It is not "erroneous" to refer to this event as the British Open. It would be erroneous to assert that is the proper noun for the event. Nobody is doing that. All my British relations refer to the paper (for example) as the "Times of London" or the "London Times." That isn't wrong, because the geographic reference is appended to the proper name of the event, no different than if I referred to the British Prime Minister. It is not "erroneous" to call it the British Open.
I was not aware that there was a specific British spelling of 'defense'. I thought I was correcting a misspelling. It's not my fault you guys are stodgey and antiquated.
The link you posted was bad. I think you mean to post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English
Kajmal 22:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Umm, okay, I wasn't trying to "impose" anything. I only changed it from football to soccer because I thought that if it's on a page that tells what "football" means in different places, it's redundant to say "Football means Australian rules football". Calm down... Mourn 17:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Please stop imposing your bias on this article. -- Leifern 00:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Let me explain something to you:
This is very elementary logic. -- Leifern 00:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Both you hand User:Leifern have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and violations of Wikipedia's 3 revert rule. Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
your right im sorry. ( 24.60.161.63 06:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC))
I'm unaware of what usually happens in this situtation, I dunno. I'll see if I can find what happens in other votes. AlbinoMonkey ( Talk) 11:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jooler, in the recent Talk:FIFA World Cup#Requested move, User:Rousseau made his first edit a vote in the process, which you subsequently edited out (which seems fair and reasonable to me, as there's the danger of sockpuppetry, while the user shouldn't suffer from bad faith). What I would like to know is, is there a consensus guideline that prohibits a user to vote as their first action, as a voting process on Talk:Hanover 96 has something similar. If you want, could you take a quick look at Talk:Hanover 96#User:Hargreavesfan? Poulsen 00:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
That's considered vandalism-- Nn-user 19:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have read it (well, selected bits anyway). I'd be interested in working on putting all the information onto the page, however, we'd meet an obstacle: There is no online source for election results between 1885 and 1950. I'd be happy to give it a go without that if you like. -- New Progressive 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for doing all that research. H.B.W. Brand, elected in 1865 on your sandbox page was in fact Henry Brand, and he later became Speaker of the Commons. He was a Liberal.
I'm having some difficulty identifying the party of Henry Fitzroy (statesman). In the PDF that you uploaded to the Commons, it says referring to the 1874 general election on page 23:
"After 23 years of Conservative disaster and defeat," said the Sussex Express, in reporting this election, "the representation of Lewes was at this contest reversed."
Thus from 1852 to 74, there were no Conservative MPs, so he definitely wasn't one of them in that period. There is a reference in the 1859 election to him being a Liberal MP, but the 1841 return indicates that he was a Conservative running against Liberals.
I grew up in Surrey, though I spent a lot of my teen years sloshing around bits of West Sussex. I'm presently in my final year at Oxford University. Most of my work on Wikipedia has been based around the constituencies in those areas. New Progressive 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I saw that you were active in the first vote for naming conventions of television program(mes). Well it has raised it's ugly head again and I would appreciate any comments you have to make about my new proposal for naming television shows. Please leave comments here. Thanks! -- Reflex Reaction ( talk)• 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm minded to oppose the deletion of this cat, but when I try to edit the discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Films_notable_for_historical_inaccuracy I can't locate the discussion in the edit box. Clearly, I'm doing summat wrong. Help, if you can. Please reply to my talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Folks_at_137 Thanks. Folks at 137 11:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've gone to the category, followed the link to the "for deletion" page, and given my two euro cents... is there anything more I can do? --
Svartalf
19:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I edited your userpage as i moved the 'This user is a sceptic, even of this userbox' userbox to Skeptic, as it was already taken. C.B 04:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
What I mean by taken is, when i put the code that was originally given for it, i got a blokes face instead of the emoticon i was expecting. So, i moved the emoticon. I am aware of the irony of the spelling and my userbox combo, but changing one letter seemed less offensive to the original writer of the userbox. C.B 16:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I pulled his death date from Leigh Rayment's peerage pages, and he probably got it from Burke's or Debrett's. If you've got the newspaper from the period I'm somewhat more inclined to trust that. Maybe note both in the article? Mackensen (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. You may be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free). Thanks. -- Descendall 01:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Unhelpful reply at User_talk:Molly_Mockford#Lewes. Sorry. -- rbrwr ± 23:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's stay civil. I can understand your frustration on the userbox front, but picking fights on Jimbo's user page will just get you warned/blocked, and will make anyone arguing for keeping userboxes seem willing to violate WP:POINT. I'll be completely honest: for a while I was a little tempted to do that too. But let's stay level-headed here. JDoorj a m Talk 03:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
If you are a supporter of Don Bosco, take a look at this page.
Yes, I saw. It's a pity about the tightening-up of image uploading, but probably for the better. I've got the German-language bio of Mackensen and some old postcards so I can probably scare up a usable image. Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It is great to know that you stand always against the asses against the world. -- Licinius 09:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Ass? Latin? Either way it is very clearly an insult, but I am not offended. I just passed it on in the interests of Wikipedia. -- Licinius 11:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
But hey, I will make the case to you since you judge me an ass. The other football codes and the games that have followed them are on all based upon their original code of rules. Like say the American football is placed as descended from Rugby school rules, probably equally true as of AFL, which is stated quite differently. This is different and quite strange to have a section titled "Australian and Irish Variations". To be honest, on such a basis Rugby League is just as much an Australian variation of football, they both came from England, and Rugby League is the game of half the country. I changed it to something along those lines, though my memory fades to the exact words and that is how this began. -- Licinius 11:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm trying (again) to get The George Washington University moved to George Washington University. Since you weighed in on this when it came up last year, I thought you might like to weigh in again. john k 23:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Inferior panama map.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are
open content,
public domain, and
fair use. Find the appropriate template in
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ( T/ C) 13:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Cheers, thanks for that link, I was wondering where the info for that statement was. Assuming that editor got the official english language countries correct, there are 2 others that aren't fifa affiliated (so it should be 4 out of 45 then I guess - I'll fix it and make a note on talk). Cursive 00:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
What controversy? I live in Australia and there has been no controversy at all. In fact the opposite. Most media outlets now refer to football as football. It makes a few Aussie Rules people unhappy, but this isn't controversial. Why is Australia singled out for mention? Answer: to mention Aussie Rules in the football section. "Controversy" is inaccurate. Jealousy is a more accurate descriptions and if you’ve followed any of the debate on wikipedia, you can certainly tell from some reactions that it’s not a POV statement. --
Executive.koala
11:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out my mistakes. Spelling is never my strong point. Actually, do you know of a way to spell check in wikipedia, because I had to do it in Microsoft Word, and when it started it was in American English. I don't think there was any errors in grammar.
Thanks, ISD
Thanks again for the help. I take it the spelling is now alright.
Hello ! I noticed that in adding the once deleted link to the Human Rights in France page, you summarized your edit as "rvv" which commonly means "Reverted Vandilism." (see rvv) I was the user who originally deleted this link, and as such I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to my edits as vandilism. I included an edit summary as well as participated in an ongoing discussion on the talk page (started by a user who wants to add this particular link). If you would like to include your arguments for changes to this article, I encourage you to come share your ideas on the talk page. - Aquarelle 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for translating an article listed at Wikipedia:German-English translation requests. This is just a little reminder to remove the translation from the list when you've done it and add it to the "completed translations" list at the bottom of the page - thanks! Saint| swithin 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
To prevent further edit warring I am bringing this here. What is the difference between canadian bacon and ham? They taste and look almost the exact same. The difference between what you call streaky bacon and canadian bacon is MUCH larger than the difference between canadian bacon and ham. If a redirect is necessary, I think it should be to ham.
Either way, canadian bacon should at bare minimum have its own section in whatever article it belongs to explains what it is. -- MateoP 22:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This seems to make little since.... Why is canadian bacon considered a "bacon" when it looks and tastes exactly like ham. It tastes nor looks like any kind of bacon I've ever seen. Either way, this all needs to be explained in a section in the bacon article if we are going to forward canadian bacon there.
The bacon articles covers it very poorly, but I changed it some. this should be an acceptable compromise. -- MateoP 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I see you are unwilling to compromise. -- MateoP 23:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss your differences on the talk page. Reverting each other is pointless. Tom Harrison Talk 23:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
No sarcasm intended at all. A previous post had similar logic to yours and the words from that post which stuck in my mind the most were "easy peasy" so, when I saw those words again I assumed that they were from the same person. The reference to archive heaven was meant to convey that the prior "easy peasy" posting was not in view but stored away in the talk's archives. No other hidden meanings at all so, if you were the earlier poster or not I encourage you to post your argument from time to time so as to keep it visible, things tend to get lost in the archives. :-) hydnjo talk 00:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that reference to the article, and letting me know. One of us should look up the original PPC piece.... -- Macrakis 18:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how your "I can't quite see what you're getting into such a bother about" helps matters. You yourself were bothered enough to revert my change, furthermore asking me to "not act against the consensus", when there is no consensus. If you don't care, stay out of the debate and don't revert. I'm trying to use a standard Wikipedia avenue for settling this kind of dispute. You should respect that. Gsd2000 17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Re your claim of "stalking", Jooler. A man is judged by his deeds. On Wikipedia, your deeds are your user contributions. I was simply looking to see if you were a regular contributor to the empire space (like I am). I found it mildly amusing that you had contributed to these articles (and your drunken outburst) - perhaps my wit was a little too cutting here. (I apologise). But there is a serious point at stake - I wouldn't edit an article that I am not qualified to edit. I was trying to see whether you were qualified to be making the statements that you were making. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but just because anyone can, it doesn't mean everyone should. (And no, that's not directed at you). Look at this for an example why: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=48787724 Gsd2000 01:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I note that you've reverted an edit to the Battersea Park page for containing an alleged spam external link. I wonder if you'd care to have a look at that user's other work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:London_street_skates
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Daniel_W
He keeps editing - he doesn't seem to engage in discussion. But - I admit - I'm kind of an interested party, so maybe a second (or nth) opinion would be good. Daniel Barlow 20:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Good call on George_cowie ( talk · contribs · count). I'll keep an eye on him and won't hesitate to block if he uploads any more copyvio material. Thanks. ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 12:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jooler, apologies for revert on Cuba. But it's a complicated one that we've been mulling over for weeks. We're not wrong to say that Cuba is a communist state, but it's been agreed that it's not technically correct either in the info box due to the particular nature of the Cuban system, which differs somewhat from (say) Vietnam or the old Soviet bloc countries. You've highlighted a potential problem with the communist state page also, thanks. Btw I saw your River Plate argument recently from way back, am in complete agreement with your position, and am a little disappointed with the verdict! Keep up the good work -- Zleitzen 09:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was reluctant to list the other cats which are currently named "GB & NI" on a "life is too short" basis :) There are only so many times I can take being accused of having a secret agenda in any one week! In addition, as the "vote" to keep the main cat as Category:Great Britain at the Olympics only ended as "Keep" due to no consensus, I suspect any attempt to rename those cats in the form "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will also end in "no consensus" which is in effect a "Keep" vote. Much argument for no gain. This is also the reason I have avoided editing those articles that incorrectly state things like The United Kingdom competes as Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Olympics as I am not inclined to get in an edit war. To be honest, although I'm strongly opposed to any use of the words United Kingdom in such cats (for no reason other than that this is wholly non-reflective of the real-world usage), I could live with "GB & NI" even allowing for the questionable accuracy. If you want to list the subcats for renaming, I'll support the rename, but I doubt this will be successful. (I also believe that regardless of the usage now, there have been times in the past when the form "GB & NI" was used officially at the Olympics, so some of the cats for past Olympics may arguably be correct!) Valiantis 20:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I have watched the debate about what to call "." in amazement, and will comment on it shortly. But please don't go editing American articles into british versions, that is simply disruption to make a point (see WP:POINT - oh the irony :) Relax, chill. MartinRe 17:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a very screwed up belief system. Michaelritchie200 17:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Argentina football 2002 handbag mockup.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are
open content,
public domain, and
fair use. Find the appropriate template in
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ed g2s • talk 01:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
YOu know for a fact that I did that in good faith, and I didn'tunderstand the rules on this, and that I was trying to discuss it constructively with you on the talk page. Your post in my talk was just cynical and counter productive, especially as you threatened me with blocks. I feel that you have grossly mishandled this whole situation. Its a real shame, anyway, I'm going to re-write the article on my sandbox page, and hopefully be able to put a suitable version back on the FIFA world rankings page soon. Philc T E C I 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding removal of the comment text: For me, commented text gets in the way, and thus is more of a bother than it's worth. If you want to advertise the WikiProject, a better way to do it is to make a template to place at the top of the affected articles' talk pages. For instance:
It might be worthwhile to devise such a template, as it may very well breathe new life into an old, abandoned WikiProject. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 18:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
After warning him to stop, I have had to block
SchuminWeb. Not alone did he unilaterally redesign a page that was designed by a consensus, and redesigned dozens of pages unilaterally, he falsified the contents of the project page to suggest that the project backed his unilateral changes. That is way beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
18:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen it. Cool, isn't it? :-) Angmering 09:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Tom Petty played himself in that crappy Kevin Costner movie The Postman. - lethe talk + 14:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Every episode of the Ricky Gervais show Extras features an actor playing him or herself. - lethe talk + 22:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed on the football Wikiproject talk page that you expressed surprise we didn't have this article, as we had the Argentina and England football rivalry page that I created last year. Well, now we have one! Still very first drafty and needs a lot of improvement, but it's a start. Angmering 06:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
How is diving similar to gamesmanship? -- Spondoolicks 09:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I'm surprised I managed to spell it in a way accepted by any variant of English. Oldelpaso 08:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Despite there not having been a match for third place at Uruguay 30, the final standings put the Yanks in third place.
Thanks for your message. I already knew goal difference wasn't used to split ties until 1974, I didn't include them with this purpose. When I was editing the qualifying articles, someone suggested that goal difference should be added to all tables, for curiosity if nothing else. As long as the articles keep clear that other ways were used to split ties, such as play-offs, I see no problem in keeping the goal difference there. -- BLOGuil 16:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The tie breaker is goal differential. 1930 P G W T L F A D 3 USA 4 3 2 0 1 7 6 +1 66,6% 4 Yugoslavia 4 3 2 0 1 7 7 0 66,6%
Same as in 1950 when the yanks took the match but finished two places lower. 1950 P G W T L F A D 8 England 2 3 1 0 2 2 2 0 33,3% 9 Chile 2 3 1 0 2 5 6 -1 33,3% 10 USA 2 3 1 0 2 4 8 -4 33,3%
I have been asked been asked to provide references for rankings but when I did so I guess they were not considered reputable sources. So I thought this one might be suitable. http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/releases/en/fwc_origin_en.pdf Libro0 17:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the message on my talk page. Yes, I'm lucky enough to have all four volumes. I'll check out the query you mention - also, if you think I can help with any scans for things you're doing, let me know. Mikedash 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm afraid things are only getting more confusing.
Association Football and the Men Who Made It, I, 39, is imprecise as to the number of rules passed at the meeting on 1 December, but a couple of paras later refers to "the nine rules of the Association in 1863"!
Geoffrey Green's work (pp.34-8) includes, as Appendix 4, "The Football Association Laws as accepted December 1863", and while this does list fourteen laws, both in the draft of 24 November 1863 and the finally accepted version of the laws, encoded in December, it does so in the form of a list of 11 laws that parallel the Cambridge rules (as published by the FA in October 1863), followed by three others that have no parallel. After that, Green also lists 3 old Cambridge rules that were not adopted by the FA. These were Cambridge rules 8, 9 and 10.
Green's text attempts to set the various sets of laws side by side but because the Cambridge and FA laws are ordered differently, his numbering is very eccentric; for the accepted FA laws of 12/63 it runs 1, 2, 3, 6, 5, 7, 4, 9, 11, 12, 10, 8, 13, 14!
I haven't time to transcribe all this now, but I could certainly scan and post Green's full discussion if that would help. I'm hazy about current UK copyright - the book was published in 1953, and thus falls outside the old 50-year rule, so I think it probably ought to be possible to upload to Wikimedia Commons - you may know more than me about this, so please advise. If not, I could always use an "away" venue such as Imageshack if you feel that would help sort things out.
It may help to roughly summarise the 14 accepted laws, as of December 1863, as given by Green (I have reordered them to make things a bit clearer):
1. Size of pitch
2. Toss and commencement of game
3. Change ends after goal is scored
4. Goal scored when ball passes between posts
5. Throw in at right angles
6. Early offside law - 'When a player has kicked the ball any one of the same side who is nearer to the opponent's goal line is out of play..."
7. When ball is out of play, the side whose player touches it first gains possession
8. Fair catch law; players must make their mark
9. No player shall carry the ball
10. No tripping or hacking
11. A player shall not throw the ball
12. No player shall take the ball from the ground with his hands
13. Players can throw or pass the ball from a fair catch or catches the ball on the first bounce
14. No projecting iron plates or nails, etc on boots
I hope this helps, but fear I may simply have added to the confusion. Still, if FIFA, the FA and the ASF can't agree, it's a bit optimistic to assume I might be able to provide a solution from my modest library. Mikedash 10:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. Looking at the article, it could be improved and expanded quite a bit - I'll try to find time to do that, but sadly not right now.
You may have noticed I've tried to gather together as many players from the pre-1914 period as possible into the new category "Early (pre-1914) Association Football players", mainly just to make it easier to see what's already available on this site and what's needed. My main contributions to date are Leigh Richmond Roose, Cuthbert Ottaway, G.O. Smith, "Nuts" Cobbold, Cunliffe Gosling and Raby Howell, all of which I'd hope you'd enjoy. Eventually, though, I hope to find the time to expand the current category listing to somewhere in the region of 120 names; the most important omissions at present seem to be AM & PM Waters, Renny-Tailyour, Marindin, Ned Doig, Pa Jackson & Major Sudell, but I have a list of about 30 names worth adding and have begun collecting material to enable me to profile them. Right now, though, work on a new book is threatening to start getting in the way once again.
Hope you enjoy Batavia's Graveyard (my personal favourite among my books). Nice, anyway, to come across a fellow enthusiast for the early history of the game. Mikedash 11:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, when I was at Uni I had free access to that on their network, and used it quite a lot when I was for reasons that need not concern us here researching the year 1963 a lot. In fact I have downloaded onto my computer every issue of The Times from around September to November that year! Sad, eh? Angmering 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Now we can disagree all we want about the United States national team site, you're entitled to your opinion as am I. However, I find your behavior to be quite shameful. "Get over it" and saying you're reverting "petulance." Hardly my friend. You asked me to check my sources, I did, I found my verifiable source, and since you don't like it you resort to petty namecalling and the like. Stick to discussing the issue, not to adding sniping comments, because as I said on the talk page, it makes you sound rather ridiculous. Batman2005 14:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Jooler, I'm happy and glad that you saw my intervention as neutral. I tried my best to keep it that way. I understand that sometimes tempers flare, but try my best to never take anything personal in WP, so our past incident was long forgotten by the time I got in this matter. I do have to tell you that indeed the conversation (from your end) was held in the most civil manner, and if you check Batman's user page you'll see that I even said so to him. I'm happy that you're feeling better about things nowadays and I hope that every encounter we have in the future is as constructive as the one we just had. :)
Regarding the point in case, I do see your points here and I can't blame either of you for not wanting to compromise since both have strong arguments for them (although I grant you that the FIFA source that Batman provided doesn't intend to state that US is 3rd and Yug is 4th but rather chooses one over the other because two names didn't fit in one cell... an infortunate decision on their part). My vision for the "joint 3rd" was one of being consistent with other pages.
Anyway, I think that if the RfC doesn't yield better results than this, then you should try to make the change happen but be very careful of starting an edit war. Maybe starting RfM is the right way...
Good luck!!!
Sebastian Kessel Talk 14:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You delete the No.18....
Dušan Petković is No.16, you delete the wrong one. Matt86hk talk 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It's quite a while since I uploaded that photo, but if I remember correctly... the photo came from CottonTown and the caption came from the reference given in the Blackburn Rovers article , namely: Mike Jackman, Blackburn Rovers an illustrated history. It's always possible I made an error transcribing the information from the book, and I don't have it available any longer to check (library book). If you have two indepedent sources suggesting it is Inglis, then I'd change it to that and then add the book as a reference to both the BR article and the photo page itself. Next time I'm in the library I'll see if the Jackman book is still on the shelves and double check. Thanks for fact checking it though... much appreciated. - Motor ( talk) 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the football chant article is where I got that information from in the first place, cross-referenced with other articles. However, WP:CITE currently disallows using other articles as citations. – Unint 21:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying to your query. Like you, I have been distracted by the World Cup. I've not come across this story, and it seems inherently improbable - as Kevin Keegan once observed, "You can't play with a one-armed goalkeeper - not at this level." The closest I can come to it is Arthur Lea, a one-armed Welsh international who represented Wrexham c.1890. he was a forward, though. Mikedash 12:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I just want to thank you for your excellent contributions to wikipedia. U da man!
The wikipedia article name is caramelization, not caramelisation, and as such I think for the purposes of consistancy it makes more sense to write it as the former, not the latter.
Hehe ... just managed to comply with the new "rules", 12hrs 43mins by my calculations, but I'll take it on the chin anyway :-)
![]() |
Cactus.man is not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy! |
--
Cactus.man
✍
14:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I was kidding my friend! I hope you didn't take offense, it was really a lighthearted comment. Batman2005 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you show me an example of what you're asking me to do, because I'm not sure I understand your request. Ie, how are you trying to squish the page horizontally? Reply on my page, please. -- Palffy 15:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't touched that 'bloody table' Jooler, not since I put it there. If someone keeps deleting and putting it back in, it ain't me. I don't see what you've got against it anyway, it just shows a record of how well each team performed, what percentage of their games they won, how many goals they scored, etc. etc. I can leave out the Points column if it makes you happier. -- Mark J 09:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:W.S. Kenyon-Slaney.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir,
I spend a lot of time correcting dozens of mistakes in the Legion of Honour article. I was also unhappy with the spelling "Honor", Google alone is not a justification of this spelling. Now I am amazed to see that all my work is destroyed, the mistakes are all back. I know that the redirects were not propper but i failed to get them fight. But this is allmost v****lism!
Are you going to restore the article?
Faithfulluy yours,
Robert Prummel 01:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't usually comment on edit summaries, but seriously: allowed AND conceded both make sense in that context, and as a native speaker of (American) English, either word sounds fine. I have no problem with you changing it, but please at least be civil when you do. Thanks for your edits, though! -- SuperNova | T| C| 13:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Jooler, I think an inclusionist atheistic footballer with is just the person for this task: Will you consider commenting on some AfD nominations and merge-delete propositions that I believe are an attempt to drive off a good editor? (OK, she's my wife. But she's exhausted by this fight; her articles are written in good faith and this editor is making a mockery of WP.)
Thank you! -- JuanFiguroa 03:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thoroughly, thoroughly pissed off at some really comprehensive work being just erased without thought by Marcus22. Thank you for highlighting your concern. Bentley Banana 12:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
On the Horacio Elizondo article can you vote at the bottom to see whether we should keep Rooney's view on his decision in the article as I'm trying reach a consensus as soon as possible. Thanks.
Hello. Thanks for your message. I'm only implementing the change after the debate has run its course according to policy, and have no strong feelings in the matter, but it seems to me that "Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom" is a better title in a global encyclopedia than "Members of the Privy Council"! There is a sub-category Category:Members of the Privy Council of England. Would it be better to move the person you mentioned to that category? Regards, RobertG ♬ talk 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware that several people named Lord Darcy were historical figures. However, if you look at the wiki links to "Lord Darcy" [2] you'll see that basically every single one of them is about the fictional character, not the real individuals. In the context of Wikipedia, it's a reasonable assumption that there are more people looking for the fictional character. -- Kazrak 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You messed up the ITN on the mian page! It's not the Jules Rimet Trophy for goodness sake. Brazil won that outright in 1970. Jooler 22:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop vadalizing talk:humor. Thank you. 195.18.216.204 08:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Goal Average was used in this World Cup to determine who placed 1st and who 2nd in a group (like Group 2 between France and Yugoslavia). Play-offs were used to determine qualification to next round. -- Calippo 09:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. Do you have any source so I can link it? Mine was simply the pre-existing Wikipedia Article. -- Calippo 10:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
As you have seen I am re-editing the whole page to be uniform with World Cup 2006, and adding referees, attendance and match reports. Let me finish it and then we will talk about Goal Difference. But I see your point. Ciao. -- Calippo 10:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
See my reply on WC '58 talk page. -- Calippo 12:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I want to tell you why I put GD. I would like to have uniformity between World Cups. So I used 2006 template for 1958 Cup, and then I added GAv. I am aware that GD was not a discriminant in 1958, but it is commonly used today when displaying soccer results, even when it is not used to rank the teams. And there are, on the other hand, discriminants which are not commonly shown. I imagine that if we wanted to display the results of an early tournament where just points were used we would probably still show W-D-L and GF-GA, even when not important for the tournament itself. The point is: is GDiff at the same "level" of the above or not? I am not saying we should include it, just want to tell you that the choice is not that obvious. It would have been obvious to a 1958 man, not to a 2006 one. Which is the philologically right choice? Ciao.-- Calippo 15:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No, in one case you substitute correct info with wrong one. In the other one you add correct, useless (although interesting maybe) info. But don't worry, I'm removing GD, this is just pour parler. -- Calippo 15:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW, are you sure about the terminology? "Goal Average" recalls more the average of goal scored per game rather than the ratio GF/GA. Here in Italy we call it "Goal Quotient" (if this word exists in english). It is still used in sports such as volleyball (where of course it is "Set Quotient"). Bye.-- Calippo 15:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have read the quotes you sent me. I have seen they talk about "goal average". My question was rather is "goal average" the ratio GF/GA? It would be quite a curious terminology. (I am sorry for my bad english). -- Calippo 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It's amazing what turns up in archaic reference books, isn't it? Surprisingly useful things... Shimgray | talk | 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry to bother you, but I am working on 1930 World Cup article and I need to change the title of a linked article. Is it possible to do that? Or I need to create a new one and propose the old one to deletion? Thanks, -- Calippo 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Calippo 16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Very glad you enjoyed the book. Mikedash 13:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you posted your opposition to the category moves. How would you prefer things to be categorized? Could you post your suggestions to WP:SHIPS? I'd really like to come up with a coherent scheme, and simply voting "oppose" to moves without participating in the discussion of the proposal is unhelpful. TomTheHand 18:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
How much debate is required? David D. (Talk) 21:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [3] SilkTork 11:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not stalking anyone. A stalker is someone who disrupts, according to WP policy. What kind of disruption do you think I'm causing you? But you are talking behind my back, and that ain't no cool. See User talk:Violetriga#Stalker. Until next time, JackLumber. 22:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Please have another look at Chance cards. I've included notes about the development of the cards in the board game, and included UK edition notes, as well as a notation about how the cards are changed for every other edition (localizations, special editions, etc.). I'll be doing the Community Chest cards shortly. -- JohnDBuell 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
We need coders for the WikiProject Disambigation fixer. We need to make a program to make faster and easier the fixing of links. We will be happy if you could check the project. You can Help! -- Neo139 09:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I remember you had a rather similar interaction regarding the proposed addition of "unofficial" rankings or standings tables into World cup articles. I wondered if you could watch my conversation with User talk:Libro0 in case I need support. Don't worry if you can't or don't want to. -- Guinnog 16:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You were one of the people I had in mind when I designed this award. And we really must see if we can progress our discussion about the 1966 World Cup Final; maybe by bringing in other people to the discussion? -- Guinnog 10:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI that was a serious question. Cuzandor 02:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Jooler, I have undone your recent edit to British. The prior version is more compatible with WP:DAB and MoS:DAB than the version you put there. I think there is certainly room to make the page more consitent to the style guidelines, and I welcome your help to get it there. It's a tough page! Thanks! - grubber 16:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Jooler;
Recently I switched out your current Windows user template with one which has replaced it. This was in an effort to clear the first template of all transclusions. Would you please replace that template with the new master to help with this effort? I would like to say, when I put User windowsXP up for deletion, that it has no transclusions, but if you don't switch it out, I will not be able to say that. - LA @ 09:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Firstly I would like to thank you for your contributions to the English football league system article. Your explantion on why you reverted my edits to this article is noted. And I wish to thank you for the concise edit summary you gave there. But I have to disagree with your reasoning (for the time being at least). Please allow me to give a humble explanation:
On a personal basis, I too would like to create articles about these divisions. In fact, I am one of the major contributors to non-league football and their respective leagues. But sad to say, most of the leagues in level 12 and below which I had created were changed into redirect pages. Moreover, some of the non-league clubs in level 12 and below which I have created were deleted to my dismay. A consensus was held and now, it seems that any club in level 11 and below of the football pyramid are deemed non-notable. This is very discouraging for me but I HAVE to respect the consensus on this matter. Similarly, the individual divisions I created were mercilessly transferred into redirect pages. I had no choice but to respect this decision. Please read the comments about this here and here. Also please read WP:CORP as well and its talk pages.
However, I am confident that this will change in the near future and the notability guidelines for English football clubs WILL be lowered. But for the time being at least, the red-linked divisions would be deleted even if you were to attempt to create them. Trust me, I personally experienced this!
In conclusion, if you disagree with my comments regarding this matter, I would like to suggest that we resume our discussion in the talk page. I do not intend to be involed in an edit war here, so I will be reverting back tthe edits of this article to my edits soon. If you have any objections over this, I strongly suggest that we refer this to the above-mentioned talk page, in the full view of other users.
Hope that you would understand the position I am in about this matter. These article will be created, but not too soon because of the recent consensus about this. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 04:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You are invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baronetcies - Kittybrewster 12:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I got your username from the Association Inclusionist Wikipedians. I'm trying to work against a band of linkocrites (see en:User:cochese8). You look as if you're a valuable editor and I could really use some help [ preserving] a great link. I would ask you to review the discussion and vote keep if you agree with the link's value. Thanks for your help! Cochese8 17:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your inclusion of a source for this film. I had no idea it was ranked as a flop. It was re-released about 15 years ago on VHS and after being told this I enquired about buying one, to be told at HMV in oxford Street that they had 20 copies in and they had all been sold! Thanks again. Chelsea Tory 16:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not "erroneous" to refer to this event as the British Open. It would be erroneous to assert that is the proper noun for the event. Nobody is doing that. All my British relations refer to the paper (for example) as the "Times of London" or the "London Times." That isn't wrong, because the geographic reference is appended to the proper name of the event, no different than if I referred to the British Prime Minister. It is not "erroneous" to call it the British Open.
I was not aware that there was a specific British spelling of 'defense'. I thought I was correcting a misspelling. It's not my fault you guys are stodgey and antiquated.
The link you posted was bad. I think you mean to post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English
Kajmal 22:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Umm, okay, I wasn't trying to "impose" anything. I only changed it from football to soccer because I thought that if it's on a page that tells what "football" means in different places, it's redundant to say "Football means Australian rules football". Calm down... Mourn 17:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Please stop imposing your bias on this article. -- Leifern 00:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Let me explain something to you:
This is very elementary logic. -- Leifern 00:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Both you hand User:Leifern have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and violations of Wikipedia's 3 revert rule. Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
your right im sorry. ( 24.60.161.63 06:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC))
I'm unaware of what usually happens in this situtation, I dunno. I'll see if I can find what happens in other votes. AlbinoMonkey ( Talk) 11:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jooler, in the recent Talk:FIFA World Cup#Requested move, User:Rousseau made his first edit a vote in the process, which you subsequently edited out (which seems fair and reasonable to me, as there's the danger of sockpuppetry, while the user shouldn't suffer from bad faith). What I would like to know is, is there a consensus guideline that prohibits a user to vote as their first action, as a voting process on Talk:Hanover 96 has something similar. If you want, could you take a quick look at Talk:Hanover 96#User:Hargreavesfan? Poulsen 00:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
That's considered vandalism-- Nn-user 19:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have read it (well, selected bits anyway). I'd be interested in working on putting all the information onto the page, however, we'd meet an obstacle: There is no online source for election results between 1885 and 1950. I'd be happy to give it a go without that if you like. -- New Progressive 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for doing all that research. H.B.W. Brand, elected in 1865 on your sandbox page was in fact Henry Brand, and he later became Speaker of the Commons. He was a Liberal.
I'm having some difficulty identifying the party of Henry Fitzroy (statesman). In the PDF that you uploaded to the Commons, it says referring to the 1874 general election on page 23:
"After 23 years of Conservative disaster and defeat," said the Sussex Express, in reporting this election, "the representation of Lewes was at this contest reversed."
Thus from 1852 to 74, there were no Conservative MPs, so he definitely wasn't one of them in that period. There is a reference in the 1859 election to him being a Liberal MP, but the 1841 return indicates that he was a Conservative running against Liberals.
I grew up in Surrey, though I spent a lot of my teen years sloshing around bits of West Sussex. I'm presently in my final year at Oxford University. Most of my work on Wikipedia has been based around the constituencies in those areas. New Progressive 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I saw that you were active in the first vote for naming conventions of television program(mes). Well it has raised it's ugly head again and I would appreciate any comments you have to make about my new proposal for naming television shows. Please leave comments here. Thanks! -- Reflex Reaction ( talk)• 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm minded to oppose the deletion of this cat, but when I try to edit the discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Films_notable_for_historical_inaccuracy I can't locate the discussion in the edit box. Clearly, I'm doing summat wrong. Help, if you can. Please reply to my talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Folks_at_137 Thanks. Folks at 137 11:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've gone to the category, followed the link to the "for deletion" page, and given my two euro cents... is there anything more I can do? --
Svartalf
19:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I edited your userpage as i moved the 'This user is a sceptic, even of this userbox' userbox to Skeptic, as it was already taken. C.B 04:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
What I mean by taken is, when i put the code that was originally given for it, i got a blokes face instead of the emoticon i was expecting. So, i moved the emoticon. I am aware of the irony of the spelling and my userbox combo, but changing one letter seemed less offensive to the original writer of the userbox. C.B 16:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I pulled his death date from Leigh Rayment's peerage pages, and he probably got it from Burke's or Debrett's. If you've got the newspaper from the period I'm somewhat more inclined to trust that. Maybe note both in the article? Mackensen (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. You may be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free). Thanks. -- Descendall 01:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Unhelpful reply at User_talk:Molly_Mockford#Lewes. Sorry. -- rbrwr ± 23:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's stay civil. I can understand your frustration on the userbox front, but picking fights on Jimbo's user page will just get you warned/blocked, and will make anyone arguing for keeping userboxes seem willing to violate WP:POINT. I'll be completely honest: for a while I was a little tempted to do that too. But let's stay level-headed here. JDoorj a m Talk 03:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
If you are a supporter of Don Bosco, take a look at this page.
Yes, I saw. It's a pity about the tightening-up of image uploading, but probably for the better. I've got the German-language bio of Mackensen and some old postcards so I can probably scare up a usable image. Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It is great to know that you stand always against the asses against the world. -- Licinius 09:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Ass? Latin? Either way it is very clearly an insult, but I am not offended. I just passed it on in the interests of Wikipedia. -- Licinius 11:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
But hey, I will make the case to you since you judge me an ass. The other football codes and the games that have followed them are on all based upon their original code of rules. Like say the American football is placed as descended from Rugby school rules, probably equally true as of AFL, which is stated quite differently. This is different and quite strange to have a section titled "Australian and Irish Variations". To be honest, on such a basis Rugby League is just as much an Australian variation of football, they both came from England, and Rugby League is the game of half the country. I changed it to something along those lines, though my memory fades to the exact words and that is how this began. -- Licinius 11:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm trying (again) to get The George Washington University moved to George Washington University. Since you weighed in on this when it came up last year, I thought you might like to weigh in again. john k 23:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Inferior panama map.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are
open content,
public domain, and
fair use. Find the appropriate template in
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ( T/ C) 13:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Cheers, thanks for that link, I was wondering where the info for that statement was. Assuming that editor got the official english language countries correct, there are 2 others that aren't fifa affiliated (so it should be 4 out of 45 then I guess - I'll fix it and make a note on talk). Cursive 00:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
What controversy? I live in Australia and there has been no controversy at all. In fact the opposite. Most media outlets now refer to football as football. It makes a few Aussie Rules people unhappy, but this isn't controversial. Why is Australia singled out for mention? Answer: to mention Aussie Rules in the football section. "Controversy" is inaccurate. Jealousy is a more accurate descriptions and if you’ve followed any of the debate on wikipedia, you can certainly tell from some reactions that it’s not a POV statement. --
Executive.koala
11:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out my mistakes. Spelling is never my strong point. Actually, do you know of a way to spell check in wikipedia, because I had to do it in Microsoft Word, and when it started it was in American English. I don't think there was any errors in grammar.
Thanks, ISD
Thanks again for the help. I take it the spelling is now alright.
Hello ! I noticed that in adding the once deleted link to the Human Rights in France page, you summarized your edit as "rvv" which commonly means "Reverted Vandilism." (see rvv) I was the user who originally deleted this link, and as such I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to my edits as vandilism. I included an edit summary as well as participated in an ongoing discussion on the talk page (started by a user who wants to add this particular link). If you would like to include your arguments for changes to this article, I encourage you to come share your ideas on the talk page. - Aquarelle 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for translating an article listed at Wikipedia:German-English translation requests. This is just a little reminder to remove the translation from the list when you've done it and add it to the "completed translations" list at the bottom of the page - thanks! Saint| swithin 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
To prevent further edit warring I am bringing this here. What is the difference between canadian bacon and ham? They taste and look almost the exact same. The difference between what you call streaky bacon and canadian bacon is MUCH larger than the difference between canadian bacon and ham. If a redirect is necessary, I think it should be to ham.
Either way, canadian bacon should at bare minimum have its own section in whatever article it belongs to explains what it is. -- MateoP 22:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This seems to make little since.... Why is canadian bacon considered a "bacon" when it looks and tastes exactly like ham. It tastes nor looks like any kind of bacon I've ever seen. Either way, this all needs to be explained in a section in the bacon article if we are going to forward canadian bacon there.
The bacon articles covers it very poorly, but I changed it some. this should be an acceptable compromise. -- MateoP 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I see you are unwilling to compromise. -- MateoP 23:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss your differences on the talk page. Reverting each other is pointless. Tom Harrison Talk 23:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
No sarcasm intended at all. A previous post had similar logic to yours and the words from that post which stuck in my mind the most were "easy peasy" so, when I saw those words again I assumed that they were from the same person. The reference to archive heaven was meant to convey that the prior "easy peasy" posting was not in view but stored away in the talk's archives. No other hidden meanings at all so, if you were the earlier poster or not I encourage you to post your argument from time to time so as to keep it visible, things tend to get lost in the archives. :-) hydnjo talk 00:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that reference to the article, and letting me know. One of us should look up the original PPC piece.... -- Macrakis 18:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how your "I can't quite see what you're getting into such a bother about" helps matters. You yourself were bothered enough to revert my change, furthermore asking me to "not act against the consensus", when there is no consensus. If you don't care, stay out of the debate and don't revert. I'm trying to use a standard Wikipedia avenue for settling this kind of dispute. You should respect that. Gsd2000 17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Re your claim of "stalking", Jooler. A man is judged by his deeds. On Wikipedia, your deeds are your user contributions. I was simply looking to see if you were a regular contributor to the empire space (like I am). I found it mildly amusing that you had contributed to these articles (and your drunken outburst) - perhaps my wit was a little too cutting here. (I apologise). But there is a serious point at stake - I wouldn't edit an article that I am not qualified to edit. I was trying to see whether you were qualified to be making the statements that you were making. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but just because anyone can, it doesn't mean everyone should. (And no, that's not directed at you). Look at this for an example why: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=48787724 Gsd2000 01:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I note that you've reverted an edit to the Battersea Park page for containing an alleged spam external link. I wonder if you'd care to have a look at that user's other work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:London_street_skates
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Daniel_W
He keeps editing - he doesn't seem to engage in discussion. But - I admit - I'm kind of an interested party, so maybe a second (or nth) opinion would be good. Daniel Barlow 20:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Good call on George_cowie ( talk · contribs · count). I'll keep an eye on him and won't hesitate to block if he uploads any more copyvio material. Thanks. ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 12:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jooler, apologies for revert on Cuba. But it's a complicated one that we've been mulling over for weeks. We're not wrong to say that Cuba is a communist state, but it's been agreed that it's not technically correct either in the info box due to the particular nature of the Cuban system, which differs somewhat from (say) Vietnam or the old Soviet bloc countries. You've highlighted a potential problem with the communist state page also, thanks. Btw I saw your River Plate argument recently from way back, am in complete agreement with your position, and am a little disappointed with the verdict! Keep up the good work -- Zleitzen 09:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was reluctant to list the other cats which are currently named "GB & NI" on a "life is too short" basis :) There are only so many times I can take being accused of having a secret agenda in any one week! In addition, as the "vote" to keep the main cat as Category:Great Britain at the Olympics only ended as "Keep" due to no consensus, I suspect any attempt to rename those cats in the form "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will also end in "no consensus" which is in effect a "Keep" vote. Much argument for no gain. This is also the reason I have avoided editing those articles that incorrectly state things like The United Kingdom competes as Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Olympics as I am not inclined to get in an edit war. To be honest, although I'm strongly opposed to any use of the words United Kingdom in such cats (for no reason other than that this is wholly non-reflective of the real-world usage), I could live with "GB & NI" even allowing for the questionable accuracy. If you want to list the subcats for renaming, I'll support the rename, but I doubt this will be successful. (I also believe that regardless of the usage now, there have been times in the past when the form "GB & NI" was used officially at the Olympics, so some of the cats for past Olympics may arguably be correct!) Valiantis 20:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I have watched the debate about what to call "." in amazement, and will comment on it shortly. But please don't go editing American articles into british versions, that is simply disruption to make a point (see WP:POINT - oh the irony :) Relax, chill. MartinRe 17:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a very screwed up belief system. Michaelritchie200 17:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Argentina football 2002 handbag mockup.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are
open content,
public domain, and
fair use. Find the appropriate template in
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ed g2s • talk 01:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
YOu know for a fact that I did that in good faith, and I didn'tunderstand the rules on this, and that I was trying to discuss it constructively with you on the talk page. Your post in my talk was just cynical and counter productive, especially as you threatened me with blocks. I feel that you have grossly mishandled this whole situation. Its a real shame, anyway, I'm going to re-write the article on my sandbox page, and hopefully be able to put a suitable version back on the FIFA world rankings page soon. Philc T E C I 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding removal of the comment text: For me, commented text gets in the way, and thus is more of a bother than it's worth. If you want to advertise the WikiProject, a better way to do it is to make a template to place at the top of the affected articles' talk pages. For instance:
It might be worthwhile to devise such a template, as it may very well breathe new life into an old, abandoned WikiProject. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 18:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
After warning him to stop, I have had to block
SchuminWeb. Not alone did he unilaterally redesign a page that was designed by a consensus, and redesigned dozens of pages unilaterally, he falsified the contents of the project page to suggest that the project backed his unilateral changes. That is way beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
18:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen it. Cool, isn't it? :-) Angmering 09:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Tom Petty played himself in that crappy Kevin Costner movie The Postman. - lethe talk + 14:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Every episode of the Ricky Gervais show Extras features an actor playing him or herself. - lethe talk + 22:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed on the football Wikiproject talk page that you expressed surprise we didn't have this article, as we had the Argentina and England football rivalry page that I created last year. Well, now we have one! Still very first drafty and needs a lot of improvement, but it's a start. Angmering 06:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
How is diving similar to gamesmanship? -- Spondoolicks 09:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I'm surprised I managed to spell it in a way accepted by any variant of English. Oldelpaso 08:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Despite there not having been a match for third place at Uruguay 30, the final standings put the Yanks in third place.
Thanks for your message. I already knew goal difference wasn't used to split ties until 1974, I didn't include them with this purpose. When I was editing the qualifying articles, someone suggested that goal difference should be added to all tables, for curiosity if nothing else. As long as the articles keep clear that other ways were used to split ties, such as play-offs, I see no problem in keeping the goal difference there. -- BLOGuil 16:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The tie breaker is goal differential. 1930 P G W T L F A D 3 USA 4 3 2 0 1 7 6 +1 66,6% 4 Yugoslavia 4 3 2 0 1 7 7 0 66,6%
Same as in 1950 when the yanks took the match but finished two places lower. 1950 P G W T L F A D 8 England 2 3 1 0 2 2 2 0 33,3% 9 Chile 2 3 1 0 2 5 6 -1 33,3% 10 USA 2 3 1 0 2 4 8 -4 33,3%
I have been asked been asked to provide references for rankings but when I did so I guess they were not considered reputable sources. So I thought this one might be suitable. http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/releases/en/fwc_origin_en.pdf Libro0 17:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the message on my talk page. Yes, I'm lucky enough to have all four volumes. I'll check out the query you mention - also, if you think I can help with any scans for things you're doing, let me know. Mikedash 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm afraid things are only getting more confusing.
Association Football and the Men Who Made It, I, 39, is imprecise as to the number of rules passed at the meeting on 1 December, but a couple of paras later refers to "the nine rules of the Association in 1863"!
Geoffrey Green's work (pp.34-8) includes, as Appendix 4, "The Football Association Laws as accepted December 1863", and while this does list fourteen laws, both in the draft of 24 November 1863 and the finally accepted version of the laws, encoded in December, it does so in the form of a list of 11 laws that parallel the Cambridge rules (as published by the FA in October 1863), followed by three others that have no parallel. After that, Green also lists 3 old Cambridge rules that were not adopted by the FA. These were Cambridge rules 8, 9 and 10.
Green's text attempts to set the various sets of laws side by side but because the Cambridge and FA laws are ordered differently, his numbering is very eccentric; for the accepted FA laws of 12/63 it runs 1, 2, 3, 6, 5, 7, 4, 9, 11, 12, 10, 8, 13, 14!
I haven't time to transcribe all this now, but I could certainly scan and post Green's full discussion if that would help. I'm hazy about current UK copyright - the book was published in 1953, and thus falls outside the old 50-year rule, so I think it probably ought to be possible to upload to Wikimedia Commons - you may know more than me about this, so please advise. If not, I could always use an "away" venue such as Imageshack if you feel that would help sort things out.
It may help to roughly summarise the 14 accepted laws, as of December 1863, as given by Green (I have reordered them to make things a bit clearer):
1. Size of pitch
2. Toss and commencement of game
3. Change ends after goal is scored
4. Goal scored when ball passes between posts
5. Throw in at right angles
6. Early offside law - 'When a player has kicked the ball any one of the same side who is nearer to the opponent's goal line is out of play..."
7. When ball is out of play, the side whose player touches it first gains possession
8. Fair catch law; players must make their mark
9. No player shall carry the ball
10. No tripping or hacking
11. A player shall not throw the ball
12. No player shall take the ball from the ground with his hands
13. Players can throw or pass the ball from a fair catch or catches the ball on the first bounce
14. No projecting iron plates or nails, etc on boots
I hope this helps, but fear I may simply have added to the confusion. Still, if FIFA, the FA and the ASF can't agree, it's a bit optimistic to assume I might be able to provide a solution from my modest library. Mikedash 10:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. Looking at the article, it could be improved and expanded quite a bit - I'll try to find time to do that, but sadly not right now.
You may have noticed I've tried to gather together as many players from the pre-1914 period as possible into the new category "Early (pre-1914) Association Football players", mainly just to make it easier to see what's already available on this site and what's needed. My main contributions to date are Leigh Richmond Roose, Cuthbert Ottaway, G.O. Smith, "Nuts" Cobbold, Cunliffe Gosling and Raby Howell, all of which I'd hope you'd enjoy. Eventually, though, I hope to find the time to expand the current category listing to somewhere in the region of 120 names; the most important omissions at present seem to be AM & PM Waters, Renny-Tailyour, Marindin, Ned Doig, Pa Jackson & Major Sudell, but I have a list of about 30 names worth adding and have begun collecting material to enable me to profile them. Right now, though, work on a new book is threatening to start getting in the way once again.
Hope you enjoy Batavia's Graveyard (my personal favourite among my books). Nice, anyway, to come across a fellow enthusiast for the early history of the game. Mikedash 11:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, when I was at Uni I had free access to that on their network, and used it quite a lot when I was for reasons that need not concern us here researching the year 1963 a lot. In fact I have downloaded onto my computer every issue of The Times from around September to November that year! Sad, eh? Angmering 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Now we can disagree all we want about the United States national team site, you're entitled to your opinion as am I. However, I find your behavior to be quite shameful. "Get over it" and saying you're reverting "petulance." Hardly my friend. You asked me to check my sources, I did, I found my verifiable source, and since you don't like it you resort to petty namecalling and the like. Stick to discussing the issue, not to adding sniping comments, because as I said on the talk page, it makes you sound rather ridiculous. Batman2005 14:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Jooler, I'm happy and glad that you saw my intervention as neutral. I tried my best to keep it that way. I understand that sometimes tempers flare, but try my best to never take anything personal in WP, so our past incident was long forgotten by the time I got in this matter. I do have to tell you that indeed the conversation (from your end) was held in the most civil manner, and if you check Batman's user page you'll see that I even said so to him. I'm happy that you're feeling better about things nowadays and I hope that every encounter we have in the future is as constructive as the one we just had. :)
Regarding the point in case, I do see your points here and I can't blame either of you for not wanting to compromise since both have strong arguments for them (although I grant you that the FIFA source that Batman provided doesn't intend to state that US is 3rd and Yug is 4th but rather chooses one over the other because two names didn't fit in one cell... an infortunate decision on their part). My vision for the "joint 3rd" was one of being consistent with other pages.
Anyway, I think that if the RfC doesn't yield better results than this, then you should try to make the change happen but be very careful of starting an edit war. Maybe starting RfM is the right way...
Good luck!!!
Sebastian Kessel Talk 14:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You delete the No.18....
Dušan Petković is No.16, you delete the wrong one. Matt86hk talk 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It's quite a while since I uploaded that photo, but if I remember correctly... the photo came from CottonTown and the caption came from the reference given in the Blackburn Rovers article , namely: Mike Jackman, Blackburn Rovers an illustrated history. It's always possible I made an error transcribing the information from the book, and I don't have it available any longer to check (library book). If you have two indepedent sources suggesting it is Inglis, then I'd change it to that and then add the book as a reference to both the BR article and the photo page itself. Next time I'm in the library I'll see if the Jackman book is still on the shelves and double check. Thanks for fact checking it though... much appreciated. - Motor ( talk) 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the football chant article is where I got that information from in the first place, cross-referenced with other articles. However, WP:CITE currently disallows using other articles as citations. – Unint 21:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying to your query. Like you, I have been distracted by the World Cup. I've not come across this story, and it seems inherently improbable - as Kevin Keegan once observed, "You can't play with a one-armed goalkeeper - not at this level." The closest I can come to it is Arthur Lea, a one-armed Welsh international who represented Wrexham c.1890. he was a forward, though. Mikedash 12:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I just want to thank you for your excellent contributions to wikipedia. U da man!
The wikipedia article name is caramelization, not caramelisation, and as such I think for the purposes of consistancy it makes more sense to write it as the former, not the latter.
Hehe ... just managed to comply with the new "rules", 12hrs 43mins by my calculations, but I'll take it on the chin anyway :-)
![]() |
Cactus.man is not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy! |
--
Cactus.man
✍
14:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I was kidding my friend! I hope you didn't take offense, it was really a lighthearted comment. Batman2005 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you show me an example of what you're asking me to do, because I'm not sure I understand your request. Ie, how are you trying to squish the page horizontally? Reply on my page, please. -- Palffy 15:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't touched that 'bloody table' Jooler, not since I put it there. If someone keeps deleting and putting it back in, it ain't me. I don't see what you've got against it anyway, it just shows a record of how well each team performed, what percentage of their games they won, how many goals they scored, etc. etc. I can leave out the Points column if it makes you happier. -- Mark J 09:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:W.S. Kenyon-Slaney.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir,
I spend a lot of time correcting dozens of mistakes in the Legion of Honour article. I was also unhappy with the spelling "Honor", Google alone is not a justification of this spelling. Now I am amazed to see that all my work is destroyed, the mistakes are all back. I know that the redirects were not propper but i failed to get them fight. But this is allmost v****lism!
Are you going to restore the article?
Faithfulluy yours,
Robert Prummel 01:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't usually comment on edit summaries, but seriously: allowed AND conceded both make sense in that context, and as a native speaker of (American) English, either word sounds fine. I have no problem with you changing it, but please at least be civil when you do. Thanks for your edits, though! -- SuperNova | T| C| 13:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Jooler, I think an inclusionist atheistic footballer with is just the person for this task: Will you consider commenting on some AfD nominations and merge-delete propositions that I believe are an attempt to drive off a good editor? (OK, she's my wife. But she's exhausted by this fight; her articles are written in good faith and this editor is making a mockery of WP.)
Thank you! -- JuanFiguroa 03:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thoroughly, thoroughly pissed off at some really comprehensive work being just erased without thought by Marcus22. Thank you for highlighting your concern. Bentley Banana 12:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
On the Horacio Elizondo article can you vote at the bottom to see whether we should keep Rooney's view on his decision in the article as I'm trying reach a consensus as soon as possible. Thanks.
Hello. Thanks for your message. I'm only implementing the change after the debate has run its course according to policy, and have no strong feelings in the matter, but it seems to me that "Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom" is a better title in a global encyclopedia than "Members of the Privy Council"! There is a sub-category Category:Members of the Privy Council of England. Would it be better to move the person you mentioned to that category? Regards, RobertG ♬ talk 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware that several people named Lord Darcy were historical figures. However, if you look at the wiki links to "Lord Darcy" [2] you'll see that basically every single one of them is about the fictional character, not the real individuals. In the context of Wikipedia, it's a reasonable assumption that there are more people looking for the fictional character. -- Kazrak 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You messed up the ITN on the mian page! It's not the Jules Rimet Trophy for goodness sake. Brazil won that outright in 1970. Jooler 22:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop vadalizing talk:humor. Thank you. 195.18.216.204 08:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Goal Average was used in this World Cup to determine who placed 1st and who 2nd in a group (like Group 2 between France and Yugoslavia). Play-offs were used to determine qualification to next round. -- Calippo 09:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. Do you have any source so I can link it? Mine was simply the pre-existing Wikipedia Article. -- Calippo 10:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
As you have seen I am re-editing the whole page to be uniform with World Cup 2006, and adding referees, attendance and match reports. Let me finish it and then we will talk about Goal Difference. But I see your point. Ciao. -- Calippo 10:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
See my reply on WC '58 talk page. -- Calippo 12:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I want to tell you why I put GD. I would like to have uniformity between World Cups. So I used 2006 template for 1958 Cup, and then I added GAv. I am aware that GD was not a discriminant in 1958, but it is commonly used today when displaying soccer results, even when it is not used to rank the teams. And there are, on the other hand, discriminants which are not commonly shown. I imagine that if we wanted to display the results of an early tournament where just points were used we would probably still show W-D-L and GF-GA, even when not important for the tournament itself. The point is: is GDiff at the same "level" of the above or not? I am not saying we should include it, just want to tell you that the choice is not that obvious. It would have been obvious to a 1958 man, not to a 2006 one. Which is the philologically right choice? Ciao.-- Calippo 15:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No, in one case you substitute correct info with wrong one. In the other one you add correct, useless (although interesting maybe) info. But don't worry, I'm removing GD, this is just pour parler. -- Calippo 15:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW, are you sure about the terminology? "Goal Average" recalls more the average of goal scored per game rather than the ratio GF/GA. Here in Italy we call it "Goal Quotient" (if this word exists in english). It is still used in sports such as volleyball (where of course it is "Set Quotient"). Bye.-- Calippo 15:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have read the quotes you sent me. I have seen they talk about "goal average". My question was rather is "goal average" the ratio GF/GA? It would be quite a curious terminology. (I am sorry for my bad english). -- Calippo 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It's amazing what turns up in archaic reference books, isn't it? Surprisingly useful things... Shimgray | talk | 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry to bother you, but I am working on 1930 World Cup article and I need to change the title of a linked article. Is it possible to do that? Or I need to create a new one and propose the old one to deletion? Thanks, -- Calippo 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Calippo 16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Very glad you enjoyed the book. Mikedash 13:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you posted your opposition to the category moves. How would you prefer things to be categorized? Could you post your suggestions to WP:SHIPS? I'd really like to come up with a coherent scheme, and simply voting "oppose" to moves without participating in the discussion of the proposal is unhelpful. TomTheHand 18:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
How much debate is required? David D. (Talk) 21:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [3] SilkTork 11:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not stalking anyone. A stalker is someone who disrupts, according to WP policy. What kind of disruption do you think I'm causing you? But you are talking behind my back, and that ain't no cool. See User talk:Violetriga#Stalker. Until next time, JackLumber. 22:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Please have another look at Chance cards. I've included notes about the development of the cards in the board game, and included UK edition notes, as well as a notation about how the cards are changed for every other edition (localizations, special editions, etc.). I'll be doing the Community Chest cards shortly. -- JohnDBuell 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
We need coders for the WikiProject Disambigation fixer. We need to make a program to make faster and easier the fixing of links. We will be happy if you could check the project. You can Help! -- Neo139 09:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I remember you had a rather similar interaction regarding the proposed addition of "unofficial" rankings or standings tables into World cup articles. I wondered if you could watch my conversation with User talk:Libro0 in case I need support. Don't worry if you can't or don't want to. -- Guinnog 16:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You were one of the people I had in mind when I designed this award. And we really must see if we can progress our discussion about the 1966 World Cup Final; maybe by bringing in other people to the discussion? -- Guinnog 10:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI that was a serious question. Cuzandor 02:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Jooler, I have undone your recent edit to British. The prior version is more compatible with WP:DAB and MoS:DAB than the version you put there. I think there is certainly room to make the page more consitent to the style guidelines, and I welcome your help to get it there. It's a tough page! Thanks! - grubber 16:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Jooler;
Recently I switched out your current Windows user template with one which has replaced it. This was in an effort to clear the first template of all transclusions. Would you please replace that template with the new master to help with this effort? I would like to say, when I put User windowsXP up for deletion, that it has no transclusions, but if you don't switch it out, I will not be able to say that. - LA @ 09:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Firstly I would like to thank you for your contributions to the English football league system article. Your explantion on why you reverted my edits to this article is noted. And I wish to thank you for the concise edit summary you gave there. But I have to disagree with your reasoning (for the time being at least). Please allow me to give a humble explanation:
On a personal basis, I too would like to create articles about these divisions. In fact, I am one of the major contributors to non-league football and their respective leagues. But sad to say, most of the leagues in level 12 and below which I had created were changed into redirect pages. Moreover, some of the non-league clubs in level 12 and below which I have created were deleted to my dismay. A consensus was held and now, it seems that any club in level 11 and below of the football pyramid are deemed non-notable. This is very discouraging for me but I HAVE to respect the consensus on this matter. Similarly, the individual divisions I created were mercilessly transferred into redirect pages. I had no choice but to respect this decision. Please read the comments about this here and here. Also please read WP:CORP as well and its talk pages.
However, I am confident that this will change in the near future and the notability guidelines for English football clubs WILL be lowered. But for the time being at least, the red-linked divisions would be deleted even if you were to attempt to create them. Trust me, I personally experienced this!
In conclusion, if you disagree with my comments regarding this matter, I would like to suggest that we resume our discussion in the talk page. I do not intend to be involed in an edit war here, so I will be reverting back tthe edits of this article to my edits soon. If you have any objections over this, I strongly suggest that we refer this to the above-mentioned talk page, in the full view of other users.
Hope that you would understand the position I am in about this matter. These article will be created, but not too soon because of the recent consensus about this. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 04:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You are invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baronetcies - Kittybrewster 12:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I got your username from the Association Inclusionist Wikipedians. I'm trying to work against a band of linkocrites (see en:User:cochese8). You look as if you're a valuable editor and I could really use some help [ preserving] a great link. I would ask you to review the discussion and vote keep if you agree with the link's value. Thanks for your help! Cochese8 17:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your inclusion of a source for this film. I had no idea it was ranked as a flop. It was re-released about 15 years ago on VHS and after being told this I enquired about buying one, to be told at HMV in oxford Street that they had 20 copies in and they had all been sold! Thanks again. Chelsea Tory 16:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)