User talk:Vickser/Archive 1

Horacio Elizondo
On the Horacio Elizondo article can you vote at the bottom to see whether we should keep Rooney's view on his decision in the article as I'm trying reach a consensus as soon as possible. Thanks. Englishrose 10:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 FIFA World Cup sponsorship
Hi, thanks for the heads-up. I agree with you that the article is much improved (even a tad too heavy on the negative side maybe? - that introductory paragraph seems a bit blunt!). But, besides that, I do think the commercial sponsorship side of the World Cup is a big part of the tournament, so it seems to merit an article separate from the playing side. I changed my vote to this effect at Articles for deletion/2006 FIFA World Cup sponsorship. Good luck with the AfD. :-) --DaveG12345 19:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I put a note up on 2006 FIFA World Cup sponsorship encouraging people to do NPOV clean up and added that profits go back into football in the introduction. Vickser 20:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Vickser, thank you for drawing my attention to the revision. your edits have made this a much more encyclopaedic article; you should get the Yashin award for saving that one. --die Baumfabrik 22:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have also changed my comment from Delete to Keep. Thank you for your work and for letting me know of the changes. -- Alias Flood 22:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought that this article was unsalvageable. I changed my vote, but the nomination was withdrawn anyway. Very good work, Vickser! &mdash;Twigboy 14:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

C. Ronaldo
Hi, I'm not sure if this information is important to you at all, but you edited C. Ronaldo with the note "(Protected Cristiano Ronaldo: trying semi-protection [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])." It looks like you were trying to protect it (I don't know, I'm still a newbie) and if you were, I thought I should let you know that that doesn't seem to have gone through. I hope this is helpful, and apologize if it's irrelevent. Vickser 20:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Vickser. It may be the case that the recent edit was made by an account which is over 96 hours old.  The article is currently semi-protected so most accounts older than four days should still be able to make necessary changes.  You can verify this by attempting to edit the article while logged out.  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 20:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, it did get protected. I got confused because the lock I've seen when other pages have been semi-protected is not up on the C. Ronaldo main page. Apologies for bothering you, and thanks for s-protecting it. Those vandals were getting pretty nasty! Vickser 20:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vickser

You recently amended an edit I made on the Cristiano Ronaldo page, citing "unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Cristiano Ronaldo, are considered vandalism". I contend that my edit was actually representative of a significant number of the English population, and their perception of Cristiano Ronaldo's character. Enclyclopeadic entries are not confined to tangible factual input but also can be reflective of opinion; especially in relation to a person. I accept that my comment was tongue-in-cheek, but I would argue that it was in no way harmful or detrimental to the validity of the content of the C Ronaldo page, and actually provides insight into the personality of the subject.

Stevenray


 * Stevenray, you edited in "Ronaldo is a cheating winker." While I must admit it's a statement I agree with, the edit seemed (and I must admit still seems) like unconstructive vandalism to me.  The constant vandalism on C. Ronaldo and the fact that it was your first contribution made me inclined to consider the edit not of good faith, and I apologize sincerely if I interpreted your actions incorrectly.


 * I must, however, correct the idea that wikipedia should not be confined to tangible factual input. As you're new, you may not yet have seen the five pillars of Wikipedia, and I encourage you to do so.  If you click around you'll see that Neutral point of view defines facts as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" and then says that "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above."  So, we say Ronaldo's been carded several times in premiership for diving, note that match reports described him as diving, and say that he infamously winked at the bench after Rooney got sent off.  For more information about how to convert normative statements into facts, I encourage you to check out Avoid weasel words.  Thus, having "Ronaldo is a cheating winker" in the article is against wikipedia policy.  If you edited it in out of ignorance of policy, I apologize for thinking it was vandalism.  I must have just edited out "Ronaldo's a gay diver" one too many times . ..


 * Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you'll contribute constructively to articles in the future. I look forward to seeing you around.  Thanks! Vickser 19:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vickser, I'm really sorry about what happened to the Ronaldo page the other day. I had just got Wikipedia the day prior to the vandalism and I had been showing it to my friends. Since I remained logged on to the page, even when i left my friend's house that day, he thought it would be fun to "play around". Unfortunately what he did was rather immature and pathetic. I had no idea about the incident until I clicked "my talk" today and saw your message. I then confronted him about it...apparently, the C. Ronaldo page wasn't his only target...sorry for wasting you time. Kallstrom11 05:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ford Sporting League
The problem with this league (apart from the lack of sufficient sources on the subject) is that I'm not really convinced that this league is notable enough to be included in an encylopedia. I don't see it having had a major impact on English football. This was esentially a one-off tournament like many others. Is there any information on who participated in this ? Travelbird 00:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Travelbird"
 * So far the only teams I've been able to confirm as having participated as having played are Oldham Athletic, currently in League One, Colchester United, playing in the Championship this season, and Fulham F.C. , who are now in the Premiership. I don't know much about it yet and am still trying to figure out how many levels below the premiership it was, but those are decent teams, and ₤70,000 was a lot of prize money for 1970.  There's enough well sourced information online that we can be certain that's what in the article is factual.  My theory is that there probably is enough information out there an encyclopedia article, even if there's not much online.  To quote notablity, "Google is not the repository of all knowledge."  I'm not convinced I'll be able to make this more than a stub, but I think somebody else someday might.  Given access to the right resources, I'm sure a lot exists to be written about it.
 * Further, I think you might be setting the bar a bit too high with the idea of "major impact." I think the generally accepted line for notability isn't anywhere near as high as major impact on English football for inclusion.  Someone would be hard pressed to argue that Michael Brown, for instance, has had a major impact on English football; however, someone would be equally hard pressed to convince the community that his article should be deleted.
 * Mostly, I think a professional league (no matter how short lived) is encyclopedic. The XFL, from that other football, only lasted one season.  Because it was in 2001 rather than 1971, we can google prove its notablity, but I really think the two leagues are actually quite comparable.  Both took a popular sport and tried to change the rules a bit.  Both failed after one season.  Major impact?  No.  But some impact, something that involved many, something that probably slightly changed the way people of the time looked at the game?  Without a doubt.  Vickser 01:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed my opinion to neutral, although I am still unsure of the leagues notability. --Porqin 02:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request
This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chelsy kiss.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Chelsy kiss.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)