Hello, I noticed that you are rather new here (at least as a registered user). I further noticed that you have changed the infoboxes of various UEFA Champions League season articles to display a flag on the left side of the top goalscorer of the respective year. Well, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia everyone can edit, but nevertheless, there are guidelines which every user should follow.

One of these guidelines is WP:FLAG, which states that emphasizing the nationality of a person by using flags should be avoided. Another reason not to include these into infoboxes is the restricted space of the boxes. Adding a flag is, in this case, just a case of unnecessary decoration as it simply disrupts the accessibility of the information there. The final and perhaps most important reason is that it is general and wide-spread consensus not to include any flags for persons into the boxes, at least in articles under the auspices of WP:FOOTY (I don't know how other projects handle this).

So, it's basically not the reluctance against your contributions but rather the binding policies which led to the reversal of your edits. So, in a nutshell, I would like to ask you to remove the flags in order to avoid further conflicts. By the way, please note as well that content disputes should be settled by discussing, not by reverts and re-reverts of edits as the latter is not very well-liked here and could possibly lead to a block (see also WP:3RR). Have a nice day, Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way we can put the club emblem of the top scorer in the info boxes? I think that is appropriate. PatoMilan

Technically, there is a way - but there is also WP:MOSICON, which does not allow this, I think. However, just to be sure, you should ask at WT:FOOTY or the talk page of WP:FSATF for opinions on that matter. On another note, the complete Manual of Style can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. From there, you can also access a lot of other helpful pages for both Wikipedia beginners and seasoned editors. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not possible to add club logos to the infoboxes. This would be against the Fair Use guidelines, as non-free images must not be used for purely decorative purposes. – PeeJay 22:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Francesco Totti. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a ((Talkback)) message on my talk page. @ 02:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While Lukas Podolski, Thomas Müller, and Cacau play as strikers or wingers for their clubs, and usually for their country as well, the current official DFB squad list (found here) lists all three as midfielders and they should therefore also be listed as such on our squad list. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (PatoMilan) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it is a violation of username policy as a misleading username. Impersanating Alexandre Pato (Pato) who plays for A.C. Milan (Milan). If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Ok so how do I change the username without losing my contributions list or information, because Wikipedia's change of username page is somewhat confusing PatoMilan (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will be glad to help you here! Could you please list the username you would want now? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Italia2006"? PatoMilan (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Italia2006 (talk · contribs) is already registered. Try this request for rename change here. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking personally, I don't think that this is an obvious violation, especially given that both 'Pato' and 'Milan' have meanings beyond the one identified. PatoMilan could place a note on their user page noting that they are unrelated to Alexandre Pato.

PatoMilan - if you wish to keep your name, you could respectfully decline to change it and suggest that Avenue X seek further opinions at WP:RFCN.

But if you want to go ahead with the name change anyway, please let me know. –xeno^talk 18:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a username change would be best, to avoid any future trouble that may arise. No one can claim I am impersonating anyone if Italia2006 is my username, so I would like to go ahead with the change. Thanks, PatoMilan (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok =) Your request should be processed on or before 25 August. –xeno^talk 18:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you usurp Italia2006 as your username, not Italia2006@23&12. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was told Italia2006 is already taken. How bout "San Siro at Milanello"PatoMilan (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please usurp your username to Italia2006 (talk · contribs) fast, (trust me it won't be a prob at WP:CHUU, if it is, just ping me!) otherwise, you risk being blocked for impersonation. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Here is the original discussion that was had with respect to the club names for use on the Ronaldo article. If you look through the archives of WT:FOOTY you will see that the issue has come up many, many times without any kind of project-wide consensus being reached. I would love for the issue to be settled once and for all but it needs to be a project-wide consensus. The fact that many/most articles use "Internazionale" and "Milan" is interesting but does not prove a consensus has been reached (in fact if you look through the histories of various articles you'll see that starting about three or four years ago several editors began a program of changing these club names and while discussions ensued no overall consensus was reached and those editors continued to make the changes) it just demonstrates that those articles have been changed. Personally I feel that since this is an English language encyclopedia and a general one at that (i.e., not a football encyclopedia) that we should use the names that are most used in the English press which are, by far, "Inter Milan" and "AC Milan". But again, I would love a consensus to be reached and for WP:FOOTY to make it "official". SQGibbon (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why in every UEFA Champions League season article is Inter Milan "Internazionale" and A.C. Milan "Milan". Wikipedia should use the names for Italian clubs that are most often used in Italy. I can tell you that no one calls Internazionale "Inter Milan", for which reason no one calls Milan "A.C. Milan". It's Internazionale, and Milan. I don't see what the discussion is about. Italia2006 (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Italian Wikipedia, it is the English Wikipedia. We should use the names most commonly used by English speaking people in order to maximize understanding and minimize confusion. With "Milan" it's especially problematical since it's not clear for English speaking people outside of Italy or who aren't enthusiastic/expert football fans which Milanese team is be referred to. By using "Internazionale" and "Milan" it's like we're trying to make things as difficult as possible for the general reader. But like I said, this should be brought up at WT:FOOTY for project-wide consensus. SQGibbon (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just saying though Ronaldo's article is the only one that uses "Inter Milan" and "AC Milan". Also if people are confused as to which Milanese team it is they can simply click on the link. Italia2006 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to edit all the archive of 2002 FIFA World Cup qualification and 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification to this format:

2006 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round#Group 2

Please help me to that.

Thanks! Banhtrung1 (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what it looks like already? Italia2006 (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do not believe neither policy nor universal consensus exists regarding the explicit display of player names, the vast majority of club season articles, especially the major ones, utilize a player's last name or common name in instances where only one name is displayed, such as match displays. The notable exception is FC Barcelona. But the issued was addressed at length on its talk page and further addressed at greater length at Wikipedia's dispute resolution, which I have copied below for your convenience, with the mediation favoring the use of common/family names over jersey names on grounds of consistency within a project and clarity.

Your cross-season consistency argument was mentioned in the Barcelona case, with an implying conclusion that although multi-season consistency is good, it does not have more weight over consistency across a project, in this case WikiProject Football, in instances where contradiction occurs. Furthermore, the argument for cross-season consistency is baseless if the initial format used was less-favored, which appeared to be the case for Barcelona and this current issue. As a result, I strongly recommend adhering to the current popular project usage of common/family names by keeping "Diarra" for this season's page and changing "Lass" to "L. Diarra" on the previous seasons' pages. Bobby (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion stalled. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 2011–12 FC Barcelona season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Content dispute and edit war. The original content dispute involved the display of names in the section "Squad information". I (User: Digirami) changed it in favor of displaying the first and last name or a generally acceptable common name (a similar edit I have made to other articles); the other editor (User:Lafuzion) favored displaying what's on the back of the player's jersey. After a brief edit war, the dispute was taken to the talk page. Another editor (User:Vanadus) got involved in the discussion. That other editor and myself agreed on a resolution; Lafuzion did not, or did he provide much content-wise to discuss over. Upon continued insistence, the issue was taken again to the talk page, epsecially after Lafuzion changed the display of names to their full legal names and more continued reverts by him. Requests to the other editor to continue to take the issue to the talk page for more discussion (primarily to understand his reasoning) went nowhere. In addition to all this, the other editor reverts other edits made by myself to the article without any obvious explanation (perhaps spite). Invention is needed because it has reached a massive impasse. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Digirami (talk · contribs) Lafuzion (talk · contribs) On a side note, I'm quite aware that my actions at this points (edit warring and breaking 3RR) were wrong. It shouldn't have reached that level. I apologize for not behaving appropriate in respect to those actions. Digirami (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Taken the issue to the talk page. How do you think we can help? Any way possible. Digirami (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] 2011–12 FC Barcelona season discussion[edit] Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I am a neutral in this dispute, having not heretofore participated in it and having no history, as far as I can recall, with any of the involved editors. I'd like to perhaps start by setting a foundation. WikiProject Football has a section that reads: Manual of style Guidelines and help pages for writing articles and other contributions. Article Manual of style for a few common types of article: Club manual of style National team manual of style National association manual of style Competition manual of style League season manual of style Club season manual of style Match manual of style Player manual of style Stadium manual of style| and when you click on the Club seasons manual of style link, it takes you to a sample page in which the player's names are listed in full. Though as discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Player_name_display_on_club_season_articles there are a few templates which direct the use of jersey names, those templates are not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Templates which says that it is "intended to be used as a guide on template standardization" and the squad templates which are listed there use, to the extent that there's any indication at all, full names. It would appear to me to be the standing consensus of the project that full names are to be used and that this ought to set the best practices standard across football articles. However, it has to be noted that none of the pages I've mentioned claim to be setting guidelines or policy and, moreover, the position of Wikipedia is that while uniformity between articles is a good thing to have, that it is not mandatory in most cases (including this one). In short, there are no policies or guidelines which require a particular result in this case, which means that it has to be decided by consensus on a case by case basis, but there is some consensus that the best practice is to include full names. Having read and evaluated the arguments, I note that the only substantive argument being made for the use of jersey names is that the full names are given in the team article and that there is no need for them to be repeated in the season article, but I find no argument presented as to why jersey names should be used in this article in particular. While there may or may not be some merit to the argument in general, it is an argument which would be better pursued at WikiProject Football or at MoS than at individual article pages, since the latter tends to disrupt Wikipedia far more than the former. (I also note that the issue has, indeed, been raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Player_name_display_on_club_season_articles, that it was to be so raised was mentioned at the talk page of this article, and that the editor in favor of the use of jersey names, Lafuzion, did not to express his opinion in that discussion, which further suggests that he/she was more interested in the use of jersey names in this particular article than in general but without expressing any reason to justify that preference.) I, therefore, believe that the best thing to do in this article would be to follow the established good practice of using full names in season articles and that the proposal that jersey names should be used in season articles ought to be made at a more generalized forum. The editors who have commented upon this matter are mostly in favor of using full names, with only Lafuzion in favor of use of jersey names. At something like 3 to 1, and with the weakness of Lafuzion's argument in respect to this article, that would appear to me to be a consensus. If, however, consensus has not already been clearly established in favor of using full names at this article, you may add my position in favor of that consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] PS: While my opinion favors Digirami's position on this matter, and I give Digirama a modicum of credit for bringing this matter to dispute resolution, I would note for anyone who might be considering how much weight to give to his apology, above, for edit warring that since March 2009 he has been blocked twice for edit warring (both were in May 2010, with his request to lift the block refused in both instances) and has been warned 5 additional times about edit warring (4 times in 2009, once in 2011), with the most recent of those 5 having been (and not for 2011–12 FC Barcelona season) just on 29 July 2011. One hopes that his apology and use of DR in this case signals that he has amended his habits, but in light of his history I have not taken his apology into account in coming to the conclusions I've reached, above. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] This is a complete waste of time. I don't even know why I bother but the article was fine w/o any changes and followed the format from past seasons.. I don't understand why we need to put the full name as this is an article concerning BARCELONA CURRENT SEASON. If I need further reading on a certain player then I'll just click on the link and be on my merry way. When you first click on FC Barcelona, all the player's full name are displayed. Once you're on the current season, there shouldn't be a need to repeat this information as it has not been done for the past seasons like here, here, here, here and here. If you look at the 2006–07, Giovanni van Bronckhorst is shown as Gio as it was shown on his jersey while playing for Barcelona. So the original way the names were displayed is following the format used in past season. La Fuzion (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] It not just the names in the squad information. You revert a vast majority of my edits to that page for no apparent reason. I adjusted the transfer record to reflect that two players went to free agency and not a complete transfer from club to club: reverted. I display the full names of referees for matches (as is standard): reverted. I display the full names of stadium (as is standard), not just a simple nickname: reverted. I add template:sortname to the transfers list to better sort the player's name by their surname: reverted. I display the last names of scorers (as is standard) in box scores instead of what's on the jersey: reverted. Half of those edits I made because of a level of inconsistency within the page itself. In one section, the full names of referee is displayed, but not in another. Same goes for the stadiums and the use of the "location" parameter in the box scores (fortunately you warmed to that one). You display a high level of ownership when it comes to that page and that is really troubling. You also have to understand that just because things were done one way in previous seasons, doesn't mean it has to stay that way for subsequent season. Things we may have never thought about in previous season article come to light in the present and being willing to adjust to them is paramount. Digirami (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Template:Fb si player p: player's name on jersey and link to his article and that's the template. La Fuzion (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] As someone else has said, templates can change. They have, and it really should in this case (it has because, in a separate issue, there was also a big MOS:FLAG violation within the template). FC Barcelona proves how very inconsistent the practice of names on the back of the jersey is, something I'm sure the creator of the template never imagined. One player has his full name. The other his first name. Another his last name. Another his last name with first initial. Another his nickname. The practice of full/common name (i.e., first and last name) is far more consistent from player to player (granted, Brazilian for example are a large exception to that practice) and is far easier to understand. And you never responded to the my concerns and reversion on other parts of the page. Digirami (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] It's hard to have a discussion when the other editor seems to have abandoned it. Digirami (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] 2011–12 FC Barcelona season resolution[edit] Is there any resolution? The other editor in dispute seems to have little interest in keeping this going. Digirami (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] In light of his nonparticipation, there's not much more that can be done here. I'd say change it to full names and, if he reverts again, leave the reversion in place and take it to a request for comments or informal mediation and feel free to point to my opinion as a neutral. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] The article is well organized and follows the original template. I thought I made that clear when I added the link for it. I didn't know there was a need for me to spell it out. His counter argument is nonsense as he feels the way it is as not being good enough for him. If we're going to make changes then it should be to make the article better. No one has had a problem with how the template was/is since it was made. The same format has been followed from the first article to now and the sudden need for change is unwarranted. Like I've stated, this is an article on BARCELONA'S CURRENT SEASON and all the common names of players can be view on the main FC Barcelona article. La Fuzion (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I request that this be closed by another neutral due to the discussion stalling non-productive discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Amended from "stalled" to "nonproductive," but close still requested. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] "non-productive discussion." from whom? Because I'm not agreeing to this silly request I'm "non-productive"? So if I had agreed, everything would be good and dandy and we're all best friends? La Fuzion (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] "non-productive discussion" from you! It took you six days to come up with a reply while you were off doing other edits. And that reply only came when this dispute was threatened to be resolved in my favor. I was on a minor vacation and I still managed a post to keep it going. You still haven't addressed any of the points I made in my last post in the section. Pardon us, but it does seem like you no longer want to participate. Digirami (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cards make it difficult to read those articles and in an accessible manner find out when the goals have been scored. And with all due respect, cards can change games, but are not part of the end result unless one team goes down to six players, resulting in a forfeited match. With regards to Italian matches, I follow a simple template, where I just type in round, teams, goals and result, all in all to save editing time, since I've done Calcio research on a massive scale (from 1984 onwards). Regards//J Roslagen (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you have to add card information to your articles, just don't remove card information from current season articles or any others. In a word, don't remove, don't add, don't worry. Much thanks to your creative skills btw, Regards, Italia2006 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and transliterate the five regional football federations in Spain (list) without an enWiki counterpart. Football federation pages are always titled in English and the English names of these federations are listed here so redlinks should go to a page like Country Basque Football Federation instead of es:Federación Vasca de Fútbol. Bobby (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of having links to nonexistent pages when a real page, albeit in Spanish, is available. But whatever, this is your article and not wikipedia's so go ahead. Italia2006 (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see what your saying, but make sure you create articles for each and every federation of Spanish football. Otherwise obviously it's better to have a link to an English article for these federations than the Spanish one, clearly. Italia2006 (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah what I was doing was just eliminating the need of linking to esWiki, that's all. Unlike most La Liga referees, the federations probably meet the notability requirements on the English site so I just created them. Also I'm really sorry if you feel your edits to the page have been insignificant. I'm trying my best to learn and apply the general project consensus for the numerous minor details, and it's very welcoming when another editor such as yourself provides alternative viewpoints. That allows us to decide which is better, ultimately improving the article. If you ever want to discuss edits in private feel free to send me an email at santiberni@gmail.com. Keep up the good work! Bobby (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's cool, I appreciate the work your doing. I'll change the links on the 09-10 and 10-11 Real season pages to the English articles for the federations in a little bit. If I've seemed stubborn through all this, it's only because I put extreme importance on the consistency of articles dealing with the same topic, i.e., Real Madrid season articles. Italia2006 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you helped work on the 2010–11 SV Werder Bremen season article. Would you be able to help with 2011–12 SV Werder Bremen season article? Kingjeff (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I was hoping someone would begin work on an article for the current season. Sure, no problem. Italia2006 (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure to provide edit summaries when editing article. Thanks and keep up with the good work! ;) Luxic (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I used "quarterfinal" was simply because that was what the Copa del Rey main page used. MOS:HYPHEN doesn't provide an explicit example for this case (although I didn't look through these), but the second use case implies this is a US v British English preference. Since the Copa del Rey is a Spanish tournament, either spelling would satisfy the MOS. However note that RFEF usage in Spanish uses no hyphens, implying to me the direct translation is unhyphenated. Recent Copa del Rey articles have also omitted hyphens so for now I reverted the edits to match the main page. If you decide to add hyphens in all CDR articles, make sure to also modify Template:Fb round2 2011-12 Copa del Rey QF and parallel ones for previous seasons/rounds. Thanks! Bobby (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Thanks for helping me out. Would you please also edit the time above the article (in CET)when you edit the table.

Hey About Cisse: Goals only count for the first club they played for. If they transfer to a new club, new goals won't be added up to their clubs from old club.

Here is official list of golden shoe: http://www.eurotopfoot.com/gb/soulierdor.php3

That's why Aleksandrs Čekulajevs still has 46 goals, he went to new club in winter transfer window, but again this goals for his new club won't be added up at the ones scored for his previous club.

Matthi1603 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I reverted your edits to 2011–12 Real Madrid C.F. season regarding the a.e.t. display. Note that Template:Football_box_collapsible (the one used on the page) and Template:Football box are similar but separate templates. If you feel the football box a.e.t. display is better, please edit it on the Template:football box collapsible page for changes to be consistent across Wikipedia. Thanks. Bobby (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there is important discussion about messi's page at [footbal]

the discussion about :

1-adding back the assists which have been removed ( and i think its really important ) especially most notable players have it and even less known player than messi have this statistics which is important for any striker .(remember the debate about messi vs ronalod have lots about messi makes more assists than ronaldo )

2-adding back the youth and under -23 goals because they are different statistics from senior one and u cant merge them together . since fifa themself separate them differently .

3-about the table of messi goals and if its important info or just long statistics(useless one).

Thank you all . adnan^talk 12 pm 16 october 2012 (UTC)

Then why in every UEFA Champions League season article is Inter Milan "Internazionale" and A.C. Milan "Milan". Wikipedia should use the names for Italian clubs that are most often used in Italy. I can tell you that no one calls Internazionale "Inter Milan", for which reason no one calls Milan "A.C. Milan". It's Internazionale, and Milan. I don't see what the discussion is about. Italia2006 (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

So if you feel like Internazionale and Milan should be represented as they are in Italy across Wikipedia, why on earth do you feel the need to change team names for countries in regards to how the team is called, that you obviously are not clear on? subzzee (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I go by the names in UEFA Champions League articles which should be the standard for this site. Olympique Lyonnais is LYON. A.C. Milan is MILAN. Hamburger SV is HAMBURG. You make it sound like I ruin "your" articles by a simple name change? You're the one who refuses to follow the standard on this site. Italia2006 (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, there is no agreed upon standard for any team name on this site. How the team names are represented on the Champions League articles therefore is not necessarily correct either. Easiest solution therefore is to actually go by the teams name. The actual name the team goes by. As you correctly stated in the argument you posted above. Maybe one day there will be an agreed upon standard, but for now there isn't, so since you are not the author of the articles that I have published on Wikipedia, I would appreciate if you respect the fact that I would like to call a team by it's name, and not refer to it by it's geographical location, or some kinf of nick name. Thanks subzzee (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, but I can assure you in this regard your articles are one of a kind. No other page on this site calls Olympique Lyonnais by its full name. Even the season articles for Lyon use "Lyon" not "Olympique Lyonnais." And Lyon is by no means a nickname or an unofficial name. Italia2006 (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many errors on the Olympique Lyonnais season articles, in regards to how the teams are called, such as Hanover for Hannover 96, or simply Salzburg for Red Bull Salzburg (SV Austria Salzburg is the city's other club), so I would rather not imitate mistakes, but rather call a team by it's name, and not make up a new name for it. Thanks for the exchange, you can delete this convo now, unless you still have something to add, we can continue this argument on my talk page, but I am not going to write a book on yours. Cheers. subzzee (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why you reverse my edit on CL standings on this page? Stigni (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? You rollback a page and say look at these three pages and you rollback also that... What do you think I am? Stupid? Stigni (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT USE TEMPLATES. You've already been told this several times before. Whatever edits you have made in that regard you should reverse. And I said look at those other pages before I realized you had ruined them too. Italia2006 (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say why you are against the Template? Because I don't heard a valide reason. Can you answer here or here? Stigni (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These articles have never used a Template before and there is no reason to start now, apart from the fact that you removed 718 bytes of information. Templates are unnecessary especially for such a small table as the Group standings table. Please refrain from using this in the future and reverse previous edits. Best, Italia2006 (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is ok, this is not ok... Sound legit. Stigni (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympics happens once every 4 years. This is an annual competition. Yes, the first is ok, the second is not. I'd really appreciate it if you reverted ALL edits made in this fashion. Again, I don't know why I have to tell you this when it is clear you have been told this REPEATEDLY. Best, Italia2006 (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If something is useful you use it only once time every 4 years? I would like to use it every days. Stigni (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your thing is not useful, it's annoying. Having to constantly revert your edits is a drain and a distraction. Now just stop and admit defeat, because you have already been reprimanded several times by other users. Italia2006 (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some other user said that my template is ok, and I change only Man Uni because the existing table and my template is the same, so I try to copy the ManUni in the Arsenal page and change that too in the hope that you do not reverse and edit that not modify anything in the layout.--Stigni (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Community Shield is no longer considered a competitive competition as of this season. It's been moved to pre season friendly status. Please don't change competitive goal totals anymore. A prime example of this is the fact that Branislav Ivanovic was given a red card in the match but wasn't held out of any of the regular season matches.

Then you better change the main article: "If the Premier League champions also won the FA Cup then the league runners-up provide the opposition. Often seen as a "glorified friendly" which ranks below the FA Cup and League Cup, the fixture is a recognised football Super Cup." Italia2006 (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to have one line at the top and none below it. Kingjeff (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NO, it's not because you're the only one who uses it. Stop with the no bars element. Btw, thank you for destroying the 2012–13 FC Schalke 04 season article. I greatly appreciate your destruction of my work. Italia2006 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OWN. Kingjeff (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you did is WP:OWN. That format is in use in every other article currently and you changed it to to suit your opinion of what it should look like. Go ahead and change the no bars back, I'll just keep reversing it. How does it feel now? Italia2006 (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one that said "Btw, thank you for destroying the 2012–13 FC Schalke 04 season article. I greatly appreciate your destruction of my work." Kingjeff (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I'm the one who contributed whose work is it? I did not say the article was mine. In fact what YOU did most closely resembles article ownership. Italia2006 (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you revert it then? Kingjeff (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to but there were "conflicting intermediate edits" and I haven't had time to write it from scratch, all over again. That's why. Italia2006 (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to "write it from scratch." You go back to a previous edition of the article and copy the templates you want and paste it in the relevant section. Kingjeff (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but why did you change all of it in the first place? I'm honestly baffled. Italia2006 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is the matches were not up to date. I find it bothersome to put in information for opposing teams in. Kingjeff (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would've done that no problem. It's just difficult having to update every team's article, since I work in all the major leagues and minor ones as well. Italia2006 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Stigni (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you don't want my edit on the club season, when I created that template I was loyal on the existing layout as possible so I don't understand why you don't agree with that.--Stigni (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simple, we've never used a template before, there is no need for one, and even aesthetically it is unpleasing. For example there is no need for the green and blue lines, the dimensions of the box are incorrect (Width of template is 190 and 28, normal width is 175 and 20). Please, if you like the template continue to use it in the main article, but leave the club season articles to me. In addition, what is the purpose of having the template? To make editing easier by shortening the amount, correct? Well if I don't mind having to do them over and over, then what is the point? The template becomes redundant. Italia2006 (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normal width is 175/20? I don't think so... Here it seems to be 190/28, so why we have different width for PL and CL in the same page? The green/blue lines are useful until a team qualify then we change it from "border=blue" to "bgc=blue", why on the club season we don't have something visual to indicate who is qualified and who is not? Did you have seen my last edit? I have used the same style as the PL table or you reverse without looking what I do?Stigni (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normal width for Champions League boxes. I have seen all your edits. Please stick with the correct method. Italia2006 (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that you do not agree with unifying the width/layout of the PL and CL. For me that is crazy! The story of "we have done it till now" is not a motivation. Stigni (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir that is exactly what I'm saying. A league table and group standings are two different things and are dealt with with two different kinds of tables. And yes, "we have do it till now" is a motivation. There is no need for a template, I don't know how many different times and how many different ways I can get that across to you, and I would advise you to stop editing all these articles to meet what you think should be the standard, because regardless of any "edit warring" sanctions you put me under, your edits will be reversed. Best, Italia2006 (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep on insisting on having all those lines? Also, there is a template that has the group standings. There is no need to put a table in the article since there is a template with the table. The whole purpose of the template is so that the table can be changed in one place which would show up in multiple articles all at the same time. Kingjeff (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the only articles with your template are the Bayern Munich one and the main Champions League article. It's not that hard to update each individually. And without the lines looks ugly. Stop trying to change articles to what you think they should look like and get with the program. Look at all the other season articles for teams in the Champions League this season. Italia2006 (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want ownership of all the articles? Kingjeff (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kingjeff that there some other way to do the article because your excuses is quite obscure because there is not an article with same layout of another, so you can't say "look the other CL teams' pages". Stigni (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kingjeff is taking ownership of these articles not me and yes, do look at the the CL sections, not the whole page but the Champions League section specifically. There is a standard. Aside from that I find it rather irritating and ironic that Kingjeff is accusing me of article ownership when he completely changed the 2012–13 FC Schalke 04 season article to suit his preferences. I refuse to allow the same with the Bayern Munich article. No other article uses no bars, and the setup now in place is the one in place on every single Champions League team season article. In addition, Kingjeff made mention of the no bars being more aesthetically pleasing. To whom? Himself? If that's not article ownership I don't know what is. I'm going along with a consistent standard that has been used every season. Italia2006 (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking ownership. From what I've seen, it looks like you a dictating what you want in articles. You can be overruled through consensus. You have failed to keep the 2012–13 FC Schalke 04 season which is why I decided to make the changes I did. I've told you you colud change it back and you still have failed to do so. So, when are you going to get to that article? Anyways, there will be consensus on the issue of both the bars and the ucl group stage table template. Please stop with your controlling ways. Kingjeff (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this discussion. Stigni (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the consensus for years. You're the one who's trying to change everything. And thank you for ignoring the main point I made above, which is that the form you are using is alone on Wikipedia while I am simply using the format that has been used for years and that is being used in all of the articles but yours this season. As for the Schalke article I haven't had the time and don't even know where to begin. Italia2006 (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am quoted above in another discussion on your talk page as saying "the reason is the matches were not up to date. I find it bothersome to put in information for opposing teams in." This clearly explains why I changed it on 2012–13 FC Schalke 04 season. I have barely been on that page at all since that discussion and it looks like you haven't been on it either. From the previous discussion, it sounds like you have taken on too many club season articles. So, you, as an editor on Wikipedia, have a choice of either editing the 2012–13 FC Schalke 04 season or not editing this article. I haven't done anything to prevent you from doing so. So, instead of turning this into an edit war, how about constructively discussing the issues and come to a consensus. Kingjeff (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to do so. I just think that it is more professional to have a consistent look across all the season pages. That is what I am trying to achieve. And yes I edit and contribute to every season article for every major and minor European league. The task can get daunting. Italia2006 (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are too many club season articles for one person to enforce a strict code of how a club season article should look. Anyways, one person should not be determining it as you are trying to do. However, you do have the freedom to help build consensus on issues that you feel that need to be dealt with. Kingjeff (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you note that it's not using the template?? please, view the code, you are reverting without note the code I introduced. - tot-futbol (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to offer my sincerest apologies. The appearance led me to believe it was the template. Your code is perfectly fine. Italia2006 (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the style guide for make these changes that you insist in doing it? Are you following any style guide for changing name of Betis to Real Betis, and some players only with the surname, which can make confusions, it's explicit its name for some reason. If you don't know what are the shortened names for some teams and players, please do not change it. I am agree with constructive edits, but not for applying hardly rigorous changes, imposing personal criteria and the worst: changing without knowledge about someone is editing. I am Spaniard and I hear everyday how is named some players and teams in the shortened form, I am 200km out of Valencia, and you? Please, do not insist to make changes imposing your personal point of view. Be respectable with the work of others and the consensus accepted between the rest of editors. - tot-futbol (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The style guide I follow is the consensus of all the other Spanish football season articles. There should be no confusion with player surnames only, because that is why every name is a link and not simply block lettering. As for the Real Betis and Real Valladolid dilemma, I merely follow what is used on the other season articles for the Spanish teams, including the 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, and 2012–13 Real Madrid season articles, along with the articles for Barcelona, Atlético Madrid and Málaga, Sevilla, and the Real Betis and Real Valladolid season articles themselves. I am well aware that Real Betis is simply Betis, and Real Valladolid is Valladolid, but this is the English Wikipedia. There is an enormous consensus on the processes I've been using because I contribute to almost a hundred season articles in European football, and I have not myself come up with any of the guidelines I follow. Finally, I haven't "shortened" any names on the Valencia season page. Perhaps that was another User. If you feel Betis should be represented as such, then feel free to change it on all the other articles first. Italia2006 (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you taking issue with? Kingjeff (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The complete change of format. It's unnecessary and I can't understand why you insist on all this unnecessary information. "Fixtures and results" = Matches. You don't need a three word phrase to explain to readers that the section details games Dortmund have played. The removal of the links is unnecessary and the format you've installed is cluttered. Why would you put the league table and Champions League table after the matches? And the "group standings", "group table summary" and all these divisions are not needed and over complicate the format. But these are external complaints. I want to know why you insist on changing the format of these articles completely. At least I can see I didn't come up with the format I follow, but you did yours, so why do you insist on having it your way? Italia2006 (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a link to the Borussia Dortmund article 40 or 50 times throughout the article. I don't understand why such a small thing like "Fixtures and results" = Matches is such a big deal. The "group standings", "group table summary" and all these divisions is for good article structure. You're making out that I made these big huge changes to the article. Most of the stuff I did was just a reorganization. You shouldn't cluster a table, which you must edit under your structure, and match templates together. Kingjeff (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're inserting article structure that is unnecessary because YOU think it looks good. If it's not broken don't fix it. Stick to the Bayern article and I'll take care of the Dortmund article. You're not the Bundesliga boss. Italia2006 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I do think it's broken. Kingjeff (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on the Dortmund articles for three years running now. You have absolutely no respect for other users on this site. In those three years I haven't seen your name and all of a sudden you barge in and try to change everything? I think not. And I don't care if you think it's broken, because (1) it's not broken and (2) that is your opinion. Italia2006 (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you've work on Borussia Dortmund's season article three years running now doesn't mean it isn't broken. Kingjeff (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's broken? That must be why the format I use is used on almost every other season article on this site and yours is used on ONE. You are nothing more than a dictator sir, and an example of someone who perhaps has been on this site too long and who thinks they have tenure. Italia2006 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been other editors that have disagreed with you. Kingjeff (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are extremely weak, as there have been other users who disagree with you. But you probably ignore those. And the only thing other users have disagreed with me on is the use of the Template. Italia2006 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I count 56 link to Borussia Dortmund, and so I think it could be considerate: WP:OVERLINK. Stigni (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that different from any other article? Go look and then reply. Italia2006 (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK says "an article is said to be overlinked if it contains an excessive number of links. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value." Also, I don't ignore other editors. Kingjeff (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just looking for reasons to change an article which does not need to be altered from its current form. And like I said above which you again ignored, check any other club football season article on this site and tell me what you find. Italia2006 (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is what it actually says. why do we need 56 links to Borussia Dortmund article? I actually think your method on the article looks very messy in the Competitions section. Especially since you have an "Overall" subsection at the top and another one a the bottom. If I'm ignoring other users, how am I discussing stuff on your talk page? If I check these other articles, will I find you be domineering like you were on Bayern Munich's season article page and like you are being with Borussia Dortmund's season article page? Kingjeff (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That other overall section is one that YOU added. And mine is much neater than your 100 subsections for every little detail. Obviously the rest of the people on this site like the format I use better because aside from all your Bundesliga articles everything else uses the format on this page. Italia2006 (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in EVERY club season there is a Overlink if for every match we link to the club page. I'm here to give you a third opinion but if you need other opinion why you don't open a topic on project talk page or a official dispute resolution. Stigni (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one reason why your way is flawed. You insist on not using the Champions League group template. The template has already been updated whereas your table has not. That is one thing that would have been updated without any editor who edits the 2012–13 Borussia Dortmund season having to do an edit. Using the template also means that there is less likely that there will be an edit conflict when editing. Kingjeff (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, these articles were moved based on a RM discussion [[1]]. Personally I don't care what type of dash there is in the title but do note that my brain spun out of shape moving about a 100 such articles. I suggest that you don't move them without getting some sort of consensus. --regentspark (comment) 01:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea a simple dash was such a big deal, but what I moved it to is the general standard I think for when there's a hyphen in war titles. Italia2006 (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the things that are a big deal out here are mind boggling :) If I understand the logic correctly, when the full name of the two parties (e.g., Mexican American war), then an emdash is used. However, when a shorter prefix form (Anglo) is used, then a hyphen is used. That's why there is a hyphen in Anglo-Maratha. --regentspark (comment) 14:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well alrighty then, I'm glad that was cleared up. You learn something new everyday. Italia2006 (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2012–13 Atlético Madrid season may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know your view about the necessity of assists tables in league articles here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Assists_in_season_article. --BoguSlav 15:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group B standings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kingjeff (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why leave the fatuous and unhistorical Dominion flags on the battle pages you've been amending? What we need is a template which takes the reader to a British Empire page treating the UK and the rest of the entity as the same thing, with varying geography but all subject to Whitehall. What we get now are vanity icons as if Canada et al. were sovereign states, not that I'm bitter mind.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really confused by this statement. Leave it as it is. Italia2006 (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ITALIA, AL from Portugal here,

please, the club name here at WP has been changed to INTER MILAN (it used to be F.C. INTERNAZIONALE MILANO), that's how he should go now. Please let's reach a compromise.

Happy weekend - --AL (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article NAME is Inter Milan. We use Internazionale as the visible link. A compromise has been reached, you're ignoring it. The article name for Real Madrid is Real Madrid C.F., but we don't use that for the visible hyperlink do we? No, we use Real Madrid.

• Is there really a consensus? I mean, an overall consensus in WP, not a consensus between Inter fans here on WP? If there is i did not know about it, sorry and keep up the good work. --AL (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good my friend, no harm done at all. There is actually, across all articles involving Inter. In fact the change of the article name itself was very controversial because no one in Italy calls it Inter Milan. But you as well lad keep up the good work, and thank you for your understanding! Cheers Italia2006 (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per this message, sent by an administrator to my talkpage as a followup (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Always_Learning#Internazionale - and i did not ask him to OK, he was "stalking" my page), you see i was right in the first place. Can i change it back? If not, that's OK. --AL (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comments? Fair enough. --AL (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me lad I've been away for a while. I think we should continue to use Internazionale as the visible link because EVERY Inter player's article uses it, past and present. Cheers Italia2006 (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely true, at least as far as oldies go, and you heard the administrator, but that's OK, i won't edit war. --AL (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Tottenham Hotspur F.C., but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2013–14 Real Madrid C.F. season may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {|class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ITALIA, AL "here",

here on English WP, we use INTER MILAN, not INTERNAZIONALE. But i give up, it's a lost battle, you told me last month it was a consensus and it is not, an administrator told me we use INTER MILAN here.

I repeat i give up, i want peace and not edit wars. Do as you want, happy day and weekend --AL (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus means something that's been a staple for years. And English is my first language, so I don't see the purpose of capitalizing "Italia" as if to demean me. It's Internazionale. The administrators don't do the editing. Italia2006 (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What?! Great misunderstanding my friend, i did not call you Italia in capitals to belittle you, i called you Italia(2006) because it's your username, as A(lways)L(earning) is mine and i also wrote it with capitals. You have accused me wrongfully, please check thousands of other messages i sent to other users where i write their names in capitals (examples here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nicat49#Vali_Gasimov, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Struway2#Walter_Pandiani, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daemonic_Kangaroo#Toni_Jim.C3.A9nez and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattythewhite#Iago_Aspas - additionally, please check this message i sent to a fellow user where i "abuse" in the use of capitals to emphasize a point, not shouting or anything, the other guy did not take any offense because none was meant, as i did not mean to offend you either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MYS77#Categorias).

About the administrator bit, i referred to him because they are supposed to be above all reasonable doubt. And you're wrong again with all due respect, administrators are also users, so they can (and do) edit articles.

Happy Saturday --AL (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm sorry my friend. My mistake, people are so inclined to bash those they think cannot speak English. I wasn't sure to be honest about the admins part, but it's one of those things that gets silently acknowledged in the sense that it's always been used. All the Inter season articles, all the articles with Inter in it, documenting European competitions such as the CL, use the visible link of "Internazionale". That's why I seem so obsessed with it in that regard. Anyhow, you have a good weekend as well, enjoy the football. Italia2006 (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The team is known - on English Wikipedia at least - as Inter Milan and so that is the name that should be used. GiantSnowman 15:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my friend? I was not making up, what's your reply to this please? --AL (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the visible link should be 'Inter Milan' because the WP:COMMONNAME of the club is 'Inter Milan', hence why the article is located there. Do I agree with it? No, but that's the result of the community consensus, and we need to abide by that. Jut because some/lots of articles link to 'Internazionale' or whatever is 100% wholly, completely irrelevant. There's a reason we have redirects... GiantSnowman 14:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I see that you reverted my move of the article with no explanation. I'm happy to leave it there for now to see how things pan out in the British media and have added a comment to that effect on the article's talk page. Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that mate, I meant to put that, from my knowledge of Italian football, all three parts of his name are usually used when discussing him, which is why I reverted it. If you see developments to the contrary, by all means change it back to your version. Italia2006 (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, even though not in my page. I apologize for the "I give up, top class these two guys!" sentence, but i was feeling very frustrated for not getting a reply, sorry for any inconvenience. I also feel it's worth noting i only started summarily reverting you after the administrator told me (and you) INTER MILAN was the name we should go by in this particular Wikipedia. I am going to start a WP:FOOTY discussion just to get many more inputs.

On a related note, you seem to have summarily removed my last message to you, thus indicating some very negative feeling towards me. Rather than that "top class these two guys" comment for which i have already apologized, is there anything else you feel i should apologize for? I will immediately do so if i see you have a point, no problem, i hate it when misunderstandings end like this, with people ceasing all communications with me even though i apologize sincerely (i'm only human, and in no way the boss of WP).

Cheers --AL (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the discussion, please drop a few lines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#INTERNAZIONALE_vs._INTER_MILAN).

Few opinions but that's not my fault. Those (few) opinions, however, seem to "illustrate" that it's OK to write INTERNAZIONALE even though the article has another name. I will abide by from now on and write INTERNAZIONALE as well, a Portuguese promise. Kind regards, sorry for the trouble i put you through and happy work --AL (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All is well my friend, no worries. Italia2006 (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I edit the Real Madrid season page, and a current large-scale discussion regarding the deletion of the assists section is undergoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Assists. Can you please comment on that page? Thanks.

Hi.

Just wanted to know why you keep removing the template inserted for these tables. Me and another user add these tables because they are the same as in the original articles that these sections refer to and the also look better with the borders. Please discuss this instead of reverting and come up with a good argument to use your table or your edits will be considered as disruptive.

Related articles:

• 2013–14 Manchester City F.C. season
• 2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season
• 2013–14 Chelsea F.C. season

As I said please discuss this on one of the talkpages (I will open discussion on one of them shortly) or your reverts will be considered disruptive. QED237 (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now opened discussion at Man City talkpage here Talk:2013–14 Manchester City F.C. season#CL group stage, standings table QED237 (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've already gone over the fact that what "looks good" is a matter of opinion. You countered with a question: what was my excuse for using the other table? This: your tables, first of all, are not templates. Second of all, the borders if anything make it look more bulky than necessary and really aren't necessary at all. The borders only matter at the end of the group stage, when the standings become permanent. The tables I installed in the first place (which you gentlemen removed) have been used for every season including last season's Champions League club season articles. I don't understand the obsession with having the exact same table as the 2013–14 UEFA Champions League article proper. Italia2006 (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ITALIA06, AL "here",

can we please reach a compromise in this player's article? Earlier into this year we had a bit of a "wiki-misunderstanding" on the name we should use on INTER MILAN players and, even though i don't agree, i have complied, and use INTERNAZIONALE nowadays.

Could you do the same for me in this case? It's just a case of box compression, in there we don't need the "da" or the "do" or the "de", and full name appears in storyline anyway.

Attentively --AL (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Happy editing my friend. Italia2006 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. --AL (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the problem with using nobars? Lots of pages use it and it is much more aesthetic. I can't find anything on the official pages that says they are not allowed. Cheers. VanguardScot 14:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The aesthetic argument is highly arguable; for instance to me, nobars makes it look like a jumbled mass of colors (or simply green in Rangers' case) with numbers mixed in. As for it being used on many other articles, that is false. I edit dozens of football season articles across 8-9 different leagues, and none of them use nobars. In the interest of cross-project consistency I ask that you remove them. Italia2006 (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are used in all the Heart of Midlothian F.C. and Rangers F.C. articles that I edit, and have been used in both cases since before I joined Wikipedia. If you have a problem with them take it up at WP:FOOTY, I will happily remove them if there is a consensus at the project, that they should never be used. Cheers, VanguardScot 23:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after further investigation, the majority of Scottish club articles that use that template, use the 'nobars=1' parameter. So this actually goes further than I thought, these are all pages edited by experienced members of WP:FOOTY and WP:FOOTY Scotland task force, so I see no reason why they should be removed, but by all means bring it up at the project. Cheers, VanguardScot 00:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about only getting back to you now. By all means if this is something used in all the Scottish football articles then continue using nobars. I was unaware that nobars was commonplace. My biggest issue personally is consistency, so if this is something which is consistent across the Scottish football season articles then by all means continue. Happy editing and cheers as well. Italia2006 (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly are you sourcing these changes to the club trigrams in UEFA club competition articles from? – PeeJay 03:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

uefa.com, the source that matters. What do you take issue with? Italia2006 (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No issue, I just noticed you were making a fair few changes. I can't be bothered to go check them all, but as long as we're being consistent throughout the encyclopaedia, that's fine. – PeeJay 21:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the layout you are removing is encouraged at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics, which is the community-decided player MoS. Your argument appears to be based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; but just because a number of articles adhere to a certain standard doesn't mean they are correct to do so. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explain the need to list La Liga 6 times in a row. This is why I continually lose faith in this site, because people agree to the most outrageous formats ever. Why on earth does La Liga have to be listed continuously? That's ridiculous. I've also never seen the format that you reverted to before, so consensus, hardly. Italia2006 (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the need to repeat the division name in each row is due to an accessibility issue. The correct way to move forward with this would be to initiate a discussion at WP:FOOTY to try and form consensus, rather than attempting to enforce a change on a few articles. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I most definitely will, because I consider the format under consideration to be both messy and unnecessary. Italia2006 (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate. As I understand it, the rules of the FA Cup (see here) state that the round before the Final (with a capital F) is referred to as the Semi-Finals (both S and F capitalised). I assume the issue here is a stylistic one; do we go along with the "official" terminology or attempt to correct a perceived grammatical error? – PeeJay 18:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm assuming (which might not be the correct thing to do) that because the standard of stylisation on Wikipedia is for the second and following words to not be capitalised that this would be correct form. An example of this is that on season articles for clubs participating in the Champions League my old header for the group stage would be "Group Stage", but I was told that the correct version was "Group stage". In short, I went by Wikipedia's style over the FA's usage and terminology, but I'm open to consensus. Italia2006 (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ITALIA, AL "here",

indeed, my summary was as confusing as they get! What i meant is you either pipe all the clubs in storyline or none, not just some. Sorry for any inconvenience, i have the utmost respect for your work.

Happy writings --AL (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The apologies are mine. The relative of mine who wrote that was extremely rude. And I understand completely, I meant no offense by my edits (which were indeed mine). Happy editing to you as well! Italia2006 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what happens when you drink one beer too many (meaning ME, was partying a bit tonight after my edits in Postiga and others), i did not read your message thoroughly, hence missed the bit about someone else editing with your account. Still, offer my apologies to your relative, he would not have reacted like he did if my summary was 100% correct, which it was not (i mean it was not insulting, but it was quite confusing and open to interpretation). Best regards --AL (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that all football players are listed by their FIFA nationality and that is the national team they last played for. Diego Costa did last play for brazil and is therefore considered brazilian which is also the case at his article Diego Costa. It has been mentioned shortly on his talkpage. Please do not change nationality to Spain. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a question. Lionel Messi got Spanish citizenship 2005 after he lived there 5 years. Would you say he is spanish or argentinian? QED237 (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Costa chose to play for Spain and was called up to play but was injured. The La Liga season page says he's Spanish, so someone has to make up their mind. And your Lionel Messi example is irrelevant. Messi has had Spanish citizenship but has actually played for Argentina and never said he wanted to play for Spain or asked for a call-up from them. Listen, it doesn't matter to me, I was under the impression the correct flag icon was Spain because on several occasions when I had changed it back to Brazil I was rebuked and my edit reverted. Maybe this is a matter for debate to achieve a consensus, unless the consensus is already to use the Brazilian flag still. Italia2006 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have been told there is a consensus to always use the national team that the player last played for. QED237 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About your run-in with User:Gringoladomenega, the following opinions: 1 - i agree with you in the Diego Ribas da Cunha bit, his footballing name is "Diego" not "Diego Ribas" (if i understood correctly what you tell me he's doing there); 2 - i don't agree with you in the Diego Costa situation, his intro has to read "...is a BRAZILIAN footballer..." or "...is a footballer...", it will only read "...is a Spanish footballer..." when he makes (if) debut for Spain OK? And we should not ever write "...is a Brazilian-Spanish footballer...", intros must be kept simple, and the nationality of the player should be that of last country represented.

I will say the exact same thing in Gringo's page. Cheers --AL (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Italia2006,
Please dont remove the middle names in the squad. The reason for this is that the source includes the middle names of some players that is why it should be included. Also the same reason why Kaka is considered as a forward (though he is a an attacking midfielder). Thanks! RRD13 (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually not the main editor for the article. I think you need to stop insisting on having club season articles done by your way only. Especially since pre–season for Austrian clubs started last June and you only made your first edits a few days ago and also the fact that Wikipedia is based on consensus building. The only need right now for the article is a few more sources for the prose. Kingjeff (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even know what I'm talking about. This guy didn't use line breaks for anything. And btw, I go by the consensus. You don't. But that's not the issue here. And I didn't leave the note on your talk page did I? Italia2006 (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is to say is that (A) I'm not sure why it was you rather than the gentleman whose page I posted on that is replying to my post; (B) the problem I had has nothing to do with the organization of the page, but rather that he doesn't link to the player's pages in the infoboxes and doesn't use linebreaks, and lists goals and cards as two separate blocks when they should be listed strictly by match chronology. And lastly, (C) you keep referring to my supposed refusal to adhere to a consensus. I go by the consensus, such as using footballbox collapsible, "Competitions" instead of "Fixtures and Results and Matches and Games" or whatever heading you use. I invite you to take a look at the rest of the articles for the biggest clubs in other leagues:

Spain:
2013–14 Real Madrid C.F. season
2013–14 FC Barcelona season
2013–14 Atlético Madrid season

Italy:
2013–14 Juventus F.C. season
2013–14 A.S. Roma season
2013–14 ACF Fiorentina season
2013–14 A.C. Milan season
2013–14 S.S.C. Napoli season
2013–14 F.C. Internazionale Milano season

France:
2013–14 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season
2013–14 AS Monaco FC season
2013–14 Lille OSC season

England:
2013–14 Chelsea F.C. season
2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season
2013–14 Manchester City F.C. season
2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season

Tell me my friend, what do you notice? Who's going by the consensus, me or you? Italia2006 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am replied to you because he came to me with your comment. I have actually gone by consensus before. I actually went by consensus in this season's Bayern Munich season article. So, he used commas. I wouldn't say that it is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with what other articles use. I don't use a "competition" and not likely to ever use it. Out of all those articles that you listed above, how many of them will get featured article status under their current format? Bayern Munich's current season article has a better chance of getting featured article status under it's current format than any of those articles that you mentioned. You stated to User:Werner100359 "Please stop editing this article or at least ask for help." You have a lot of nerve to tell another user to stop editing and you in noway helped him improve the way he edits. Kingjeff (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're hopeless lad... it's okay to use commas.. You've a lot of nerve to insist on your ridiculous format. Also, no season article has ever gotten featured article status, and having a million subsections won't help yours much. Italia2006 (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you want to do. This time, you not using the obvious and hugely widespread system doesn't bother me. The idea that you can't accept the obvious faults in an article is what bothers me. Commas are NOT ok, no matter what you try to tell yourself. That's just poor coding. I'll never understand why you insist on illogical things, but in all honesty I don't care. Italia2006 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't faults just because you say so. What makes my format rediculous? I personally don't want to go through a million things in a subsection if it's avoidable. It's one thing to say commas were wrong, but you told another editor to stop editing. This is even more wrong. The 2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season article also uses commas, so there is more than one editor that uses commas. Kingjeff (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'm talking about. The Manchester United article uses commas because it doesn't use Footballbox collapsible. The reason I haven't argued with that editor is because that format for Manchester United's season articles goes back decades. The Bayern Munich articles followed the same format until last year you popped up out of nowhere, destroying my Schalke 04 article in the process. Your format is insulting to the rest of the editors on this site who are striving to establish consistency across a project, and you're the only one resisting. Btw, the proper format doesn't go through a million things in a subsection. It's actually completely straightforward and to the point. You keep grasping at straws and for what? Why are you so attached to an archaic system? I honestly don't understand it. And you can't say its because you've used it for years, because the fact of the matter is you haven't. You even changed other articles around to match your format. Sir, if anyone on this site has nerve, that person is you. Italia2006 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I have not understand the whole argument here and I have probably missed part of the discussion, but I would have to agree with Italia2006 as it seems. An article should not look like 2013–14 FC Schalke 04 season, I was actually thinking about a complete overhauling of that page to make it look like the other regular season article. QED237 (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Footballbox collapsible template is irrelevant. You don't like it because he isn't doing it your way. If you feel that he is doing it incorrectly, then show him how to do it correctly. Kingjeff (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You literally cannot be reasoned with. And the footballbox collapsible template is COMPLETELY relevant. Accept that you're wrong and move on, Jesus. Other users agree with me. Just stop already. Italia2006 (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree you should not say to others the should stop edit, but footballbox collabsble are relevant no doubt, just give up kingjeff and stop making the pages jsut how you want them. QED237 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more thing. If the ENTIRETY of the rest of the Wikipedia football editing community uses footballbox collapsible, then it's not "my way" is it? Italia2006 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No one cares what you like or don't like. Your articles will be gradually converted to the proper model. Honestly, stop." Consensus means that everyone's opinion counts. What is proper model? Users who edit Manchester United club season articles might disagree with you on what "proper model" model is. Kingjeff (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a Democracy. The proper model is what the majority of users agree on. I am not trying to reason with you anymore, because you can't be reasoned with. Italia2006 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit of a talk page stalker on User talk:CYl7EPTEMA777, due to me recently interacting with them, and noticed that you had asked User:CYl7EPTEMA777 to revert the move they had made that resulted in Template:Andromeda Galaxy moving to Template:Andromeda galaxy. Unfortunately, this editor has been blocked for disruptive editing and other reasons. However, I went ahead and posted on your request to revert the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves. Hopefully this resolves the issue, provided an administrator agrees with reverting the move. Steel1943 (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you very much! Much obliged, and, interestingly, "Thank you for stalking!" Italia2006 (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. And by the way, I was taking a look at the edit histories of Template:Andromeda galaxy and Template:Andromeda Galaxy; turns out that IMMEDIATELY after CYl7EPTEMA777 performed the move from Template:Andromeda galaxy to Template:Andromeda Galaxy [2], the same editor performed a cut-and-paste move to bring the contents BACK to Template:Andromeda galaxy [3]. (The difference in time is not even a minute). So, seems like there were two copies of this template until Template:Andromeda Galaxy was turned into a redirect in good faith by another editor [4]. Talk about a mess! In fact, I had to move the "revert" to a more appropriate section on WP:RM/TR because of this mess. Steel1943 (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your tidy-up and wondered if you would nominate a Great War infobox which is the most accurate so that I could copy from it? When I go round completing pages which are short of B1 and B2, I'm apt to overlook the box or only add items that I'm sure about.Keith-264 (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes certainly I will. Italia2006 (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your bold move of the American Expeditionary Forces article as it seems the move was undiscused and an objection has been raised on the talk page, so per WP:BRD please join the discussion there to seek consensus. Vsmith (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bold? A move based on fact is bold? I think you need to check your sources. It was never American Expeditionary Forces. Just Force. Italia2006 (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Atlético Madrid/1

Atlético Madrid, an article which you may be interested in, is currently under a Good Article Review. You may want to leave a comment on the link provided. Thank you. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ITA, AL "here",

i tried to present my arguments: we read the storyline and the infobox and we know he played all those years for Deportivo de La Coruña, so when we reach the chart below "Deportivo" suffices 100% for ANY reader (not just those familiar with football). You reverted me fair enough, can't be bothered all that much anymore and, after 12 JULY 2014, can't be bothered at all, will leave WP for good.

Happy editing --AL (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well hold on there AL. I apologize if my revert offended you, that was not my intent. My only concern is that I'm striving for consistency across as many articles as possible. Believe me, I've checked dozens of other Deportivo players' articles and they all use Deportivo La Coruña. That's my only concern. Also, why are you leaving? Italia2006 (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No offense there man (too strong a word, in this case i mean!). I know, consistency is good, but that is what i was trying to get accross, we say "Deportivo LC" in box, "Deportivo LC" in storyline, if we say "Deportivo" only in the stats chart would people be confused? I know i would not, even if i knew NOTHING about football and read article for the first time!

Your question: am leaving because i have been here for eight years now, and am not having fun anymore, am doing this almost like a job. Am sick and tired of the lousy vandals destroying all of our hard work, and plus can't seem to follow most of the guidelines.

Cheers --AL (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is no need to change the links, as per [guidelines for redirects] it has few if any benefits but can have some drawbacks. DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Italia2006 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) DuncanHill (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Raheem Sterling. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand lad. Italia2006 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understand what? And what's with the 'lad'? Mattythewhite (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between what the guidelines postulate and what is the generally accepted form of style. You don't need three "Premier Leagues" in a row. It's redundant and unaesthetic. What you don't understand is that the guidelines are just that. This method you keep harping on isn't used anywhere else; I've never seen another user well, use it. If this is something that has to be taken to an actual debate I will do so, but I don't think it does. Again, you're the only one insisting on what is really a very unnecessary technicality. Italia2006 (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it isn't used anywhere else? I could name dozens of articles, at least, that use the format endorsed by the community. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I've never seen it anywhere else. And if you're one person you're not a community. Italia2006 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I'm not a community by myself, but the layout has been endorsed by the wider community as it is part of the project's player MoS; it hasn't been decided by one user alone. To name but a few examples: Jay O'Shea, Jack Butland, Ryan Bowman, Mat Mitchel-King, Clovis Kamdjo, Drey Wright, Andrew Johnson (English footballer), Mesut Özil. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1991–92 Arsenal F.C. season, 1996–97 Arsenal F.C. season, 1997–98 Arsenal F.C. season, 1998–99 Arsenal F.C. season, 1999–2000 Arsenal F.C. season, 2000–01 Arsenal F.C. season, 2001–02 Arsenal F.C. season, 2002–03 Arsenal F.C. season, 2005–06 Arsenal F.C. season...........

What's your point? Lemonade51 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use the current format. That's the point. Articles change all the time. Consistency should be promoted. That is the point. Funny how you can't give me an article more recent than 2006 to prove your point. Italia2006 (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2007–08 Arsenal F.C. season, 2009–10 Arsenal F.C. season.......D'oh! Funny how you don't seem to do your research. And I haven't got round to articles after that because I'm focusing on getting the Arsenal season articles up to scratch. Arsenal existed before 2006, y'know. If you have a problem with the layout, take it to WT:FOOTY before reverting. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You've been editing too many Simpsons articles, and (2) the current format is in use across the board for Premier League teams. You reverted my edit first. I think you're suffering from Wikipedia tunnel vision (focusing too much on one's own edits and not comparing said edits to others in the community). Italia2006 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Across the board? The City and United formats differ from the others, why can't Arsenal's? Why are you focusing on this specific article and not the others that I've mentioned, which use a format that's passed GA? The outline of season articles have been discussed here, here, here and here and the consensus is the current layout needs to emphasis encyclopedic content; there are too many tables (what is the justification for a topscorers table, when a squad statistics table would suffice alone) and little prose written. In fact, the 2003-04 article was put forward as a prototype for a future MOS. I haven't got around to current articles, because they are unstable; if I did they would be similar to the 10 articles promoted to GA. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I care nothing for the tables themselves but how the article is organized. I agree there shouldn't be a separate top scorers table, and also I'm not simply picking on you. I've discussed the formats of the City and United articles in depth as being inconsistent with what is the de facto consensus. The articles lack of a heading "Competitions" is what bothers me the most, as this is certainly in place among the other Premier League teams. I'm striving for consistency across this project and many times I run into resistance. However I would say that no, you shouldn't change the current season format article. There is a reason it's the current format. Italia2006 (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm striving for more prose and detail. This is an encyclopedia first and foremost, not a football statistician's haven. Headings don't mean anything but style -- readers aren't stupid and this format is tried and tested. Follows a chronological order, with competitions spilt up. There is no MOS for season articles, but I may propose one to WP:FOOTY. For the time being, I'm working on neglected Arsenal season articles so they meet the GA criteria. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this article should be renamed to João Nunes (footballer, born 1995)? Fixed4u (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Carlos Jorge Neto Martins... 20:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

And Petit (Portuguese footballer)... Fixed4u (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, I think we need to establish a system of simplification for Portuguese names. If you'd like to help me with this I'd be very grateful. Italia2006 (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You renamed Carlos Jorge Neto Martins to Carlos Martins (footballer) then undid it "over redirect". Why? Fixed4u (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I undid it? Then it was by error. Please, go ahead and switch it back. Italia2006 (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as we're concerned, rows should not be merged according to the MOS at WP:FOOTY. I do not agree with everything in Wikipedia but if there is consensus on anything, it stays that way. If you think that should be changed, you should gather consensus at WP:FOOTY. Otherwise, follow the agreed consensus. LRD NO (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't understand, on several other articles — major ones such as Lionel Messi — we've already had this discussion and agreed that the guideline is ridiculous. There's no reason to have 15 rows of La Liga or seven rows of Eredivisie. I'd also ask that you just browse player pages randomly, I guarantee you'll see rowspan used. Italia2006 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out to me where consensus has been reached regarding merged cells? If there is consensus, the MOS should be updated. Otherwise, the MOS is there to be followed. Unless specified, the individual rows following the MOS should not be reverted. LRD NO (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. One, I can't remember which page the talk was done on, only that I remember it involved Messi's page. Second, I truly urge you to merge the rows, because the current state of Siem de Jong's page, although concurrent with the "guideline" is an orphan or very near it; very rarely do I see stats boxes without merged rows. Also remember, guidelines are not laws. So in conclusion I really urge you to simply merge the boxes. On a rather blunt note, how stupid does it look to have eight rows of the same thing stated over and over again when you can do the same job and more aesthetically with one merged word? Italia2006 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to provide me with a link to verify that any consensus was reached. Remember that Wikipedia is a community project based on consensus. If consensus was that all individual cells should be merged, I would gladly follow the agreement by the community. Otherwise, doing so is in breach of set MOS guidelines. Neither is there any excuse for favouring merged cells over MOS and reverting as you did. And the individual cells look fine to me as it is. LRD NO (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forget finding the consensus, I'm gonna bring this to attention on the main Footy discussion page. There is an excuse, it's called de facto versus de jure consensus. If a majority of pages are one way, even without a material discussion it's clear that this is the consensus. However I will refrain from changing the cells on the Siem de Jong page (which I might add most certainly do not look fine the way they are, in fact they're rather embarrassing). Italia2006 (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if de facto versus de jure is applicable to Wikipedia where verifiability is required. You are of course welcome to raise it at WP:FOOTY to seek any kind of consensus or amendment to the MOS. There is nothing embarrassing about the current MOS and it's just personal opinion at the moment until there is an agreement to merge all cells as opposed to current guidelines. I thank you for refraining from editing the Siem de Jong page. Cheers. LRD NO (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, although it is good to include many editor in the discussion you should no go around inviting editors that only supports your cause as you did at user talk:Usman afif. WP:CAN is a page you might be interested in reading. When inviting people please keep a neutral tone and not your personal opinion. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237: All I did was give an unfamiliar user an outlet to voice his grievance. You're starting to take this way too personally. I don't need to campaign for votes, there are already enough who agree with me. In addition, I know what you do on this site. You've done what I did on countless occasions. Italia2006 (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that when two people belong in the same gens but in a different cognomen (branch) of the gens, they can be very distant relatives. Still, I would like to ask what -if anything- can Ancient Roman genealogy tell us about the exact relation between Crassus and Lucullus.--2A02:580:A39A:6D00:4D12:DC12:E9DA:35AD (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winter operations 1914–15 You might be interested in developments here since you've edited the page.Keith-264 (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264: I most certainly am, thank you. Italia2006 (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MOS:FLAG for guidance. It is not acceptable in info boxes for hardware. It's ok for users sections. Cheers Irondome (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term Deutsches Reich (German Empire/Realm) was the official name of Germany until 1943. So, no, we don't always use German Empire where the official name of Germany in German translates that way. Also, the official name of Austrai-Hungary was "Austro-Hungarian Monarchy". Not to mention the official names of the Allies... What other infoboxes do is their business, but let's try to be consistent within this one. Srnec (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. Italia2006 (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Friendly neighbourhood stalker) I have noticed you are never combative or aggressive, and always willing to take on board other viewpoints. An excellent trait. Keep up the good work. Irondome (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love this material and I only want to improve this encyclopedia. That isn't accomplished on one's own, and I am absolutely willing to cooperate and admit when I'm wrong. Italia2006 (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, those list should not have bold text either. I'm just reluctant to do so because I always get into an edit war with others like you when I try to change them.

According to WP:Accessibility it says, "By default, most screen readers do not indicate presentational text attributes (bold, italic, underline) or even semantic text attributes (emphasis, importance, text deletion), so struck-out text is read normally along with any other text." In other words, it will when a blind person is having the article dictated to him or her via a screen reader, it confuse the reader of how the list is read with no indication of the winner.

If you want to change something, change the bold lettering to daggers in every ceremony.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, most of the articles I've seen have bold typeface to indicate winners in each category, but honestly it doesn't affect me enough to go on an edit war with you or someone else by changing things. I do think bold looks better though because it stands out much more than just having this odd-looking symbol at the end of the winning nominee. Italia2006 (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism? Are you kidding me? If something is produced from 1974 to 1991, you don't need to put 1974–1991. The proper format is 1974–91. Italia2006 (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. No. Yes. No. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Ranges.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already have. Italia2006 (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been invited to the discussion on versions of Template:History of Iran. There are two versions. The current one and this one. Please share your opinion on which version you like/support more. We need users' opinion for consensus. Thank you. --Ulugh Arslan Bilge Khan 18:30, 05 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw you removed the kit colors from 2015–16 F.C. Internazionale Milano season any reason for this ? :) thank you Adnan (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Adnan n2: Yes, it's the kit from the 2014–15 season, not the 2015–16 one. I don't think the kit has been updated for this season yet on this site. Italia2006 (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok , thank you Adnan (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Italia2006 (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And related to that article, you added links back to China. WP:OVERLINK argues against that as it's "major geographic ... location". And as for piping Inter Milan, a move discussion was just closed on the article's talk page stating that Inter Milan is the WP:COMMONNAME and no move to F.C. Internazionale Milano or any variant should be made. So in respect of that discussion and decision, I don't think we should be piping the name like this:[[Inter Milan|Internazionale]] as it seems to be trying to get around that decision. That was actually suggested in the move discussion. Finally, I have requested that the season article be moved as well. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great Italia2006 (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't explain it either, mate. Unfortunately the rest of Wikipedia isn't as enlightened as you and I. – PeeJay 19:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But could you please at least help me reach a compromise? Why is it such an utterly big deal that it's being treated like a disease? This guy with an IP address only has become a dictator, literally. Italia2006 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it any more than you do. Unfortunately, we have little recourse. I do agree that 208.81.212.222 (talk · contribs) has become something of a jumped-up little shit though. – PeeJay 19:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just get really annoyed because I know once the season rolls around he won't be adding match information, he's not adding transfers, he's just splitting hairs and not actually contributing anything of note. I don't know why he cares so much, really. Italia2006 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2014–15 Inter Milan season. Please offer your comments. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really understand my friend , I already feel the same myself! he isn't even really improving the article he thinks he can act as a monitor for other editors work, which really is a bothersome act,I can't really understand this IP actions and why he is really obsessed with just changing the name I have no Idea and I am not interested in working under someone supervision as if he is my boss or something it is just silly . I am sure he will in few weeks stop even bothering to check this article which makes the thing even worse .I just don't like also WP:COMMONSENSE as an answer when you ask about why did you revert/moved or edited my contribution. I really hear you man Adnan (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at the section you added on Adnan's talk page. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the name of the Stadio Olimpico Di Torino page is a translation error. If you look at the actual stadium name on any source, it is known as the "Stadio Olimpico".

"Di Torino" is not part of the actual name means literally "of Turin", hence the title of the page should be "Stadio Olimpico (Turin)" to differentiate it from the more well-known Stadio Olimpico in Rome. I have tried changing it but get an error message.Danieletorino2 (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because there's already a Stadio Olimpico in Rome. Also it can't be a translation error if it's in Italian. As a matter of fact it is often referred to in Italy as the "Stadio Olimpico di Torino". That's not an error. Italia2006 (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stadio Olimpico di Torino right on their website. Italia2006 (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how that is vandalism. The stadium is shown like that along with the city in all europa league and champions league articles. Not vandalism. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you not put stack yes for the last one? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the end of the series of football boxes, you don't need to. It looks odd. Italia2006 (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see. Maybe next time an edit summary or a kinder message on my talk page with an explanation would suffice instead of being rather rude. You get things done easier that way. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your message now. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. I realize you have much experience and there are still things I need to become familiar with, such as templates and such. I too have a keen eye on Italian football articles and will do my best at keeping them updated as I have for the past 6 months or so. Question: How do you update the league table after matches have been played? I noticed that if you click edit, there is just one line of code and nothing to edit? Thanks. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: No problem, all you have to do is click on this link Template:2015–16 Serie A table and then "edit" (of course) and you're in. Italia2006 (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so that is the one page you update and it gets sent and updated to the Serie A season article automatically, correct? Does that go with club season articles too? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly right. See 2015–16 A.S. Roma season#League table as an example. Italia2006 (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, understood, thanks for the help. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Designs can be found at Template:Football kit/pattern list and colours can be found at Web colors. GiantSnowman 20:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Thank you so much. This is extremely helpful, I can't even begin to tell you. Italia2006 (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve Coppa Italia on English Wikipedia, the older seasons. Thank you very much.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I'll certainly try. The source materials are a bit scarce at the moment, I'm waiting for the Italian Football Federation to finish remodeling their website. Italia2006 (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use rsssf.com, the Italian Wikipedia use this source, and after the Italian FF finish the website, just verify if the results are same. I do same for my country, I also do other countries, I would help you, but if you say you can do it, I will read, thank you my friend.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Are the own goal sections in the goalscorer categories used to tally the goals the club scored on themselves or tally the own goals scored for the club? For example for Juve, there were two goals scored for us in Serie A, but Juve scored on themselves twice, once in Serie A, once in CL. There's an IP telling me it's the goals non-Juve players scored an own goal for Juve. Hope that wasn't too confusing, thanks! Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure no problem. The "own goals" section in "goalscorers" counts the own goals scored for Juve by opposition players. Italia2006 (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the page history,you revert other user's edit rather than the "vandalism" user,then I look through the later page history and I your edit to repair those edit.-

Or if I made mistake,I will cancel the AN3 request.Thanks.-Vansockslayer (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vansockslayer: Cancel the AN3 request, it's not necessary. Cheers. Italia2006 (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next question, which 3RR exemptions you are claiming?--Vansockslayer (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith edits based on the mistaken assumption that I was reverting large-scale vandalism, due to the sheer amount of information removed in a short period of time. Italia2006 (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know you agf,but I think that [[5]] is not an obvious vandalism....-Vansockslayer (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While that may very well be, have you known in your experience that people who vandalize pages also add constructive edits in between? No. That's why I didn't discriminate when I reverted all of this user's edits. Italia2006 (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh,you mean that good hand and bad hand account(that user is socking)?If that's true I will request page protection and delete AN3 request. -Vansockslayer (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be sure. But again the point here is that the edit war is at an end and I'm trying to work with this user, which is why I consider it unnecessary to continue with the AN3. Italia2006 (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the An3 report, then just wait for DroopyDoggy to response, sorry for reporting you.--Vansockslayer (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Italia2006 (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I appreciate your thanks. However, I think you may be mistaken in regards to other club articles. Maybe you are going off of the other Italian clubs articles, which I know most do not have the template... But if you look at 2010–11 Real Madrid C.F. season, 2007–08 FC Barcelona season, 2015–16 Manchester City F.C. season, 2015–16 FC Bayern Munich season, basically all Spanish and English clubs, etc. The seasons articles are obviously heavily about the club, which warrants the football club template. To keep with consistency of other football related club seasons, it should also be included for Italian articles. I only did Juventus and Lazio, as I'm sure you've noticed, I only really edit their pages, but I could help with the rest if needed. I'm going to go ahead and add them back... If you want to start a discussion on WikiFootball, go ahead, but for now, I just think they were always forgotten on Italian season articles. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will help with more Italian clubs. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done Torino, Napoli, Inter, and Milan; along with the already completed Juventus, Lazio, and to your contributions, Roma and Fiorentina. I think the high priority clubs are now complete and the rest can be done as the opportunity presents itself. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Excellent. Brilliant work. Italia2006 (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now we talk, and when everyone gets bored with that someone will propose a course of action and everyone in favor will say something, and we can then move forward. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TomStar81: yeah nevermind, Peacemaker has decided everything for himself. And ignored a very polite and simple question, as well. So much for due process on this site. Italia2006 (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some good will come of it. Keep an open mind and an open heart, and you'd be surprised what you can do on this site. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Thanks for this response. Italia2006 (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might have noticed that a user insists on adding an image of the Lazio squad to the season article. I've removed it a few times and told the user that images are not usually used in season articles. He's said that that's a fallacy and would still help the article... Even though it is for consistency purposes. Do you think we should keep the image, or revert it and take higher action if the user persists? Thanks. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: An image of the Lazio squad? Add a section "Season review" right after the article introduction and let him know he can add it there. An image or more is fine, so long as it's in the right area. I'll review the matter later and see what we think. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Italia2006 (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw it. Yeah, something like that should really be in a "season review" section as opposed to right next to the squad list. Images in season articles are alright, but placement is everything. Italia2006 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with a season review heading is that you can't just have a picture in there with no text in the heading. With the "low importance" these Italian club articles, there usually is not enough information to put under a heading like that (not like Barca etc). So without actual text in this heading (which will take a lot more work), I don't see a situation where the image can really fit into the article.. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I agree. Tell whoever this is that if he's willing to write a section like the "season review" one we're talking about, he can by all means add the picture. At this juncture it's out of place. In fact, the picture should be one of the whole Lazio squad if anything, not one matchday squad. Italia2006 (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've removed the picture and left a message on the user's talk page, so let's see what happens. Hopefully the user complies. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Italia2006, can I ask that you reduce the amount of commenting that you are posting on the RfC? It can lead to "bludgeoning" of the RfC. I don't say this to "whack you over the head" or anything, only to let you be aware of it. It also helps to have "outside" commentary confirming the results rather than "involved" commentary. Anyway, just try to slow down on the comments and let the RfC run 'naturally'. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drcrazy102: I was wondering about that myself. No problem. Italia2006 (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are changing the "flags" for article stating it is based on a "new consensus"; when was that reached? As last I saw, there was no clear consensus on the matter. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kierzek: You missed it. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes. Italia2006 (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did ivote and stated comments accordingly; I was not aware it was "ruled" consensus was reached on the matter. So be it. Kierzek (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was. Italia2006 (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am wondering if you could have a look at Fallschirm-Panzer Division 1 Hermann Göring. Two IP editors restored dubious and POV information uncited from 2013. Please see diffs: IP editor 1 and IP editor 2.

I also left an note on the Talk page: Problematic content. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tiny punctuation correction you made at Belgium national football team, but that is the way to keep getting forward! Assuming you support Italy tomorrow I wish both your side and the Belgian team a spectacular and fair game, without injuries or red cards. Arrivederci, Kareldorado (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kareldorado: Grazie mille per il tuo complemento! Best of luck to Belgium tomorrow and in the rest of the tournament! Italia2006 (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, due to your edits to Roman army, i would like to request that you join a small group ( i am the only active member) known as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Roman military history, If you are willing to join, please do so. Iazyges (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I'm kinda on your side in that I don't think you did anything wrong by changing the links per se. However, I would suggest that in the future, if you must change the links, do it as part of a wider edit on the article. Per WP:NOTBROKEN, links to redirects aren't wrong since they get the reader to the correct page albeit by the wrong link, and therefore "fixing" the link is an unnecessary edit; however, if you want to do it as part of an edit to update the article's content, that would make sense. I've noticed that most of the time you correct a lot of links at once, which is also probably fine, but don't just change one link (or set of identical links) per edit. – PeeJay 11:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: Ok man, no problem. Italia2006 (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through all the steps to graduate us from the incubator, and added a userbox for us, if you would like to add it to your user page, please do so.

This user is a member of the Roman and Byzantine military history task force.

Iazyges (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: Thanks man, will do. Italia2006 (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hope you're doing well. What do you make of a user removing the goalscoring and assist tables from all 2016-17 Italian football club season articles? I don't really see a dire need for them as he does have a point that you can see the goals from the team table above, and that assists are usually not tracked in general, but then again neither are clean sheets really, but he still kept that table there. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 11:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Re-add all the goalscorer tables because they're a ranking, not just a random list. I'll accept the assists loss. Italia2006 (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, what do you think of the bot request? Have you seen it? I don't know if anything will be done though. Real pain in the ass to remove all that code by hand... Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know I haven't had the chance to really look at it yet, but what I did notice was the "we don't do thinks for cosmetic reasons" post by one of the users. I agree though, really annoying to remove it manually. Italia2006 (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean on one hand, it could be seen as cosmetic, but as SuperJew said, it does help clean it up for new users and for experienced users who don't need to update an extra parameter for no reason. He did bring up a good point though if there are two reports listed, so that probably can't be used with a bot, but the stack should be but who knows if anyone will do anything with the request. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw the addition of the asterisk to identify the shared clean sheets on the Juve season page. Do you mind sharing the link with me where you saw this rule? I want to possibly bring it up on the FOOTY talk page to see if everyone's on the same page and to make any adjustments for consistency's sake. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Hey, yeah sure just give me a few, going for a run. Italia2006 (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalizing the appearances table. Those are youth team players who are not members of the first team squad. They do not belong in that table and very likely will receive no first team callups. I have maintained that appearance table and squad tables for several years now and I do not appreciate you making inaccurate changes nor you threatening me. If you want to edit it fine, just make sure your information is correct and stop adding inappropriate players. If they do make official appearances then they will be included but until that happens they do not belong in that table.

--173.17.249.224 (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are part of the squad list, end of story. And you've been editing it for years? What on earth are you talking about? Italia2006 (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And no, simply no. You're removing accurate information, that constitutes vandalism, and I'll revert any changes made by you in that vein. Italia2006 (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely wrong. They are not first team players and DO NOT BELONG in that table. None of them will even make an appearance for the club this season. You are simply ruining that table with unnecessary information. This is the official squad list Offical First Team Squad. Stop being an arrogant jackass and get rid of that incorrect information. And yes, I have been monitoring and correcting that squad appearances table for years now, correcting inaccurate information that people like you post. I also created that squad table list under the Squad Information section. --173.17.249.224 (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're just giving me more reasons to have you blocked, such as ignoring WP:CIVIL. And you're still wrong, which I'm afraid is even worse. Italia2006 (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: what do you think? Italia2006 (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you out of your mind? I literally provided you a direct link to the correct squad information. You are the one posting incorrect information. You are simply in denial. It's funny when people cannot admit they are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.249.224 (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in denial over being correct? Italia2006 (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, now that I looked at it closer, the IP may have a point, despite his utter rudeness. From the official Roma page he provided, those players are not listed in the first team squad, so probably should not be included in the list on the season page. I also noticed on the Juve season page Rolando Mandragora, which is not listed on the Juve website, so I've removed him. If we look at 2016–17 Manchester City F.C. season as an example, they only include first team squad. I also noticed something on the Roma season page and the previous season page as well spanning a couple years back a "Kit" section with several kits listed. I remember reading a discussion recently on FOOTY that sections on kits in season articles like that are generally not accepted. I would also propose to delete those. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--173.17.249.224 (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Two things apply here: (1) you keep mentioning how "these players won't even make an appearance". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Secondly, we use the squad lists provided by the official league website, in this case posted at Roma Squad List, where you will see the players in question. Italia2006 (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this has to do with there being a history of club websites not actually having correct squad information, as incredible as that sounds. The official UEFA website also carries the same squad list as the official Serie A website, and those two taken together overrule the Roma site. Italia2006 (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, @173.17.249.224:, I've decided in your favor, upon further review. And also in the interests of avoiding a continual edit war going forward. Italia2006 (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely speculative on your part. You cannot assume that the official club website does not have accurate information. In fact the club itself should absolutely be the de facto source on the members of its first team squad. These players that you are including are not first team players and should not be included in the appearances and goals section as they have not made any appearances nor have scored any goals. If they actually do they can be added. But as of now there is no use in congesting that table with a lot of unnecessary and inaccurate information with players that are not full members of the squad--173.17.249.224 (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. --173.17.249.224 (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, please accept my apologies. I can admit when I'm wrong, and I've completely changed my mind regarding this matter. Forgive the unnecessary hassle, and thank you also for your contributions. If you ever want to create an actual user name (which I advise) Vaselineeeeeeee and I will be glad to welcome you to the community. Italia2006 (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--173.17.249.224 (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Italia2006 for being the bigger man. I also second this IP creating an account. I personally thought that in the end we should limit the squad to the first team from the official club website as most other big clubs I've checked follow the same suit. Same squads listed under the squad in the parent club article. In regards to the kit section on the Roma season articles, I think they should be removed, unless you added them, then we can discuss or at FOOTY. They do not appear appropriate or needed in the article. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 11:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016
	An opportunity for you and your country to contribute to the Women in Food and Drink online editathon Faciliated by Women in Red

--Ipigott (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Hello, Italia2006. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, hope everything is well! Just a question about some of your Serie A club template edits...why did you change the current season from bold to italics? Usually italics means it is upcoming and bold means it's current, so that means the current season should be bold, shouldn't it?

Hopefully TFC can get the win tonight! Merry Christmas! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know the funny thing is I usually have them bold, but I had noticed that some of them were italics and so I wasn't sure. I'll change them all back to bold. Also hoping for Toronto to win, and Merry Christmas as well! Cheers! Italia2006 (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's sometimes confusing because for example in the season article infoboxes we have Coppa Italia positions as italics if they are still in the competition...for "in progress". We use bold though for current players, I know that for sure. Maybe "in progress" should really just be an infobox thing for leagues and their competitions. At Template:Chelsea F.C. seasons and Template:Manchester United F.C. seasons they don't even use any form of font for their templates; witch may actually be best. What do you think? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'd prefer in Italian football club season templates to have the current season be bold. Italia2006 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good, fine either way, we just like consistency. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is what's important for me as well. Italia2006 (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a shame to go out like that on penalties...and I understand Giovinco didn't play that good of a game, but to take him out in extra time with penalties looming, and him being a spot kick taker may have been the wrong call...Morrow's penalty reminded me of Trezeguet's from 2006! Bradley played amazing, but that penalty was God awful. We could've wrapped it up several times in open play, but didn't; Frei made a pretty good save in extra time...Seattle didn't even have a shot on...The better all-round team lost, but in the end, penalties are a raffle! Enjoy the rest of your weekend! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wanted to ask you if you're willing to be one of the reviewers for my A-class nomination of the Iazyges article, which I recently improved and got past GA. Thanks, Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure, I'll see if I can get around to it later today. Italia2006 (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You are receiving this message because you have added yourself as a member of the Roman and Byzantine Milhist Project. This is the first such message, however we hope that this can be used to coordinate editing and development of articles later down the road. If you wish to opt out of further messages, please remove yourself from here. 05:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey man, would you please weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988–89 Juventus F.C. season? A user seems to think WP:NSEASONS translates to the deletion of a top flight season article just because it is not well sourced. What a joke, may as well delete all early year season articles! Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: What the @#$%?? Italia2006 (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know right..... Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Put in my three cents. Italia2006 (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, result was a keep. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've created 2017–18 Genoa C.F.C. season. If you could comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.C. Cesena in European football :) Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup sorry I had gone to the gym, on it now. Italia2006 (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come va? I was hoping you could take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atalanta B.C. in European football and comment, this guy is relentless. Saluti, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 11:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man what's up? You heard about the 2017 International Champions Cup being in the States? You planning on going to any games? Juve and Roma both play in NJ. I really wanna take the trek out to Mass to see Juve-Roma, July 30, just still seeing if I can pull something together! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know man haha, I might. Italia2006 (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going? Thanks for imputing the fixtures. I've noticed User:Sean Ago adding "season" sections to a lot of Inter Milan season articles recently, many of which contain really bad grammar. I know he's doing it with good intentions obviously, but some of the wording is just so bad. It's just annoying since I really don't want to sit there and read through and correct all his additions, and I don't want to just delete them because I don't think that would be right either. But if a native speaker of English read his additions, they'd think Wikipedia is a joke... Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Tell me about it... he's driving me up a wall as well. I don't think it would be too big a deal honestly if we required that he proofread his additions or we'll delete them. I think that's perfectly fine on our part. Italia2006 (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at my talk page where he's requested some clarification. I hope he will get better at it soon. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hope all is well. I forget exactly what we do when matches are postponed like Lazio-Udinese. I know Roma-Samp were also postponed earlier, but Roma's wiki season still lists it in grey and postponed and P in results by round? Don't they know the day yet? Lazio's is rescheduled for January 24 2018. Don't we just end up removing the grey match and move it to the right point in time in the match list, then I think every subsequent matchday after the postponed match is considered the matchday 1 behind until the match is made up. I know that sounds confusing...but so if it was postponed match day 12, matchday 13 would count for 12, then 14 for 13, until the match is rescheduled as matchday 22, then it would be normal again. Is that it? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Hey dude. Yeah, this is definitely tricky. I saw on Football Italia that they've rescheduled the Lazio–Udinese match fairly quickly. What we'll do for that is move it in between the two rounds that it falls on, while still leaving in the note parameter in the infobox that it was rescheduled and the reason. As for the "positions by round", even though they didn't play this weekend I still filled in the position they're left it after the 12th round. Thus in "Results by round", Lazio should have a "4" for round 12, as should Udinese have a "13". Same goes for Roma and Sampdoria, who each have a position for round 3. As for the matches portion of results by round, the order stays the same, it should still read 1–38, and we'll leave the P until the match is played. Italia2006 (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude............. How can we even begin to describe a World Cup without Italy??? Ventura seems as he was only destined for failure, and bringing our beloved team and reputation down with him. It's very sad to see, especially since his tactics were all over the place and could not get the team to gel properly. The formations he played most of the time were crazy, and leaving star quality on the bench and at home. He will likely resign or get fired, but it's too little too late and should've happened much sooner. Look at what Croatia did with their coaching situation, and they made it. It's painful to see the only goal coming from a horrid deflection off De Rossi in the first leg, especially when we had quite a few really good chances with Belotti and Darmian, and in the second leg as well, however, also many wasted opportunities. Bonucci since joining Milan has looked in worse form, making several blind passes up the middle which led to dangerous counter attacks. It was agonizing to watch the minutes wind down without a goal to show for it, that goal we so desperately needed just to take to extra time. We were fortunate not to get two penalties called on us, but at the same time, we could've had a penalty first. 60 years since this last happened and it comes at a time where Italy have been lackluster at the past two World Cups as well. So, so, so sad that Buffon, Chiellini, Barzagli, and De Rossi's careers end in such a fashion. Especially for Gigi...he always wanted to retire after the 2018 World Cup, play at 40 like Zoff, but never even came to fruition. It frustrates me that we were even in this situation, having to be in Spain's group, then coming second to play arguably the hardest second seed playoff team the Swedes. It also frustrates me how teams like Serbia and Denmark/Ireland are in the World Cup, but not Italy. It's just unbelievable. This summer will not be the same with all the football going on around us and not being able to take part. Toronto's Italian population is gonna be really quiet this summer, which is something I always loved about the World Cup, everyone coming together, which is something I'm sure you guys have in NYC as well! It's so very hard to swallow. Anyway, hopefully this will allow the national team to rebuild and give youngsters experience before Euro 2020 qualification. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: I can't begin to describe the emotions. I nearly had a heart attack today during the last 20 minutes because you could see the goal was never going to come. Ventura is an absolute imbecile, a senile old fool. As far as the future of the nazionale is concerned, we should start with the 2017 U-21 Euro squad. That should be the basis for the future first team squad in my opinion. As for these two legs, I was disappointed immensely with the play-acting in the first leg, and the attitude overall for both games was terrible. These players looked as though these were friendlies, and when you have no direction whatsoever from a moronic coach (see Insigne's confusion over being played in central midfield in the first leg for an example) it just compounds the issue. It's definitely sad that the BBC will be gone, but in truth it should've happened earlier. Even though he's only 30, Bonucci should go too. Caldara, Romagnoli and Rugani should be the basis of the defence. Full-back is an issue, but for me in midfield it should be any three of Pellegrini, Gagliardini, Verratti, Benassi, and Locatelli. Also we need to integrate Chiesa into the squad as quickly as possible, he's full of energy, dynamic, something this team hasn't had in forever. I like the idea of playing a 4–2–3–1 with the front four being Insigne-Bernardeschi-Chiesa with maybe Petagna or Belotti/Immobile up front. Berardi as well when he's on form can make a difference. I'll add more thoughts later. Italia2006 (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the comparison between Toronto and NYC, it's twice as bad for us because both the US and Italy are out. I'm rooting for Iceland because they're underdogs, but this will be a very strange World Cup for me. Italia2006 (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it hurts...I feel you, I was having a heart attack myself, couldn't even sit. I can't believe Ventura hasn't resigned by now, or that we wasn't fired by now, and even Tavecchio. If they had any dignity or remorse they would've by now. It surely has to be coming though. When your own players are getting frustrated with the coach as De Rossi was seen on the bench asking why the fuck they wanted him to warm up instead of Insigne, that's when there's a problem. There were way too many crosses which resulted to nothing. When we did have most of our chances was when we finally decided to shoot the ball from the box. I suppose there was no reason to leave all 3 centre backs on at once, it would've been good to see another player like Insigne come on, although he was played out of position in the first leg and didn't do a whole lot. I thought El Shaarway made a great impact on the game in the last 20 minutes or so though, and he has been in good form with Roma as well. There are too many shoulda, coulda, woulda's and not enough action. Ventura says our record was good under him, they needed to secure second place and top seed which they did, but only so merely! The last 6 games I think the stat was only 3 goals scored; that is worrisome. I like your approach with what should be done next. Yeah, that's true U.S. isn't even in it for guys either...this whole thing just sucks. A nice underdog like Iceland would be cool to see go far. As long as it's not a "powerhouse" like Germany or Brazil, I'm fine. But yeah, this will be a WC to forget, but it'll make the next one seem that farther away. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buongiorno da Coreca, ti scrivo per salutarti e sapere come stai. Io sto abbastanza bene per ora. Ti scrivo per chiederti un aiuto per ampliare e migliorare l'articolo sulla Ferilli che giace ta tempo nel limbo. Io ho provato a fare qualcosa con scarso successo, ho chiesto aiuto a tanti amici utenti ma niente di niente....spero di ricevere aiuto da te che ho visto che te la cavi bene, Naturalmente se posso fare qualcosa per te in qualche lingua del mondo, ho tanti amici e conoscenti in svedese, danese, indonesiano e cinese per citarne qualche lingua. Io avrei intenzione di ampliare altre due bio sempre se tu mi aiuterai. Nell'attesa di una tua certa risposta e aiuto ti ringrazio in anticipo di vero cuore e sappi che potrai contare su di me per qualsiasi problema.--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I apologize for my attitude, I'm at fault here, no point reporting, it won't happen again. I'm a regular contributor.RafaelS1979 (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RafaelS1979: fair enough, we're a community here and we try to work together. You haven't been reported yet anyway so we're all good. Italia2006 (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Italia2006. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Italia2006, thanks for your contribution to the List of La Liga hat-tricks. But, why have you added the innecesary C.F?. --Zigurat (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Because it is a direct link; how it should be. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an answer. Adding C.F is an innecesary increase (=money to mantain the whole wikipedia) of the article, especially when we have a specific link. --Zigurat (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's "unnecessary", and if you look anywhere on Wikipedia, you'll see the direct links piped to the shorter form. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Zigurat: I've been at work. Basically what Vaselineeeeeee said. This is the proper form. You'll see the same usage everywhere on this site. Italia2006 (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Italia2006, I appreciate your good manners. But counterpose proper, or common usage; with the sense of using it when is unnecessary (really, I mixed with my language) and the economic cost of the usage for the project... Smaller size = less cost (I'm not Ebenezer Scrooge). If we have shorter forms, let's use them. If they exist, they have a purpose.
• @Vaselineeeeeeee: in my eleven years with six months on wikipedia I have seen both usages.

I also have Italian ancestry. Best wishes for both. --Zigurat (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hope all is well. Wow that was an absolute insane match against Real Madrid. It was larceny. Anyway, before the ridiculous red card to Buffon, he was keeping a clean sheet. Szczęsny came in and was scored on by the resulting penalty. Does Buffon get a clean sheet? I know we've discussed this in the past with regards to keepers being substituted when they've been keeping a clean sheet, and opted to use an asterisk to indicate a "shared clean sheet". You think this may be something to add as a note like that as well for this instance? Best of luck to Roma as they came out on the better side. You a Roma fan no? or Milan? Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm a Milan fan, but no Buffon does not get a clean sheet because the game ended 3–1. Feel for the Juve fans though. Italia2006 (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's a requested move at Inter Milan, and I thought you might like to know if you're not watching it knowing you deal heavily in Italian football. I am appropriately notifying you, and have had no past indication of which title you prefer. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the notification! Italia2006 (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If the article does get moved, we should probably move all Inter related pages, including seasons to the new title, but we'll cross that bridge if we get to it. They might put a bot on it actually. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sounds good. Italia2006 (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, too bad it didn't get moved...maybe some day. I also wanted to tell you after I saw you add the full citations for several links, that there's this really helpful tool WP:REFILL, if you didn't know about it, that basically fills in all the bare references on an article itself. Sometimes you gotta add in some things it doesn't pick up, but most of the time it's all there. I was just about to do it to the article myself. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that at all actually, thanks! And yeah I think Inter's article is doomed to stay at a ridiculous nickname for all time, the only football club on this entire site to follow that model. Italia2006 (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's been a while, I hope you're doing well. I know I've been away from the season articles recently, I lost my motivation for those honestly, but I'll still be around. Anyway, since you've been part of this conversation before, another move request is open at Inter Milan - this one looks promising this time. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Hey man, great to hear from you. Don't worry about the season articles, those are pretty straightforward and easy to take care of. I will definitely be taking a look at the move request, although honestly I'm skeptical just because of the number of times we've been here before. Italia2006 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait so what's going on? They're likely going to delete those position templates etc and replace them with a new one? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Apparently so. I don't know how I feel about that right now, particularly because they new ones seems like much more of a pain in the butt to update. Italia2006 (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you changing "Hat-tricks(+)" into "Hat-tricks"? --Sb008 (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sb008: Because "hat-tricks" covers the topic appropriately whether it's three goals or more. If a player scores four goals it's still counted as a hat-trick. You don't need a confusing plus sign. See every other European league article for reference. Italia2006 (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose you change the hat-trick page first. Next you convince dictionaries, like e.g. MW, hat-trick also covers 4 goals. If you're done doing that, you can use appropriate references as argument instead of, as you claim, an invalid usage for every other European league. --Sb008 (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sb008: No, actually I don't need to do any of that because I'm not the one in the wrong. But thank you for your kind passive aggressive (cowardly) suggestions. Italia2006 (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're not wrong, you better contact all dictionaries and tell them they're wrong, since not both of you can be right. --Sb008 (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you're not wrong you better talk to every other editor on this site. Besides the fact that if you're concerned with nomenclature the title of your subsection should be "Hat-tricks, four goal hauls, five goal hauls", etc., because "Hat-tricks(+)" doesn't actually mean anything and will just confuse the reader. Sort of like the "Goalscorers" section of the same page, which makes the number of games played more prominent than the actual number of goals scored. Italia2006 (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, I guess his argument is that the article is located at Inter Milan, so there's no need to pipe to any other title. I understand that argument, although you and I both know the article should be located at F.C. Internazionale Milano. – PeeJay 22:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: I'm not going to lie to you, I'm annoyed about it. Italia2006 (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, pal, but unfortunately there's not much we can do. As the last RM at Talk:Inter Milan proved, the inmates are continuing to run the asylum. – PeeJay 22:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: funny enough while we've been speaking a separate editor has now reverted it back to "Internazionale". Italia2006 (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Italia2006. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 2019–20 U.S. Lecce season, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: It doesn't have citations yet because nothing has happened yet............... Italia2006 (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italia2006, Greetings. It does not have sources (citations) then the content claimed is not supported by sources and this does not meet Wikipedia WP:Content Policy and WP:PROVEIT. The draft article will be stored in Wikipedia system for 6 months before it is deleted. So when sources (newspapers) publishes the subject and if it could be used to support the content in the draft space, then pls provide the inline citation (at least 3 sources) and submit for review and if it is accepted then it will placed in the mainspace. pPls read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Let me know if anything else I could help. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 2019–20 Udinese Calcio season, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:2019–20 U.S. Lecce season, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medhi Benatia transferred during the last season, and he is still present for the 2018–19 article in the table. Perin, Mandžukić and Han must be in the table too.--79.34.216.248 (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Putting twice inside the info box the link Cristiano Ronaldo is an overlinking. Once is enough.--79.34.216.248 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've put an overlinking also for previous season into the infobox. Why? And important, why did you remove some pictures?--79.34.216.248 (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of God. (1) Stop putting the spaces in the appearances and goals infobox, they're nonsensical and make entering information unnecessarily taxing. It's never been done that way and I resent your claim to the contrary. (2) Mandžukić, Han et al shouldn't be in a table detailing appearances and goals when they've made neither. They should be at the end of the "squad information" table under the heading "Players transferred during the season", as is done in every other Italian football season article (this article is not an orphan but part of a larger project). (3) I don't really care about the overlinking either way, and neither should you. (4) I've removed photos from season infoboxes for several reasons. (a) Most importantly, they completely clog up the infobox which is not meant to be a photo gallery but rather an overview of the season's results, top scorers, attendances, etc., and should be put in a "season review" section right after the article introduction. (b) consistency with other season articles. Italia2006 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me. I'm not the user who added spaces in the appearances and goals infobox. It was made by another user who right now I don't really remember. For the rest that you've written is now ok. Enjoy your time inside this platform. :)--79.34.216.248 (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I didn't mean to come off harsh, apologies if I did. Thank you for the understanding. Italia2006 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, hope you and your family have been well during this time. A user has been creating some 2020-21 season articles for Serie A clubs. He has included the "overview" section again in these articles. I removed it at the Juve page but was reverted. I thought I remembered a discussion at footy where it was decided not to implement this section. I tried searching for it but couldn't find it - do you remember something along those lines? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, yeah you’re totally in the right. I haven’t edited in a while but that’ll change soon so I’ll take a look. Italia2006 (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Upper Satrapies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carmania. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2000–01 Celtic F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Underhill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]