User talk:Daddy Kindsoul/Archive 1

I moved the case to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kwame Nkrumah by the way, since a checkuser was filled before under that name against this user -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should be ok now, sorry for the mess I had a colleague talking to me at the same time. Sorry again! -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand English? What you linked says it is likely, not that it is certain, and I am not the user you think I am.

Furthermore, note that you are not allowed to remove the fair use tag from the image.--Francis Escort 20:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deathrocker. As the self appointed custodian of the Towers of London wiki page can you please explain how the description of the Towers of London rock band as controversial is a neutral POV. Can you use your eclectic understanding of popular music to elaborate on what '77 style British punk is, i have started the wiki page for you. It would appear to be as useful a description as saying that Wayne Rooney plays '74 style Dutch football or Andy Flintoff plays '81 style English cricket. Regards Jackspinner 08:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I see we've both spent our share of time scratching the Panairjdde rash. Anyhow, a CheckUser hit doesn't automatically result in a block; you then have to bring the results to the attention of the admins on the Incidents' noticeboard, as I did here. Just telling you for your future reference! Dppowell 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, please try and be more civil. I understand why you might be frustrated, but lines like "It would be great if you could stop raping the glam metal section of the heavy metal music article which you clearly have no prior knowledge of." I'm a pretty even-tempered guy so I really don't care, but please be more courteous to others.

Now, onto your points. Yes, I do know what I am talking about because I just read three books and watched a number of documentaries on heavy metal so I can help fix up the article. Please have faith that what I am adding has some merit and has been carefullt considered.

Specific issues:

1. I wouldn't take the "Influences" section of Allmusic as gospel. While certainly it is the most reliable music site on the web, that reliabity rests largely on the bios, the discographies, and the charts. The Influences and Followers sections can be updated with suggestions from users, and sometimes aren't entirely accurate or leave out important acts. For example, one of Green Day's main influences as relayed through a number of interviews is Husker Du, but neither band's Allmusic page mentions this. In the instance of inluences, a direct quote or comment about influences from a book or magazine article is more reliable than what Allmusic says. While the LA bands most certainly were influenced by the original metal bands, the Ian Christe book establishes that it was the NWOBHM that really got the scene going, as the people in those bands were avid collectors of NWOBHM records and then started bands.

2. I didn't see a source for Ozzy and Priest messing with glam metal, and in regards to the article as a whole, it's somewhat irrelevant.

3. Minor confusion with the line "several professional and amateur magazines devoted exclusively to the genre emerged, including Kerrang!" The line isn't in reference to glam metal specifically, rather heavy metal as a whole's increasing popularity in the 1980s.

4. Ratt did form in San Diego; however, they played in LA a lot and were considered part of the LA scene. All the books here place Ratt in the LA scene, and this is reenforced by Steven Percy's comments in the VH1 documentary Heavy: the History of Metal where he talks about the LA scene and how Metallica (before they moved to San Francisco) didn't like his band.

Hopefully that clears up any confusion. WesleyDodds 07:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The administrators do not have the time or motivation to keep chasing down Panairjdde and his socks, so if we're serious about helping them enforce his ban, we need to get organized. Jayjg has explained to me that Panairjdde can't be blocked by IP range because too many innocent editors could get caught in the crossfire. Panairjdde has disrupted so many articles that I'm sure there will be no shortage of editors willing to assist, but I thought I'd approach you first.

I've started to put together a list of resources needed to file RFCUs here. I also want to compile a list of articles that he is known to frequent, culled from the contributions of his most recent socks. We can obviously add to it as time goes on. Tell me what you think. Dppowell 22:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV, and an admin blocked him. I guess my thinking is that he's only one guy, and if we have a committed group of volunteers who are working to contain him (we probably can't stop him entirely), we can make it very labor-intensive for him to continue evading his ban. I would say "just ignore him," but that only serves to encourage him. Dppowell 22:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The "project" page is ready! Dppowell 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Daddy Kindsoul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

see below

Decline reason:

Violation of ARBCOM injunction. Note that the next violation appears to be a one-year block. — Yamla 15:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Daddy Kindsoul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

see below

Decline reason:

Declined by Yamla, declined by me. Don't abuse this template. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request review by blocking admin user:AnonEMouse, regarding AN/I

The content Ceoil defaced[59], blanking many sources I took a long time finding and had added to the article (along with other such work), was not to do with the actual content from his perspective. It was malicious trolling against my work in "revenge" of me correcting licensing tags on some of his images I came across earlier in the month.[60] The user has been harassing me over the past month, following my edits, even violating Wikipedia:No legal threats at one point, claiming that he'd "see me in court"[61] for correcting licensing on his images before.

I don't see how I am the one issued with a block, when he has commited such a blatant example of trolling, vandalising my edits not for content reasons... but just to set my work back. All I did is remove such edits. He seems to have serious issues and most importantly is in violation of

Please read the message Yamla[62], I specifically requested a review from the blocking admin AnonEMouse at the very start of the request, who was involved with the case. Not you. -

Deathrocker 15:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

In that case, you are abusing the unblock template. Please contact the blocking admin directly. The unblock template is to be used only for general block reviews, not to have the blocking admin review. Also, you are not permitted to blank unblock declines. --Yamla 15:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to contact the blocking admin directly when I myself am blocked from editing anything but my talkpage? Hense why I put the crystal clear note at the start of the request. -

You can send an email to the blocking admin. Or you can use the helpme template to request that someone leave a message for you on his talk page. --Yamla 16:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you help with a dispute in emo rap? The dispute is evident on the talk page: Talk:Emo_rap#Revert_05:31.2C_26_March_2007. User:Xcryoftheafflictedx has proven difficult to work with. Viewing the recent edit history going back to 05:31, 26 March 2007 would be helpful in getting an idea of what has been going on. The dispute is that I would like to preserve some of the content (the opening paragraph), and the structure of the entry (espicially the itemized criticism section). This is taking the from of a revert war between myself and this other user. This user is pushing POV, and has a higer regard for their writing abilities than appears justified. Actually, looking at the user's talk page it seems that he has a history of acting unilaterally, and being difficult to work with: User_talk:Xcryoftheafflictedx Thanks in advance. AThomas203 19:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it does seem the article has a lot of POV issues. I placed a tag on a section the other day (concerning weasel words) because of the unsourced POV sentence that says "emo rap is an abomination or bastardization of hip hop music". I'll take a look at it once my block has expired, can't help your probs with the user at the moment though I'm afraid, cause of my block. Thanks. -

Deathrocker 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If I fail to do this it'll likely be because I'm travelling; but the idea will have been suggested on your user talk, which you can point others to. I actually think it's within your interest to pursue something like this. Marskell 21:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean a "buddy system"? -

Deathrocker 06:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I was thinking of a disinterested person you could ask "do you think I'm within bounds editing X page in Y manner." But that would depend on somebody being willing. Another option is to get a very firm vow from you that you will revert literally nothing except blatant vandalism and give targets for good behaviour. If you went three months, for instance, with no revert problem you'd move back from the year block to a week and so on. Marskell 13:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I might consider having somebody to consult in certain cases of editing, but not reverting at all is out of the question really. I mean in this case, my work was reverted by a user who wasn't interested in the actual content and was just doing it to be a troll. I think my problem is, I don't suffer fools lightly at all. -

Your problem, if I may, is that you are going to be blocked for a year soon enough. I checked (out of concern, not out of malice): you've been editing apx. sixteen months and have been blocked thirty times. If your argument is "but, he was a troll," then there's little point in my raising it on WP:CN or anywhere. Marskell 20:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet trolls exist, how is it not a valid argument if I have diffs to back up a certain user indulging themselves in such negative activites? The diffs I provided speak volumes, all people have to do is check them out; that is what I went through the trouble of looking them up for.

Also your statistics are way off. If you actually took the time to read the logs, instead of just counting you would see many times the word "unblocked" (or changing the length)... because incorrect blocks were handed out.

The majority of my blocks are for the most inane of things, like violating a 1RR... its not to do with the actual content or work I am adding here. Its a shame that some admins are inept and involve themselves in things, but can't be bothered look into them correctly... only to later realise "oops I was wrong to block there", hense the reason you see so many ("unblocked" instances in my record). Seriously, its like arresting somebody for a small insignificant violation who is doing a lot of positive work in the community, while letting trolls and vandals do whatever they want... common sense seems to be a foreign concept. Lunacy. -

Hi, I believe your Weasel Words block has expired on [Emo_rap]. I fell that Xcryoftheafflictedx is still being disruptive.

Would you help join in establishing consensus on the issue? The relevant details are found here: Talk:Emo_rap#Proposol_to_revert.2C_04_April_2007 and in the history of changes to emo rap AThomas203 02:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the article's FARC. It was pointed out here that the references you added to the "Mainstream dominance" section were unclear and unformatted. WesleyDodds 10:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You just removed the 'goth' category from the

Musically, yes, but he isn't just a musician. I would say he is one of the few 'experts' on the subculture. J Milburn 10:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newb, be so kind as to tell me how to remove it from those categories. Thanks muchly. :) ZachPG 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you muchly, I appreciate it. ZachPG 18:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just backing up an article thats nominated for deletion.. I didn't realize someone stuck in catagories... thanks.TheDarknessVisible 04:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the other categories has nothing to do with how much "rock" makes up the form. Rather, it's just to remove category redundancy. The gothic rock groups category is listed under the alternative rock groups category, which is filed under the rock music groups category, which is filed under the musical groups by genre category. It's just a little cleanup. Similarly, if you ever see a band page tagged with both, say, California rock bands and American rock bands, it's ok to remove the former category because the entire category "California rock bands" is listed in the American rock bands category. Sorry about any misunderstanding; multiple categories can get messy (the punk rock ones are particularly bad) so it's best to condense tags as much as possible for easy reference on topics. WesleyDodds 10:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

Why did you remove the goth tag (and incorrectly at that, at least, from the info box) for This Ascension? It would appear their current record label (Projekt) considers their albums to be of that genre. Bkavanaugh 13:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best if York City had its own seperate history page - every club who have a FA have a history article. It allows a summary of the clubs history to be placed on the clubs article, and if the reader wishes to read more they can see it in full detail on the history article. Thanks, Mattythewhite 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can explain to me how the article is POV, I won't remove the tag. It's that simple. We removed the tag because you failed to give an adequate explanation. Just because I enjoy listening to MCR doesn't mean I'm a complete fanboy. I wasn't removing the tag because I felt you were insulting the band, I removed it because you couldn't give us an adequate explanation. mcr616 _Speak! 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to come off as an ass and I apologize if I did. Bear in mind I only removed the tag because that's what the majority of the editors agreed upon. Also, I do realize that slapping you with a vandalism tag is wrong, but that wasn't a personal insult, and I'm sorry you took it that way. mcr616 _Speak! 21:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to suggestions about how we could make the article NPOV, if that's what you think it really is. mcr616 _Speak! 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you look at Moralis and Ofren's rebuttals, the site you suggested doesn't meet the source requirements. Also, we did include negative reviews in the article. It's not that I'm trying to be a fanboy, but I just can't see what you mean. mcr616 _Speak! 21:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't given us ANYTHING regarding what you consider to be wrong with the article. You say that we've made the article sound like it performed better than it did. Cite an example of this so that we can do something about it. Simply re-adding a tag and then failing to do anything with it is not helpful, it isn't productive, it's just disruptive and annoying. Right now it feels to us like you're just trying to harass us, not to help us improve the article.

If the tag is still there at midnight tonight, and you haven't given us any actionable examples of why you placed it (as per

After further investigating your argument with mcr616 on your talk pages, I've realized that you seem to believe that there was an ongoing discussion of POV issues when you added the tag. The last discussion of NPOV issues appears in Archive 2 around 21 January, and was not a dispute but simply conversation amongst ourselves. The discussion was in response to a passing suggestion by a GA reviewer, and this was most likely what the phrase "the issue has been brought up before" was referring to. --Moralis 18:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Daddy Kindsoul! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove

Why exactly should those notable players be shown on the main York page? Why do they stand out from the rest of the notable former players? Do you prefer them to the rest? And some of those, such as Andy Bishop and Marco Gabbiadini, don't actually meet the criteria. -- Mattythewhite 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your definition of "notable" then? -- Mattythewhite 20:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. I could extend the criteria to a wider variety, such as top scorers, record transfer fee players etc. Although, I don't agree with there being particular players on the main article still. They shouldnt be given better treatment than the rest. -- Mattythewhite 20:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please discuss, preferably at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football before we get into an editing war about these? We obviously have different opinions about them, and a discussion is just starting over there. As to the list of Champions on the NPL page, yes they are on the divisional articles, but I am trying to make these re-directs to the league pages as there is no information on non-league divisions that could not be better shown on the main league article - fchd 12:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your continual reversions of my edits on this page are unacceptable. You are obviously a little bitter at Manchester United for reasons I wouldn't deign to fathom. Suffice it to say, I have been more than patient so far, but if you continue I will report you for ignoring Wikipedia's

Whereas you seem to be intent on making Manchester United fans look like the sole instigators of the incident. Feel free to report me, but I think you'll find it is you who is in the wrong.

PeeJay 08:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The reality of the situation, which you seem to be oblivious to, was that Roma fans started assaulting the Man Utd fans with missiles from over the barrier. The United fans responded in kind, and then the police stepped in, forcing back the United fans with violent methods. It was only then that the United fans started to attack the police, and in my book, when someone fights back against someone who is attacking them, it's called retaliation, hence the edits.

PeeJay 08:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

But there was something to control, namely the United fans retaliating against the Roma fans! The picture you are referencing shows a snapshot of the incident, and while I don't deny it is a picture of a United fan throwing a chair at a police officer, you can blatantly see that the police were already interspersed amongst the United fans, indicating that the man throwing the chair is retaliating against police violence.

Another issue here seems to be that you are reverting the edits explaining the incidents from the match against Lille, which indicates to me that you are nothing more than a United-basher.

PeeJay 09:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, but nonetheless, the actions of the Man Utd fans against the police was a retaliation to what the police were doing. I think we're agreed that the police had to escalate their efforts due to the actions of the United fans, but to make a bare-faced statement like "United fans attacked riot police" is a little bit weighted. I am willing to admit that there was a number of United fans involved in unacceptable violence against police, but what you said was just beyond the pale. And yes, the beatings some of the police handed out were "indiscriminate". One woman was nearly killed, FFS, and she was just trying to get away from the incident. Please try to read your sources before abusing them to suit your purposes.

Oh, and you still haven't explained the issue about the Lille incident edits.

PeeJay 09:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Altho I think the band's name and body of work is icky, you did a great job defending the image. I agree with you 100%. --Knulclunk 14:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The letters meaned something. "Società Polisportiva Ars et Labor" was refounded as Spal 1907 a couple of years ago after the cancellation of the old team. Please, ask for a revertion of your move. CapPixel 10:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian wiki is wrong too. Spal doesn't _officially_ mean anything anymore. Neither Spal's official homepage nor Lega Calcio Serie C's official homepage indicates that Spal still means something. Previously, when it meaned something, it was always written in extended form in both official and Serie C's homapages, or at least in dotted form. See the old logo. CapPixel 10:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that "Spal", since that old society has disappeared, doesn't _officially_ mean "Società Polisportiva Ars et Labor" anymore. The new society is not registered as "Società Polisportiva Ars et Labor 1907 SpA", but as "Spal 1907 SpA". CapPixel 11:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, follow the standard agreed on the [Italian Football talk page]. Thanks. CapPixel 18:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of my edit that could be seen as breaking the NPOV whatsit would be the change from 'Tourette also called Simon Amstell "Anstis" referring to former BBC children's presenter Toby Anstis.' to 'Tourette also mistakenly addressed Simon Amstell as "Anstis", referring to former BBC children's presenter Toby Anstis.'.

Firstly, if this was POV, you should edit the part which is a problem, not revert all my changes (familiarise yourself with the page about when and how to

Secondly, the idea that Donny was mistaken (and not calling Amstell 'Anstis' for some other reason) is supported by the show itself, when Donny says "I thought your name was Anstis."

Is there anything i've missed? -Groveller 10:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Donny was the one who missed the comedy memo. While i disagree with your view that it was a joke on Donny's part, and believe that the episode itself backs me up, i'm willing to concede the point. Is that all? -Groveller 11:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, follow the standard agreed on the

I notice you've been tagging a lot of images with the "no fair use rationale" template - thanks! I have, however, had to remove some of your tags since that is only a speedy deletion criterion if the image was uploaded after May 4, 2006. Please try to make a note of the upload date to avoid mistakes involving this rule (I think it's somehow related to the timeframe when this policy was enacted). (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.tourdates.co.uk/theanswer/ "Genre: Rock Sub Genre: Classic"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ "We're just a good time rock and roll band" Cormac Neeson

If one person labels a band as traditional metal, that does not mean you call them heavy metal which is very misleading. It would be more accurate to describe them as an orchestra. —The preceding

Why have you (twice) moved the Northern League (football) page to Northern Football League? Northern League is the correct name and the (football) suffix is used to disambiguate. Northern Football League is not the name of the competition. - fchd 06:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is no excuse to move it to an incorrect title. It is never referred to as the Northern Football League. I won't revert back at this stage, I'll try to seek some consensus. - fchd 07:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now started a discussion at

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Non-league football - feel free to state your point of view. Incidentally, the logs don't confirm your assertion on my talk page that "Because I moved it to "Northern League (football)" in the first place from Northern Football League before realising that it doesn't follow the pattern of all the other English football league articles" - the first move you appear to have made of the article was on the 11th December 2006 from NL(f) to NFL. - fchd 04:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I can't figure it out though, why are you always in a minority? Why do you reckon that is Deathrocker; given your status, both within article space and your user space, as a genuine musical guru? Weird. Ceoil 01:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a sense of humour anyway, Deathrocker, I'll give you that. Ceoil 10:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven or eight vs. 1 does not seem enough to establish a specious consensus, even on your terms. Has it occured to to you that instead of authomatic reverts, you would be better spening mammys money on medical research. You are obviously an unhapply soul, speaktome. Ceoil 23:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You flatter yourself by imagining you are anything but a pest. It took you four edits to type your reply in my talk and in a way thats what makes me fucked offed; if feel like im a playground batteling with a baby. Ceoil 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reply quicker than this might get my respect, but...no. Ceoil 00:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You're talking to the Daddy, so please conduct your reply in a respectful manner if you're going to discuss articles with I" --Good one. Ha ha. Or whatever. You were quite funny before, but maybe that was a once off..no lutz here. Ceoil 00:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you have other users to troll, I understand; see you back on TemplatePunkbox when your block log allows, ie tuesday morning; 10:19am; You me, Geist, Dodds, Spylab; it'll be great. Ceoil 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no no no no no no no no no. I dont watch you. You turn up as as a annoying complainer at pages I contribute to. Troll like, it seems to me. What is it you do again, outside of pushing a cock rock POV? Ceoil 01:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gaps between your replys get longer and longer. The humane thing here is to just revert your anti consensus ramblings on Template:Punkbox, and hope others pick up the tiny pieces. Bye Ceoil 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't asssume that other editors are folied (for DR & slower editors: fooled) by transparent sillyness such as this. Boring, try harder please, or just go away. Ceoil 01:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I have multiple instances of 1RR on my talk and, espically on Template:Punkbox; going back over many months. Ceoil 02:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If thats all the Daddy can offer, then well, I'm sorry. There is a bigger story here. But leave TemplatePunkbox alone, eh?Ceoil 02:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation is finished; until you revert on Template:Punkbox gain. Lets just leave the history as it is. Ceoil 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect; you contiually bait editors into pointless edit wars and I dont watch you; but you keep on cropping up, making personal attacks, unable to undertake discussion without makeing it personal. We have met on a few page before; and more than one other editor has been imidated by your bully approach; You have trolled my logs. My personal openion is that you have a well meaning account but are over run by the lutz Ceoil 02:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its too late for that now. Ceoil 03:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could put that in explainable english, or based you troll on explble words, that would be great. Otherwise, I thought I had a better enemy. Ceoil 03:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so, in simple English. You have a troll account. You make many good edits, but typicaly you bait and seek to hurt. How about that. Ceoil 03:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)10[reply]

My clear openion is that you dont give a damn about others openion. I think the best option is to seek others openion. Ceoil 03:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do on my talk what I like, thanks very much. Ceoil 21:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating facts, no violations here. Please stop giving me reasons, though. If you toned down your agressive attitude to multiple other users, I might not be tempted. Ceoil 21:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for god's sake. Do you know at all what is going on. I'll tell you in small words. You are an agressive pest, and hinder the project. I am an

Its probable you believe that, and that is the problem. You do not realised how destructive you are, and there is, as far as I can see, no possiblilty of reform on your side. I'm working towards a RFC; lets break contact and work on our arguments. Ceoil 00:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Your on, although spanner is a compliment in Ireland. Ceoil 00:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how do you know what a spanner means. You are right about the comment though, it was uncalled for, and I apologise. Ceoil 00:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not aimed at you, but [64]. Ceoil 00:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I deleted your recent article because it did not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. Best to write complete article on your word processor or in a sandbox before saving for editing Jimfbleak. ^{Talk to me.}06:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read your message on my talk page. The point I was trying to make above was that I have no way of knowing whether a stub will be added to - I can only work on what I see, that's why I'm suggesting that an article is posted in more-or-less complete form.

You comment on the other messages on my talk page - of course people are going to ask why their articles were deleted if they are not happy with the deletion summary. You will note that some of the articles remain red-linked, because the creators accepted that they were not within the guidelines. Of course I make mistakes, but judging on what people post on my talk without reading the replies or the original articles is a litle unfair Jimfbleak. ^{Talk to me.}07:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Qwghlm 09:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove replaceable fair use tags

While you're more than welcome to contest the tag, please note that it explicitly says "Do not remove this tag". Thanks. --Ytny (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against tagging an image when I believe it may not be free use or invalid fair use. Like I said, you're free to contest it, but it's up to the closing admin to decide whether the tag was appropriate or not. --Ytny (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out - I've left my explanation on the image talk page. Cheers! --Ytny (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep removing the replaceable tag on Image:CamoranesiWorldCupWin.JPG. The reason is explained in the image talk. --Ytny (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Guns

Please avoid using abusive

edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing. such as here - Tiswas^(t) 15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Replacement of {{

Infobox Band}} with {{Infobox musical artist}} is policy. Point taken about the lineup - Tiswas^(t) 15:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Leeds City F.C.

I've responded to your question on the Leeds city talk page. Chappy84 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Battipagliese.gif)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

York League/whitespace

Maybe it's a browser issue - what browser are you using? I'm using IE 6 and the page looks like this:

ChrisTheDude 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In the interests of accessibility, though, we should probably try and make it look OK in all browsers - how does it look now in yours....? ChrisTheDude 10:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CC template on Image:AurelioDeLaurentiis.jpg

Hi, I think you misunderstood my reason for changing the tag on Image:AurelioDeLaurentiis.jpg. Because the original Flickr uploader assigned a non-derivative Creative Commons license, that's the license you have to use, whether you actually make a derivative image or not. Unfortunately, images licensed on Flickr as non-derivative and/or non-commercial are not compatible for use on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Ytny (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AurelioDeLaurentiis.jpg

Hello, I have deleted this image again for the reasons I outlined on Image talk:AurelioDeLaurentiis.jpg. Please do not upload it again, as its license is not compatible with Wikipedia. I realize that you didn't make any changes to the image, but we can't have that restriction on our images. If you have additional questions, please ask; do not simply upload the image again, because I will delete it again. Thanks --Spike Wilbury 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davey Havok

My sincerest apologies. I reverted it because I'd seen it as Marchand before it had been changed to Passaro. Sorry for the trouble I may have caused.- Floramage! 15:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were all buddies now, but...

aww..it looks like you got bitchsmacked again, DyK. Is there anything I can do to help?—DCGeist 06:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serie D

You're doing a great mess in there. Scudetto Dilettanti was not assigned at all from 1959 to 1992, so do not add erroneus information. In fact, I had created an apposite paragraph (Serie D promotions) but you reverted my edit. And take care to the wikilinks, they are the Italian ones, that use a completely different way of styling than here. --Angelo 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emo (slang)

I'm glad we've established that emo is not the same as goth. If you can find a reliable source that definitely settles whether or not there is any relationship between the two, you feel free to cut out that part of the article. Reverting the entire article because of two or three statements about goth is entirely inappropriate, and you should use the talk page. I've already posted there twice in the hope that you would discuss your changes (which are, based on your reasons, inappropriate). Cheeser1 12:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tables

Hello. If you're going to make snarky comments accusing someone of "making a mess" of tables as you did on my talk page, it'd be helpful if got the right edit and the right user if you want to avoid looking like a moron. Pal 19:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tables

This isn't rocket science. Look at my edit, then look at yours. You didn't roll back anything I did. You rolled back part of this edit (which I'll post again even though you're apparently content to continue making yourself look dumb) which came after mine. I didn't make the offending edit! - Pal 19:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Do not modify my talkpage archive. I explained that such continued action would be construed as a personal attack and as vandalism. This is your only warning before I report you. Cheeser1 21:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union 03 Altona

You redirected this page to

Altonaer FC Hamburg. These are two different clubs, so please eliminate the redirect. --80.108.121.206 09:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Juve PR

Hey, I've added a bunch of comments to the above. Hope some of them are helpful! The Rambling Man 18:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

blocking policy for disruption. Shadow1 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

message box

I have removed the "prank message" box from the top of your page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bots/spam

Howdy! Because of your assertion regarding bots (which don't read the messages quite yet), I'd just like to leave a quick notification about the importance of licenses. If you remove licensing alert messages from bots, it'll be accepted that you're aware of the issue they've notified you of, and if you continue to violate the copyright policies going forward, you'll be blocked to protect the project. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much aware of how to upload images correcly thanks[65][66][67][68] and even fix others that I haven't uploaded from time to time to. I just do not appreciate it when certain users/bots spam my talk with tags, that are of their own doing (ie-blanking images from articles, etc). - The Daddy 17:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its seems my humourous and within policy bar was removed by accident, not to worry I've brought it back for you. - The Daddy 18:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually,

WP:UP#NOT

states: "Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to 'entertainment' rather than 'writing an encyclopedia'" are things that you should not have on your userpage. As such, I have removed the bar again. Many editors have just today mentioned that they do not like it; your persistence in keeping it amid these objections shows a decided lack of civility.

As for the "spam" notice, individuals do not set WP policy--the community does. Automated messages are perfectly acceptable within the scope of

disruptive

.

Please take a moment to consider your actions and whether or not you want to continue being willfully combative. Cheers. -- Merope 19:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I clearly outlined the policies that these violate. You don't get to set policy; the community does. Now knock it off. -- Merope 19:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "games", no "role-playing" or other such forms of "entertainment" mentioned in that policy which are being used on my talkpage; I'm not playing at Harry Potter. It does not say that you are not allowed to conduct yourself with a sense of humour; the box you have at the top of your talkpage has nothing to do with "writing an encyclopedia"... neither do any other peoples talkpages. So unless you are going to remove your own and every piece of information from the top of every users talkpage, then you will leave mine alone as it is not in violation of any policies.

As for my spam notice, it does not link to

Spam (electronic)

; try reading the article on spam. Its non of your business whether I choose warn users against flooding my talkpage with spam or not. Warning against spam is not a violation of any known Wikipedia policy and you have been unable to show otherwise.

Also you continue to make a mess of my talkpage and screwing up my Wikiproject templates. Seriously, if you have nothing better to do than this, it might be time to turn off your computer or do something constructive. I've violated no policy, I am here trying to do some work. Now if you don't mind.... stop mythering me and defacing my personal space.- The Daddy 19:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently by your actions below, it seems you were just trolling me. When my block expires I will look to get your powers revoked for abuse... as shown below your block is entirely unjust. - The Daddy 19:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either it's entertainment or it's you being a jerk. Take your pick: either way, it violates policy. -- Merope 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its called

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

?.. Humour is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia, perhaps you should look into it.

Being a "prick" would be mythering users, harassing them on their talkpages when they are trying to contribute to Wikipedia by adding to articles. - The Daddy 19:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no need for personal attacks, it's not going to get you far considering you are already blocked for a month (pending). — Moe ε 19:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one set of rules for you and one set for the rest, you begun the uncivilties by calling me a "jerk" (ah sorry I misread "pick" as "prick). Perhaps you should ask an other admin to block you? - The Daddy 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said either the bar constituted entertainment, which is prohibited by the userpage policy, or you're being a jerk, which is prohibited by the civility policy. You can decide which one you are: the point is that no matter how you slice it, having that up there doesn't seem to be kosher. Yeah, there's not a rule against that specific action, but that's true of a

lot of things. If more than a few people objected to something on my userpage, I would remove it, no questions asked. That's part of what being a civil member of a community entails. But, whatever, we can leave it up here. You're blocked anyway. -- Merope 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker#Enforcement_by_block_Deathrocker

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Daddy Kindsoul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As explained in depth below, the blocking administrator was not familiar with policies and blocked me when I was editing in good faith. He blocked me for "violating" an expired parole (I was told my the administrators at the time of parole insertion that they are in effect for a year). He has also openly displayed his intentions to abuse powers, by saying "I'm going to regret this, but I'm feeling rather rougey today".[7] basically a glorified attempt at cyber-bullying a user who is just trying to get on with some work and contribute to the project, even after I asked him to disist[8] so I can get on with some work. As the block is proven to be unjust below I request that it be lifted and preferably I be apologies to for the bullying. - The Daddy 20:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block is valid, the accusations of "cyber bullying" aren't supported by the edit histories, and the assertion that the arbcom ruling was only to last a year is not established anywhere in the final arbcom decision. — CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Since you have violated the terms of your revert parole (see: [69] [70] [71] [72]), I have blocked you from editing for one month. This block will be logged in the ArbCom listing. -- Merope 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration expired in May genius, it was for one year. Also removing clear examples of vandalism (I explicity stated in the diffs that is what the intentions of my edits were) does not constitute as a "revert" at all acording to the

WP:3RR as already shown to you here[73]. If you are entirely incapable of administrating with an ounce of common sense or following the policies then perhaps you should give it up and let users who come here to actually CONTRIBUTE get on with it. - The Daddy 19:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Where does it say it expired in May? The revert policy does not give an expiry, and even if it was for one year, it will expire on June 25 2007. At any rate, I'll ask another administrator to examine my actions, no problem. I will say that your personal attacks aren't going to win you any sympathy. -- Merope 19:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the arbitration remedies linked above, I see no expiration. The block appears to be proper. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I first went into Arbitration, I was told about the process of it and they said that the outcome lasts for a year. It states at the top "Case Opened on 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)", it has passed a year since I first went into it. That is the first time I'd ever been on Arbitration.

Personal attacks? You have gone out of your way to try and wind me up, while I am trying to work on articles pertaining to subjects that I am interested in... you even openly stated "I'm going to regret this, but I'm feeling rather rougey today. -- Merope 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[74]". So basically I'm having to put up with you violating

WP:DICK because you're feeling "rougey" today, when I've come here to work? Think not. - The Daddy

ArbCom rulings don't start until the case closes, not when it starts. — Moe ε 20:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is explained where? All I know is that the Arbitration case was started in May 2006 (the date shown above), its over a year later now. So that is what I'm going by.- The Daddy 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is just common sense. When someone is sentenced for a crime, their punishment doesn't retroactively take effect from the date of arrest. Furthermore, there is no expiration date on your edit warring parole. If you don't want to get blocked, don't edit war. End of story. -- Merope 20:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, it was explained to me at the very start that the parole is a year and another admin has said that this is how alot of Arbs are[75] How else would I be aware that Arbs last a year, unless I'd been told so in the first place? I've shown clearly how it has been over a year since it was opened in

May 2006

and that I've edited in good faith.

Regardless of the fact that my reverts were not in violation of policy anyway, as it states in

WP:3RR that removing of vandalism/blanking (which I've already explained and clearly stating that is what my edits were in the summary[76]

) does not count towards a revert. So going by policy, I haven't violated anything and shouldn't be blocked at all... let alone for a month.

As I said, you made your intentions very clear with this comment; "I'm going to regret this, but I'm feeling rather rougey today". Perhaps you will regret attempting to cyber-bully me when I appeal to get your powers removed for clear abuse. - The Daddy 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I identify as a female. I'd appreciate your using the appropriate pronoun for me, or at the very least using he/she. -- Merope 20:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does not specify a time expiry limit: even if there was a year-long limit that the arbs forgot to mention, it would still have 5 days left to run, since the case only closed on the 27th June last year.

Now, where was I? Oh yes, your ridiculous allegations of vandalism. Surely it's been explained somewhere along the line that per

the rules concerning fair use, fair use galleries are not permitted? And that removing them is the thing to do? And that those that revert such removals get first warned, and then blocked? No? Well, if not, please take this on board now, because if this sort of behaviour is continued in the future, the next block will be far longer. Thank you. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 20:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Where is any of this specified, the case clearly states it opens in May 2006[77]. As I have said, I was told at the very start of the proccess that the parole lasts a year (if you had read the above you would already be aware of this) How else would I be aware of the fact?

Regarding your second part, may I remind you to WP:Assume good faith. The images uploaded have full rationales and fair use licenses... the images were used, like the majority on Wikipedia articles (Joy Division] for examples) next to information pertaining to them. If somebody blanks these correctly licensed and fully rationaled images from articles, then that constitutes clearly of blanking others work. Blanking is one of the main forms of vandalism[78]. - The Daddy 20:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding decision

The acusation of cyber-bullying is supported by this quote with a diff "I'm going to regret this, but I'm feeling rather rougey today"[79]. The rest of the information has been provided above with an indepth explination, referencing various policy.

Dicitionary describes as "rogue" as[80];

• rogue (rg)

n.

1. An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.

This is a way an admin should act towards editors who are trying to work? I think not... its simply cyber-bullying.

In your decision, you are stating points which I have explained in full below it already. You also do not reference a single policy to show how the block and the action of cyber-bullying is acceptable. Nor have you shown how any of the points illustrated above are incorrect... so what are you basing it off? - The Daddy 21:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merope was making a joke about being a rogue administrator, nothing more. Don't twist it to support your claims of "cyber-bullying." The block enforcement was outlined by the Arbitration Committee in their final decision, which has been stated on this page numerous times. The ArbCom decided that you will be blocked for one month if you break 1RR, so Merope enforced it. Shadow1 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

People have been recently adding

O'Dean, Robin, and Greg Leon as members again. Now I agree with you that they were NEVER members. Hopefully this will be stopped soon. Alterego269 08:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Request for comment

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. I need your opinion with regards to my comment in this

Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

About Juve article

Since 2006 Juve is playing in Stadio Olimpico di Torino (ex Comunale), not in Delle Alpi (Delle Alpi is in re-built according to Project Stadium in juventus.com). Juve will come back to Delle Alpi in the 2009-10 season according to La Stampa (lastampa.it; see its article in JFC article in it-wiki).
Respect to the Supporters chapter, the Juventus Club DOC site (juventusclubdoc.it) is the only official fan club recognized by Juventus Football Club S.p.A. The chapter explains the JFC fan clubs around the world and Juventus Club DOC have this information. Zebraportal, Juve Malasia, Juve Indonesia, Juventuz, JFC by Danilo Paparazzo, yahoo, geocities, and others ARE NOT recognized by JFC. Sorry for my poor English. --Dantetheperuvian 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insults

Why the personal insults? That helps nobody. Dvb23 12:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juventus FC

I saw that you reverted out my edits to the Calciopoli section of the article. I have since edited the section and sourced it to the best of my abilities, as I did not like the previous version (as it sounded like an anti-Inter editorial (when Juve was upset at more than just Inter) and missed other, notable events like Juventus' challenge to the civil courts). I would like to, therefore, bring up the following points to consider before you re-edit:
1. If there *is* a specific complaint by Juventus (or its fanbase) against Inter Milan it should be documented somewhere in reliable news sources.
2. Much of the anti-Inter material isn't Juventus-specific and is better covered in the Calciopoli article itself.
3. The Goal.com article you provided is a reader-submitted article and is no more reliable than a letter published to a major newspaper. In addition to this, much of the allegations provided in the article- such as Telecom Italia's moves being illegal- should be documented in other, "bigger" sources such as the Guardian, ESPN (or even Italian law), as it is a major allegation.

Thanks. -RomeW 09:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, I found the Channel 4 artile on Gigli, which should be included in the main article, although I have yet to find a source where a Juve official specifically alleges that Inter conspired against them (the Gigli article states that Juventus should beat Inter because Inter took their scudetto- nothing about a conspiracy to take it from them).

In any case, there does not *need* to be a whole paragraph dedicated to Inter's wrongdoings- that stuff is already covered in the Calciopoli article, and this is an article on Juventus, not Inter. There does need to be information on Juventus' attempt to bring the matter to the civil courts (due to a perceived bias against them in relation to not just Inter, but Milan, Fiorentina, Lazio (who all got their demotions revoked, with Milan even allowed back in the Champions League) and Messina (who won the right to stay in Serie A at Juventus' expense)), because that *is* notable- it almost led FIFA to ban the FIGC; as well as "Calciopoli II" that brought more controversy when Milan sued for the 2005 Scudetto after it was learned that a 0-0 draw in late 2004 was suspicious. The way the article is written, it appears that all the events that happened after the trial were about Inter and that isn't the truth- quite a lot happened between Juventus and the other clubs. I also think if the article is going to mention that Inter bought two Juve players, those players should be named, especially considering they were key Juve players.

Lastly, again, the Goal.com article is *not* a source- it's a reader-submitted article that is not "endorsed" by the site and has no more value than if I had submitted an article to Goal.com. All the information in the article *should* be sourced by more reputable sources. Regardless, given what I said before, I don't even know if it needs to be in the article, because the Calciopoli aftermath should deal with a lot more than just Inter, because that's what happened.-RomeW 19:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Juventus F.C.

Hi Daddy Kindsoul. You are off to such a great start on the article

History of Juventus F.C. that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK

On history of Juventus F.C., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--Wizardman 16:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Puteolana2004.jpg)

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Juve players

Not exist a standart for football teams list. The List of Juve standart is the same than List of

Liverpool and List of Manchester United list, BOTH FEATURED LISTS. The list have more OUTSTANTING Juve players than your edits

.

If exist

why write

For a list of all Juventus players, major or minor, with a Wikipedia article, see Category:Juventus F.C. players.

 ???

What's your problem now? It's not wikipedia for dummies! --Dantetheperuvian 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy?

If you like, i remove the REAL Platini's quote for the list, but you don't edit ALL why the list of players (and source) of my edition is most complete than the other and have the same standart than MU and Liverpool FEATURED lists! --Dantetheperuvian 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walty was part of first scudetto of Juve (1905). Domenico Donna was the first Juve captain (see juventusstory.it). Alejnikov has won 1990 UEFA Cup and has been important for that. Platt, not.

Zona Cesarini and "oriundi" are important Italian football phrases. I, in my poor English, explain this.- --Dantetheperuvian 02:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Italy the numbers for recognize players were used for make diference between Players with the same surname (Borel I is Aldo Giuseppe, Borel II is Felice Placido). It's important because in England Borel is so known as Borel II.
If you would like edit (I or II), make it, but please DON'T EDIT all the list! --Dantetheperuvian 02:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walty was important as "pioneer player" as Durante, Barberis, Donna and other in 1900s and the First Scudetto in 1905 (more info in Juve article in it-wiki). Alejnikov was important for Juve in 1990 Uefa Cup triumph (this Cup was dedicated in memory of Gai Scirea). From the Juve official site (in Italian): http://www.juventus.com/it/news/detail.aspx?lml_language_id=0&trs_id=1203000&ID=10758

Players as Platt, Henry, Zavarov, Rush, Vycpalek (he has played only two matches in Juve squad. He's most recognized as Juve coach) and others have not important performance in Juve. --Dantetheperuvian 02:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates Hello, did you read

Wp:cite#Citation_templates?

Scrolling reference lists should never be used, because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such reference lists will display properly in all web browsers.

Please don't do that again. Cheers, Chris.B 09:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

F.C. Puteolana 1902

Hi Daddy Kindsoul. You are off to such a great start on the article

F.C. Puteolana 1902 that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- JayHenry 05:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

D Generation

Why have you reverted D Generation? Your change seems to do nothing more than revert the article to an older, out-of-date version. Adam McMaster 08:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting to the version of this article you seem to like best. You should not wikilink individual years, you should not Over-Capitalise external links, there is no need to add a default sort parameter to the categories, you should not introduce typos to the article. If you disagree with specific POV sentences in the article, either tag them with [citation needed], comment them out or delete them altogether, but do not perform wholesale reversions on the article. Thanks. The Rambling Man 08:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to blatantly edit in contravention of the manual of style I will have to block you from editing. Please stop, you have been warned. The Rambling Man 09:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, last warning. You tell me to "Stop acting like a nutcase " - your edits introduce typos, bad style and point-of-view. It's not your article so stop claiming ownership. Once more and I will block you. The Rambling Man 09:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you chill. It'd be a real shame to march into a block. Usual advice round here is

WP:TEA - it's pretty sound advice. It's easy to get heated, especially when one feels alone in an argument. --Dweller 09:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Having scanned Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker, may I gently redouble my last advice. If you get into new blocking trouble, you could find yourself subject to very lengthy sanctions. --Dweller 09:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, nor would I seek to ignore policies nor harass anyone, however your behaviour here is disturbing - you deliberately introduce typos into an article and claim to be following the

WP:NPOV? Bizarre. Anyway, as Dweller says, you need to take it easy otherwise sanctions will be tough. The Rambling Man 09:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

F.C. Torinese

Do you have proofs that the club was called F.B.C. Torinese? I've always seen it written as F.C. Torinese. Anyway, if the club was called like that, the article should be moved to F.B.C. Torinese, like in

F.B.C. Derthona. CapPixel 08:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Not really... the standard in the early days was C.F.C. (cricket and football club), because most of the clubs were founded by Englishmen. On authorized almanacs like Almanacco Panini the club is called "F.C. Torinese" and also in the official Torino F.C. history page. CapPixel 11:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I meant if you had found it on official sources like FIGC homepage or Torino F.C.'s one. CapPixel

Eccellenza Sicily

They weren't played at all, that's what the Regional Committee decided later on. Pro Favara was apparently readmitted to Eccellenza, but I'm not sure about this, try to have a look at the Committee's official site for some information concerning the issue. --Angelo 20:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support

I appreciate the revert you did for me on the "Joseph McCarthy" page. It was nice getting some back-up from someone on the McCarthy article. Thank you. Best regards. Jtpaladin 19:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

Hey, I know we've had our disputes but giving User:DCGeist a level four warning is pretty extreme. I know his edits were a bit bizarre, more annoying than vandalism, but not really in need of a level 4 warning. Anyway, I hope that you're okay about the situation, I've advised DCGeist to chill out a bit and get worked up about either one barnstar or more than one barnstars... wow. Regards, The Rambling Man 21:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the answer here is to just try to chat the situation out with DCGeist and see where to go from there. Issuing a level 4 warning is one step away from asking an admin to block which doesn't seem appropriate here. As far as I can see, DCGeist isn't a vandal, and while he's edited some of your pages, I'd just try to take it in good stead. As you say on your user page, "if something is wrong, Daddy Kindsoul believes it should be removed without pussyfooting around." - so alerting users that have messages when they don't seems to fall into that category. To that end, I know this may seem extreme but can I ask you to remove the "You have new messages" banner? It's annoying (even to me) and some people find it very disruptive. All the best, The Rambling Man 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STALK

Li'l DyKy, given your concern with Wikistalking, allow me to point out these three edits to you, which constitute exactly that: [81], [82], [83]. As the record clearly demonstrates, you have absolutely no interest in either perfect game or Joseph McCarthy, other than my participation in them. And, of course, your edit in the second of those summaries--"per concensus"--is not only misspelled, it's an obvious lie.

So, as Rambling Man suggests, let's try to get some positivity here. Obviously, we have to begin with you apologizing for instigating the negativity with your stalking and that deceptive edit summary. I'm all ears...—DCGeist 21:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Joining the Maltese WikiProject

Dear Daddy Kindsoul/Archive 1,

I would like to thank you for joining WikiProject Malta, a collaborative effort that aims to improve, write, expand and organise material related to the island nation of Malta. We currently need as many members as we can get, and you are a valued addition to the list of members. Please see our To-Do list if you would like to further contribute to the project, or help construct our project page.

Thank you,

The WikiProject Malta Team -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing sources

Continuing this will lead to a block.Hoponpop69 04:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of warning and sources

I noticed you deleted my last warning to stop deleting sources[84], and then I noticed you went on to delete the same source.[85] If there is a problem with the source please say why instead of deleting it without giving a reason.

As for deleting warnings on your talk page, that should not be done.Hoponpop69 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOFX

Per the report at

ELIMINATORJR 21:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've started this discussion here[86].Hoponpop69 22:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punk rock

Hey man do you reckon you could bring on the edit conflict you're having with geist into the discussion board? It's just because it's looking really messy on the history page and looks like it's just gonna go back and forth without any resolution. (I agree with most of your reverts although the honored/honoured thing is a little touchy and I don't see why the Saints section had to be cropped). (Justinboden86 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading

speedy deletion

since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are

case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 14:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Blocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Daddy Kindsoul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please include the original unblock request.

Decline reason:

The arbcom remedy regarding you has no expiry time. MaxSem 09:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thatcher131 02:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

My parole was for a year and the year had ended in 27 July 2007. I haven't broken any revert paroles, besides if you view the edit summary, I reverted vandalism of the opening paragraph of the article; a vandal blanked the entire first paragraph along with the four sources. Removing blanking does not count as a revert by the policy.

How is it that the user personally attacks me in the edit summary, yet he only gets a 24 hour block, while I get a week? The user is renouned for the vandalism that I removed.[87] With this sort of recklessness you're sending a message that if a user removed a defacing edit, then they can be blocked for helping Wikipedia, which isn't such a good idea.... - The Daddy 09:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of going into Arbcom, well over a year a go, I was told by the admin that it was for one year. - The Daddy 09:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no time limit on the written decision as posted. You can ask for clarification by emailing an Arbitrator or by posting to the Requests for clarification section of

Thatcher131 12:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daddy_Kindsoul/Archive_1&oldid=1131491384"