User talk:Philc 0780/Archive1

Thanks for experimenting with the page Tony Blair on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Alhutch 22:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Matt hardman
The article Matt hardman has been deleted. Before you create other articles on Wikipedia, you might want to look at some of our pages designed to help new users discover that kinds of articles we're looking for. This page might prove helpful. Joyous | Talk 00:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You probably need to come up with a REALLY good explanation very soon, or the article will be removed. Repeatedly adding nonsense to Wikipedia is considered vandalism, and you can be blocked from editing. Joyous | Talk 00:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Joyous | Talk 00:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Go away
Why should you delete something that took so long to write. Do you hate me or something, whats wrong with you. Why cant i spread the news about this topic. I think your just mean

I am not "just mean." Wikipedia has standards about the articles that we accept. If you want to put nonsense online, there are a number of free hosting sites available to you. This is not one of them. Joyous | Talk 00:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Does it hurt you to see it as part of wikipedia? because it hurts me to see it deleted. also it has a star in the corner, isnt that a good thing?


 * I'm sorry that it hurts you when the article is deleted. It hurts the project, not me personally, when joke articles are included. We're trying to build a reputable source of information here.  Articles like Matt hardman don't help achieve that goal.  And the star in the corner is a good thing only when it is earned, not when someone just sticks it there.  Joyous | Talk 00:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

i didnt stick it there, i don't know how it got there but its there and from what it said on the page i guess its a good thing, how did it get there?


 * Well, see, the thing is...I can see the earlier deleted versions of the page because I'm an administrator on the site. I see the exact edit where you added the Featured Article template (which produces the star) on February 27 of this year.  Lying makes it difficult to assume that you're editing with any sort of good intentions.  Joyous | Talk 00:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

i'm not lying, i dont even know what a featured article template is! i only found out you could make your own articles the other day, and my freind matt challenged me to write an article on him while he wrote one on me

Then apparently your friend Matt, or someone else, has hijacked your account, because this account created the article with the Featured Article star in place. Joyous | Talk 01:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

ok but
 * what is a featured article
 * what is the template
 * how did i do it when i dont know these things
 * how do you become admin
 * can i be admin?


 * Featured articles showcase the very best articles on Wikipedia. See WP:FA.
 * The template is a markup that is added to articles that pass the Featured Article process. It puts the star in place to demonstrate that the article meets the Featured Article criteria.
 * I don't know how you did it if you don't know these things. Two things jump to my mind: 1) You aren't being truthful when you say you don't know these things, or 2) someone else has used the User:Philc 0780 account.  If #2 is the case, you probably want to change your password.
 * You can become an administrator by contributing quality edits to Wikipedia for an unspecified length of time. Then, someone may nominate you for adminship, or you can nominate yourself. At that point, a vote is opened.  For more information, see this page.
 * If you want to become an administrator, you'll probably want to stop making joke articles, and contribute in a more serious way for 3-6 months (different editors have different standards; again, see the page about becoming an administrator. Joyous | Talk 01:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

i dont believe you about that one, are you sure its not just the ISP that added it not me? because sum random ISP edited it.

How come your so uptight, you don't sound like much fun, mabye you should just chill and have a laugh sometimes

also once your admin can it be revoked? whats the highest you can go, is ther stuff above admin?


 * Yes, I'm sure that this account added it, not just a random ISP: your name is beside the edit. To find out more about administrators, I suggest you visit the pages I've linked earlier in the discussion. Joyous | Talk 01:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And philc, sorry to burst your bubble, but you're not on Wikipedia to have "fun". J.J.Sagnella 07:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User Page Vandalism
Dear Philc 0780, Please do not vandalise my userpage, it is not very nice. J.J.Sagnella 07:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Contributing
hey check out what ive done today, more constructive eh? how do people contribute so much, i dont know more about hardly anything thats on this site, how can i contribute... like everything i know is on here Philc 0780 23:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed. I mean really impressed. I know it can sometimes seem like everything that you can think of already has an article, but keep looking: there are always things to add. Here are a few random ideas.
 * Hit the "random article" button for a while. Most of the articles won't interest you, but you'll find some that will--maybe even some things that you didn't realize you were interested in.
 * If you do find something that you like, try hitting the link that says "what links here" at the side of the page. Every article that has a link to the one you're reading will be listed.
 * If you find one article that interests you, see if there are some categories listed at the bottom. Click on the category, and all the articles that have been organized in that category will be listed.
 * Visit open tasks and clean up something.

And thanks, for making some positive contributions. Here is our standard welcome, which has some other helpful links:

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

-- Joyous | Talk 23:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, cheers for that, appreciated, i uploaded an image today on the U10 page i did, and i saved the url with the image, i do not know about the copyright restrictions on the image and i think it suggested asking an admin to help, so i thought maybe you could help? Philc 0780 23:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

yeh sure, any help appreciated, because i just dont know about these things and how much do i have to do to get one of them funky star geelies on my page Philc 0780 00:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm....The site's main page has a copyright notice, which suggests to me that all of the images are copyrighted, too, and inappropriate for Wikipedia. I don't deal much with images and copyrights, though: you zeroed in on an area that I'm not comfortable with.  Would you like me to track down someone who is more knowledgeable in this area?  Joyous | Talk 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the reply from User:Superm401, who knows a lot more than me on this issue:
 * The image (Image:Iriver U10.jpg) is categorized in Category:Images with unknown copyright status. This means the uploader can show that it under a free license (or in the public domain) within 7 days. After that, it will be deleted; this seems most likely because I don't believe watch.impress.co.jp would put the image under a free license. Superm401 - Talk 00:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have other image questions, you'd probably get better information directly from Superm401. If there's anything else I can do to help, let me know. Joyous | Talk 01:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Usable images
Wikipedia permits images that are under a free license or in the public domain. There is a list of free licenses available, as well as a list of types of public domain images. For help finding public domain images, see Public domain image resources. Feel free to ask me if you have more questions. Superm401 - Talk 18:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Administrators and other questions
First, I apologize for not getting back to you sooner.

You asked Im stuck again
 * what are wiki projects?
 * what are those star geelies people get given?
 * noticed that edit counts are used to rank users with a light of nominating them for admin, does this take into a count the valus of ther contributions or not, because i just think that mabye i could gain more recognition by added a couple of hundred full-stops than a good amount of information onto some stub

Wikiprojects are projects where groups of editors who are interested in the same broad topic get together with the idea of editing collaboratively to improve articles within that topic. There are lots of projects going on at any one time. A list of all the active Wikiprojects is here. Some are more active than others.

The "star geelies" (I like that phrase) are more formally known as barnstars. They're not exactly "official" awards. They're given by anyone to anyone for a job well done. Some folks with good image skills have designed several different kinds that are listed at that link.

That was a good point about edit counts, regarding adminship. When people vote for admins, they generally take a look at the editor's contributions; here are yours for example. Most people do more than just count edits. I think when someone says "I only vote in favor of people who have over 1,000 edits," they mean "1000 substantial edits." Most people like to see evidence that a nominee has been involved in several areas of Wikipedia, such as discussing policy, editing articles, fixing mistakes in grammar and spelling, welcoming new users.....there are a lot of different things to do here. If there's a common thread among voters, it seems to be that people look for someone who knows "how things are done." Adding a thousand "full stops" (I had to look up that phrase: I'm in the US, and we call them "periods") may catch someone's attention, but that alone won't thrust you into the ring for an adminship nomination. Joyous | Talk 21:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you have a way to go before worrying about becoming an administrator. I don't see a reason to rush. Indeed, many people require 3-6 months, or more, of good solid work before they consider voting in favor.  Frankly, you started off as a vandal, so you'll have to do a little more convincing than many people. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't want to give you the impression that people won't notice. I have two good pages for you to look at, so you can get an idea of what people are looking for.  This page is a general guide to requesting adminship. It gives a nice overview. This one has specific information about what different people look for in a potential admin. I also advise you to look at ongoing elections at the Requests for adminship page. Pay most attention to the negative votes, to see why some candidates fail.


 * In the meantime, keep on making Wikipedia better. That's our real goal. Joyous | Talk 23:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Football AID 19 March - 25 March
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week. European Football Championship has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Italics in 1998 African Cup of Nations
Go look at the group 1 table. Is that what you wanted? To put something in italics, place 2 apostrophes at the beginning and end, rather than 3. Joyous | Talk 23:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I could help with the table: my table skills are usually...weak. I would consider a minor edit to be a change in spelling or grammar, or a fix in markup like with the table. When in doubt, don't mark it as minor. Probably no one will complain if a minor edit isn't marked; people get unhappy when major edits are marked as "minor." I don't usually mark anything as minor, because I don't like to make the decision.  Joyous | Talk 00:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Military service
Well, we have compulsory military service here, but in reality, only about 15% or something are conscripted, as our armed forces have been drastically cut down lately. I was lucky enough to do my service before the the government disbanded most of the regiments a year ago. – Elisson • Talk 21:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Star Geelie
Phil, it's not often that someone starts off at Wikipedia making joke edits and vandalizing userpages, then switches over to making solid contributions. I'm impressed with the change. Please accept this Barnstar in recognition of your efforts. Joyous | Talk 00:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Multiple bendy brackets
I don't know. Where have you seen that? Joyous | Talk 18:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Football AID 26 March - 1 April
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week. Football in Germany has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Brackets, captions, etc.
-- Joyous | Talk 19:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Multiple bendy brackets-- Beats me. You've run into an area of my non-expertise. You might ask here. All sorts of technical-minded people can assist you.
 * 2) Categories-- Yes, all articles need to be categorized somehow. If you aren't sure what category works best, you can look at a similar article to see what categories it's listed under, or browse through the category hierarchy for some ideas. Even if you categorize it as a stub, there are lots of different kinds of stubs; it's best to be specific.
 * 3) Images--I'm not sure what you meant by that question; can you show me an example?

Impersonation
Thanks for the heads up on E-Series. I blanked the "conversation" on his talk page as a violation of Doppelganger_account. Feezo (Talk) 23:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Help Me!! (Fiasco now solved)
For gods sake, I created a Jimbo Wales lookalike account just to put the doppelganger template on it, I just wanted to do some good alright!!!!! I didnt realise this is how it would end!

please help, as I'd like to get back to making useful contributions, as I have been, if you'd like to check if you require some sort of verification.

Philc 0780 23:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, im blocked again


 * Check to see if you can edit now. Antandrus (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup thanks Philc 0780 00:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, despite minor setbacks involving bots and autoblocks (hmm, a fully automated system that blocks known users without giving them a chance to explain, this a good idea or bad) i have got the doopelganger template on to User:Jımbo Wales, check if you like. Philc 0780 00:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Football AID 2 April - 8 April
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week. Timeline of football (soccer) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Random A
You wrote: I was looking at those lists of what some users say they want to see in an admin candidate, and some said doing good article edits isnt enough to justify a position as admin, what sort of activities are they suggesting users do without admin capibilities? Philc 0780 18:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

''I also noticed this. is anyone allowed to take part in this or is it specifically chosen people only or admin only or what? thanks'' Philc 0780 19:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

''also is there a recosrd kept of featured article nominees and voting etc. as I was curios to how Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago) achieved this status, and cant find any record of it being nominated around the time the template was added to the article. thanks'' Philc 0780 21:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have a lot of photos I'd like to display on wikipedia in their relevabt articles, but is their a copyright option that allows me to have it on wikipedia without releasing all rights, as it is my work Philc 0780 11:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the new signature link to your talk page. It's very handy.

I'm not involved with Version 1.0, but I don't see anything on the page that suggests it's an admin only activity. If you are interested, but you don't know how to contribute, ask on the project's talk page. The people involved can give you some guidance.

The featured article nominee is located at Featured article candidates/Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago). I pulled that link off the template on the discussion page.

People who want to see more than just good edits are looking for evidence that you know what you're doing, that you're familiar with policies and guidelines, that you can work collaboratively with other editors, that you keep your cool and stay civil when there are disagreements. There was a discussion about something like this on the Wikipedia mailing list recently; I'll go see if I can dig up the relevant conversation.

You seem to be really set on becoming an administrator. There really aren't very many things administrators can do that other editors can't. We have a few extra buttons, mostly. Admins can revert vandalism with a one-click button, block for vandalism or a few other reasons, unblock users who have been blocked, delete articles via Wikipedia guidelines, undelete articles (again, within guidelines), and see the text of articles that have been deleted. Admins can also protect and unprotect articles. Other than that, everything I do can be done by anyone. If you enjoy editing here, keep on. Adminship will happen when it happens.

Regarding the photos....I dunno. You might want to ask User:Superm401 again: he's got a much better handle on image policy than I do.

-- Joyous | Talk 23:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Images
If you upload images that you own the copyright for, you must release them under a free license or into the public domain, in accordance with image policy. This is designed to make Wikimedia as a whole as free (as in freedom), as possible. I understand that you may be disappointed that you can not maintain more control over images you upload. However, you can be certain that you will be fully attributed if you use the GFDL or Creative Commons. Superm401 - Talk 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See Image copyright tags. All you have to do is put cc-by-sa-2.5 on the image description page. Tell me if you have more questions.  Superm401 - Talk 20:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Instead of using the template, you can select "Attribution ShareAlike 2.5" (under Creative Commons licenses) instead. Superm401 - Talk 22:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Manchester United
You might want to realise that Manchester United redirects to Manchester United F.C. already, and that is a template that generates that link as well. There is no need to pipe the links. x42bn6 Talk 08:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Piped links are links that redirect to another page that is not the link itself. For example:
 * chicken produces chicken, a link chicken that goes to cow.
 * In your case, Manchester United would produce a link to Manchester United F.C. using Manchester United as a label.  x42bn6  Talk 12:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Bots
Bots work by interfacing with the website directly. There is no "easy" way to use the wikipedia through a bot. Having said that there are a number of API's to make this easier. The one I'm familiar with is called pywikipedia. Its available on source forge. There is also a perl one, not sure what its called. Hope this helps you. j o s h b u d d y talk 00:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * pywikipedia is a whole package, and it includes a bunch of bots that just about anyone could setup. Replacement bots, particularly, for wanting to find something and replacement it something else. For instance, replacing with  . There is a bunch of other cookie cutter bots like that, but to be honest, I haven't looked too hard at them. Most of those bots are meant to process the entire site, and Tawkerbot2 is fundamentally different in that its event driven, that is, it reacts to the editing of the wiki in realtime. Are you trying to put together a bot?  j o s h  b u d d y talk 00:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding citations to the Manchester United page
WP:CITE will give you an idea of the sort of things that need to be cited, or you could have a look at the featured football club articles (Arsenal, IFK Gothenburg, city) to see what's been cited there. You're right in that simple facts such as the years United don't need to be cited - it's more things like if the article stated that the Glazer takeover was unpopular then that would be worth citing a source for. Basically anything that looks like an opinion should have a citation. CTOAGN (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing Images
I noticed when this bot removed an image from the Reel Big Fish infobox, it also removed the "|" at the end of the line of the infobox code, causing the next line of the infobox to display in non wiki code, just wondering if this is something you can rectify to prevent it doing this to a whole lot of infoboxes. Thanks! Philc T+C 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you look at, you'll see that there never was a "|" to begin with. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, though. --Carnildo 06:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Screenshot iraq error.PNG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Screenshot iraq error.PNG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Hunter 09:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Football AID 16 April - 22 April
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week. Ukrainian Premier League has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Football AID 23 April - 29 April
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week. History of football (soccer) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

More Images
A while ago, I found a thorough public domain guide created by Cornell. That should answer your questions. The appropriate tags to use are at WP:ICT. As for the money counter, I don't really know what it is either. I just know that if you put (anything between the start and closing tag won't show), it comes up and thought it was neat. Probably, it was meant for fundraising campaigns but think it's been abandoned. Superm401 - Talk 00:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal templates
Hi, Phil. First, thanks for the cleanup of the vandalism. There is a series of templates you can add to a vandal's talk page to discourage them from continuing a spree. ALL of the templates are here. I use, , , most often. If you want to include the article's name in the warning, then fill in the templates like this: Queen. Test4 says basically, "you're gonna get blocked if you do it again," so you may need to contact an admin if it continues after that. Really, though, very few keep going all the way past 4. Hope this helps! Joyous | Talk 22:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

FIFA World Rankings - copyright violations
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. See Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Your original contributions are welcome. I have rolled back the article to 20th of March to remove any potentially copyrighted text. Shifting a few of the words around is not enough to avoid copyright problems. Jooler 03:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't threatened you with anything. I am not in a position to threaten anyone. I'm no admin. FYI the "threat" is part of the standard template . I have simply acted as a responsible user in removing the material you copied and putting a message on your talk page so that you saw it immediately, rather than having to wait till you happened to look at the article's talk page. Good faith or not, you have posted copyright material and this is simply not allowed. Jooler 10:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * However resoponsible you think you have acted, I find that you have acted incomprehsibily rude in your handling of the situation - what exactly are you complaining about? The use of the - template? Go argue on talk:Template:Cv. Jooler 21:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect that there might still be a copyright problem because all you've done on your new revised version is shuffled the words around a bit more on the same original copyrighted text. I don't know how old you are but if you've written a paper in college you would know that you just can't do this kind of thing. You have to read, take notes and then summarise or produce a work using your own words otherwise its just plagiarism or in this case a copyright violation. In any case the whole page might have to be deleted anyway because the original copyright violation will still exist in the history. I'm not sure what the precise policy is on this which is one of the reasons why I've asked User:Joy Stovall to comment on it see User talk:Joy Stovall. Jooler 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Human evolution
I enjoyed discussing human evolution with you on the reference desk. Following up on your question, variations in reproductive fitness can be quite subtle. If I recall correctly, Dawkins discusses a case of (finches?) where the key difference in beak length was on the order of a millimeter. It's not that the ones with the shorter beak length would die before being able to reproduce, it's just that their ability to reproduce was hampered ever-so-little (or conversely, the longer-beaks' were helped just a bit). It will work similarly with humans. For instance, assume a hypothetical gene controlling some aspect of lung function, perhaps the structure of a surfactant or a structural molecule. Suppose there arises a mutation that modifies the structure by a tiny bit, so that it works just a little bit better (perhaps in today's polluted air). The organism now has a tiny bit more energy, which may be devoted to seeking a mate (or studying or advancing a career, and attracting a mate), or in caring for offspring. Perhaps it will allow time to have more offspring. Or perhaps the extra energy can by used to give the fetus a tiny bit more chance of survival to term, or increase its fitness in some other way. Now for this individual organism, the difference will be so small as to be neglible. But if you take one thousand organisms with the mutation versus one thousand without, perhaps the former group will have one additional offspring, or will end up with one more descendant in some way. That's how evolution works. Tiny, tiny, steps, billions of them, over billions of years.

Am I making things more or less confusing? — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Phil, I understand your confusion, but death is not that significant, as you yourself note. Having the least fit die is the extreme of evolution and is much easier to explain to schoolchildren, but in reality much of evolution takes place at a much more subtle level—ultimately, what matters is reproductive fitness, whether from remaining alive when others die or from other matters. Let me try redoing the example. Let us suppose that there is a mutation in airway mucus such that the bearer is more resistant to microorganisms invading the respiratory tract. Forget about the life-threatening pneumonias—in fact, let's assume that all humans in our scenario will live until age 100, when they promptly die. Will evolution still occur? Absolutely! Humans with the resistance gene have a benefit—they won't have to expend energy (I use "energy" to somwewhat loosely refer to cellular resources), fighting as many invaders, the bacteria and viruses which invade your respiratory tract daily and are promptly quashed by the immunes system. They won't have to expend as much energy or raw materials repairing cellular damage from repeated infection. Of course, there will be an energy cost of producing the extra mucus. Let as assume that even at the cost of producing the mucus, they still possess an energy benefit. This energy can be used in many ways. Perhaps it will enable the organism to be slightly more fertile. Perhaps it will be able to slightly better supply its offspring with nutrients. Perhaps the organism will have an additional day to reproduce instead of spending it sick in bed. Of course, this tiny difference is unlikely to make a difference in this one organism, but averaged over time and population, it will. No one needs to die. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm taking a partial wikibreak due to professional obligations. I’ll be editing lightly for a while. Please excuse any delay in response. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the delayed response. I have been quite busy in the last couple weeks; these discussions, while enjoyable, are lower on my list of priorities. Before going further, it would help me to understand your position better. Are you discussing from the perspective that whenever you read about current human evolution, you don't understand how it could be occurring and wish to understand the mechanisms better? Or is your viewpoint that you actually don't believe that humans continue to evolve? Or perhaps it is something else? — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Whiteboard
Fixed the issue with your whiteboard; the header now appears above it. (PayPal or personal cheques welcome!!!) haz  (us e r talk) 20:15, 18 May 2006


 * hehe, cheers for the help. Philc  TECI 17:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

America invented football
Come on, guys. Everybody knows that football is the American game, such as the NFL. The other sports described here ARE NOT FOOTBALL. They are rugby and soccer. Please, somebody correct this article. I learned this stuff as a little kid.
 * Football is not an american game, American Football is an american game, no-one cares what lingo you were brought up to believe, or what you think, but the NFL is just about the youngest of any football associations, and so is the one who should, if any, sacrifice the title of football. The FA was set up in 1863. The NFL was formed in 1920. Why is american football even called football when prodominantly you use your hands anyway. This is an english language wikipedia, not an american wikipedia, so americanisms mean very little here. Try to keep that in mind when editing.  Philc  TECI 18:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Everybody knows football was invented in America, as well as everything else of value. Including cars, planes, trains, boats, ships, telephones, TV, radio, electricity, guns, medicine, music, books, movies, rockets, satellites, sports, democracy, capitalism, computers, the internet, and Wikipedia itself.  And we won all your wars for you to keep you free.


 * So Wikipedia must follow American rules. Soccer already has its name, so don't try giving it a new name that is already claimed by the USA.
 * Unfortunately, americans did not invent any of these things as far as I am aware (except maybe wikipedia, though the concept was already around), you did not win any wars either, though your assistance was valued, as far as I can see the most significant contributions in both wars were by the USSR. And ironically, the USA is the greatest hinderence to freedom in the world, invading countries which it dislikes, or has some valuble resource. And even if your claims were true, which they're not, this is no reason to use American terminology on a website made for english speaking people. Philc  TECI 17:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides the word Soccer's etymology comes from mid second millenia in an ENGLISH univeristy. The game is not American, the name is not American and following Wikipedia's rule of "If it's been named,it's named" It should be kept as British Spelling. J.J.Sagnella 21:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeh im pretty sure this dudes backing me up, not quite sure though.  Philc  TECI 21:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother 7
Just because the logo is on the Channel 4 website does not make it "correct". Both logos are right, but the colours are black and gold, not white and gold, and there is no need to replace what is already right. Please do not revert it again without discussing on the talk page. -- 9cds(talk) 01:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Heysel background
Hey Phil, just thought I'd come tell you in person that citing userpages from places like tripod.com isn't really an acceptable source. The reason for this is that anyone could write anything there. I have removed the references, and in the process of editing the text. Acceptable references include things like national or local press, official team pages and the like, cheers for the effort though. aLii 19:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr Moggi (forget his first name) the (now former) president of Juventus is being investigated on charges ranging from match-fixing to referee selection, where he would personally chose referees for Juventus games, and the games of others. If a player needed just one more yellow card to be banned against Juventus you can almost be sure that he got it. etc. etc.. Basically Italian football, and Juventus in particular is very corrupt, and Juventus could well be relegated and stripped of a title or two!


 * As regards Heysel, yeah it's terribly documented on the web. The first reference on the page is to a Guardian or Times article that describes the Roman violence though. I read though a LOT of pages yesterday looking for sources. I found a lot, but many of the stories are just that, "stories". We could put LFC stories, but then we'd also have to put Juve stories (of which I have found quite a few). It'll take a lot of work to sort out that page.


 * One good way of finding decent articles is to do a google search, say "heysel stadium site:guardian.co.uk", which will then search only the Guardian page, etc... aLii 19:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

FAID Answer
I put a few comments and an answer to your question. Hopes it answer your question. Kingjeff 01:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you see the situation on FAID? There are only 2 articles and come next sunday, it'll be down to 1. Thats why I nominated a few articles. I'll let you nominate an article or two. Kingjeff 14:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Football AID 28 May - 3 June
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week. Football in Norway has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

FAID Vote
Can you vote for the Austria national football team? Kingjeff 16:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can, but I don't think that I will, as I think that Watford F.C. is a more deserving article.  Philc TECI 16:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

FIFA World Rankings Peer Review
I think the large number of indents might be telling me its time to use the article talk page instead of the peer review page... Anyhow, I mentioned tournament seeding because I saw it on 2006 FIFA World Cup. As for sources, the relevant pages are Verifiability and Reliable Sources, but in plain English, blogs and other self published sources are generally not acceptable. Things like newspaper articles or a sourced quote from a high profile football personality are acceptable. Oldelpaso 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that reference is appropriate in the context used - it doesn't mention anything as being "heavily criticised". Also, its unneccessary to use the same ref twice in the same sentence, just put it once at the end of the sentence. I'll have a proper look at the article tomorrow. Oldelpaso 17:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The reference looks OK now. Whatever reference 6 is has gone missing though. I've given the first couple of sections a copyedit, but other than copyediting I'm running out of steam suggestion-wise. If I think of anything I'll put it on the article talk page. Oldelpaso 11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saving my butt
Regarding the article 'History of football (soccer)' I would like to say sorry and thank you for reverting my edit. I 'added' the unture information accidently, the mention of fighting during football above made me think they would rather fight/settle scores than play football. It was confusing, so I made it clearer. Check it out, do you think it is ok? Pseudoanonymous 22:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I changed train and fight to do their duties. And... yes, there was a war on then in 1365. I am surprised you weren't able to find it in the english history article :O The war is a rather famous one; The Hundred Years War 1337–1453. Pseudoanonymous 01:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You're So Charming
Thanks for being so nice. You're So Not Charming. But Hey I suppose you're entitled to your views. J.J.Sagnella 12:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Maps
I have left you a present at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps... Let me know what you think. Thanks, KWH 18:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: The return of the awarder
Already blocked by User:Sango123 :)  Radio Kirk   talk to me  21:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Football AID June 4-10
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week. UEFA Cup has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

About France team formation
Sorry but I wasn't posting my own view but simply the way the team does play. Zidane is simply never on the left and Dhorasoo isn't in the starting line-up. At the last three friendlies against Mexico, Denmark and Switzerland, the team has played with a midfield made of Makelele on the back, Vieira slightly on the right, Malouda slightly on the left and Zidane at the top... and finally, with Henry and Mr. X as forwards. If I say Mr. X, it's simply because that post was obviously given to Djibril Cissé, but as he has broken his leg we don't know who would play beside Henry.

Anyway, all this to say that I was certainly not uploading "my" prefered formation, but simply the most common formation. And if you don't believe me, just check the French page, I've just copied and pasted the formation shown there. User:Metropolitan 23:57 9 june 2006 (UTC).


 * I've just checked fastly and I haven't found any other source than the French wikipedia. To be honnest, I don't want that much to lose my time about this. I've seen it published in the France Football magazine, but they haven't put it on their website. Anyway, it's really not that important to me. If you want, we can wait untill Tuesday to see how France will play against Switzerland. I'm sure that Malouda will be on the left wing and Zidane in the axis, but I don't think it's that awful if it's not pictured that way on Wikipedia. So let's wait Tuesday. :) User:Metropolitan 01:23 10 june 2006 (UTC).

Football AID 11 June - 17 June
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week. Watford F.C. has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Why it still matters
The reason it still matters is that the violation remains actionable, and there is a rule in the US, at least, that where a registered copyright is violated there are per-publication statutory damages. Per publication can mean each time something online is viewed, so these add up quickly. This provision is at the heart of the Napster cases, where individuals sharing songs on-line are being sued for individually catastrophic amounts. By the way, if FIFA were to complain, you'd be first in line on the lawsuit, and Wikipedia would be second. (And the legal issues are aside from the fact that it would be aweful press for there to be a headline "Wikipedia publishes work stolen from website"). Sam 18:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. It is up to others to ignore or not ignore my objection; it cannot, indeed, be fixed, and I was clear that this is the only ground I am objecting on - I specifically am not objecting on the basis of quality of the article.  Realize that actual damages are irrelevant to statutory damages; what "statutory damages" means is that there is a payment due without any showing needed of actual damage.  You've identified practical reasons why FIFA will not likely sue, and they are good reasons.  There is, however, a big reason for them to sue.  If they fail to protect their trademark, they can have trouble enforcing the trademark against other infringers.  Unfortunately, this means most holders of strong trademarks, like FIFA, have to periodically file a few lawsuits to protect those marks.  So, every now and then they take a little guy to the cleaners.  Sam 18:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They may prefer to just threaten and get a fix, so they can put it in the file and show they policed their marks, but their lawyers usually tell them pretty clearly that every now and then you need to take one of these cases to the mat. So, yes, practically they are likely to be satisfied, but if they are looking for a case to take to the mat,  they will behave in a non-sensible (from most perspectives), economically inefficient (viewed alone), but merciless attempt to screw someone to the wall. Sam 18:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You've identified a good reason to put your name (I'm assuming you were the one who originally copied and mildly edited the site) first on the suit, but, actually, I think there are a lot of copyright holders out there who wouldn't mind suing Wikipedia. It's not the Red Cross. It's a bunch of nerdy types.  Not as much fun as suing Harvard or Yale, but cheaper. I understand the frustration if it fails, especially given the timing with the matches going on right now, and I know if it does it is probably not something that can be fixed.  Sam 18:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, the "Bullshits" are a nice touch. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with them, but a nice touch none-the-less. Sam 19:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA Rankings
I had a closer look at the FIFA rankings page (the one written by FIFA that is), and in places FIFA World Rankings is indeed too close to the original text as things currently stand, and not just in previous versions, as I first thought. I'm happy to work on it with you, but it will probably take longer than the current FAC run. Ignore any wikilawyering about previous versions, as unactionable objections are not taken into account, but stay calm about other objections, as they are valid (until further editing changes that, of course). Sure, its frustrating to see objections to your hard work, but its no accident that less than 0.1% of articles are featured. Give it time, you're most of the way there, but the last bit is often the hardest. Oldelpaso 22:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't add copyrighted text to Wikipedia
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your creation of the article, FIFA World Cup Rankings, but we cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Please see Copyright problems for more information on this topic, or generally, Policies and guidelines. Please do not remove the copyright violation notice placed in the article or repost the suspected infringing text. However, if you would like to rewrite the article in your own words, follow the link in the posted notice to create a temporary subpage. If your new article is appropriate, and not a further copyright violation, the reviewing administrator will move that new article into place once the copyright status of the original has been resolved. Happy editing! False Prophet 01:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your edit to the copyvio tag. see User:False Prophet/FIFA World Rankings overview vs. FIFA.com overview.  The text is way to similar for it to be original work.  My objection is valid so if you tried to ignore it, I will revert it as there is several different things that I have mentioned on the FAC page.


 * re write it, and then send it through a pr. Then renominate it.  I wont be able to go on the main page I think, but it could still be a FA


 * after rewriting it, if you want it to be a FA, you should send it through a PR again. This time, dont argue the suggestions, do what they say.  I'll round up editors to participate in it.


 * Sorry, but seriously, as soon as the FAC ends, rewrite the section and then send it through PR. False Prophet 14:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good job, here's a barnstar for you

The Resilient Barnstar

RVN
Obviously you don't understand spanish: Origen: Oss, Países Bajos (Origin)[...], Biografía Nació en Valencia. De padre español aunque a los 5 años de su nacimiento se trasladaron a vivir a Oss, Holanda (Born in Valencia. Spanish father...). And that's all, please don't answer again, it's boring.