in. I was wondering, do you think a Manchester City vs QPR article would pass? The match felt like Michael Thomas 92nd minute goal all over again on Sunday. And if Liverpool F.C. 4–3 Newcastle United F.C. (1996) can get a page simply because people thought it was a crazy match - but had no deciding outcome, then surely the City-QPR can? Stevo1000 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I can't think straight either. I must of watched Aguero's goal 100 times now and it is still incredible. For now, I'm going to start a draft on one of my sandbox pages and see where I go from there. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Style of 2012–13 Manchester City F.C. season
Hey OEP. Been a little while since we spoke.

I don't know if you read the season articles much, but I've always been fairly proud of the way our pages look, and that they don't conform to the way most of the others do. I've currently got an unregistered user (who has no history of work on these articles, for the record) constantly reverting my edits. Well I'll be fair...I reverted his first and so it's descended to revert warring over which style to use - he constantly edits the entire article into the ugly format that the other pages use. Am I wrong to argue in favour of our own style? And if I am not, I am going to reach my 3 reverts soon, and would it be possible to get the page semi-protected? Falastur2 Talk 11:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Augustus Beeby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashbourne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 04:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Roy Paul
According to "Wales: The Complete Who's Who of Footballers Since 1946" by Dean P. Hayes, Roy Paul made his Wales debut in a 3-1 defeat at home to Scotland on 23 October 1948, before going on to earn a total of 33 caps. His only goal came in a 5-1 win at home to Belgium on 23 November 1949, and according to the book, the highlight of his international career was a 2-1 win at home to England on 22 October 1955. His final Wales appearance was a 1-1 draw at home to Northern Ireland on 11 April 1956. – PeeJay 23:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Manchester City players with out articles
Hello. I stumbled across your page and used some computer hocus-pocus to fill some of the redlinks with stubs sourced to Neil Brown. Very stubby, but something to work from. Ta, <tt style="color:gray">U+003F</tt><tt style="color:red">?</tt> 10:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

David Powell DYKN

 * Cheers! Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve Redmond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David White (footballer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Steve Redmond
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discusion on an article you editted
An article you edited is being considered for deletion. Please see the discussion at: Articles for deletion/List of football referees Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Notice

 * Although, I don't know where to list it. Would you mind helping me? :) — ΛΧΣ  21™  23:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Arsène Wenger
Hello Oldelpaso, I've decided to renominate this article on FAC and would appreciate if you could spare the time to comment and/or vote. The previous nom failed because of a lack of spotchecks (I guess) so if you could also take a look at that, I would be grateful. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)