Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
2006 FIFA World Cup (squads) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
My note to Tulika 99
Hello Tulika 99. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Please also note that an article's talk page is intended for discussion on that particular article and not for social conversations. Only under very special circumstances should one editor alter or amend the talk comments of another editor. Thanks -- Alias Flood03:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed that you did not even read the researched links. What citations would you suggest for "independent global media" but commercial newspapers. This is factual content, spare us all you editorials. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.118.57.182 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 July 2006.
My response to User:203.118.57.182: Please understand that firstly you vandalised the page Fabio Grosso which was reverted by another editor. You then applied four links to the article under a single sentence. In my message to you, I advised you that Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links. Please refer to those sections along with WP:VER, WP:RS and WP:NPOV before adding any more links. I would also suggest that you discuss any additions that you propose on that article's talk page. Thanks. -- Alias Flood02:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question
What is the talk page supposed to do, necessarily?
~Tromboneplayer
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Alias Flood02:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me, "What is the talk page supposed to do, necessarily?". I gave you a link to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. What further clarification do you require? I am also curious as to why you selected me for this particular question?. -- Alias Flood02:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, we both know I'm no Einstein at the subject, and you've had much more experience at this whole thing than me.
The thing that troubles me about Wikipedia that - even though it may protect flame wars - the Neutral Point of View Policy is a bit ... strict. Yes, I know this is just like an encyclopedia on the computer (praise the heavens it has come) and I like Wikipedia a lot - it's my favorite website. But on articles like the Holocaust and stuff like that ( I have a connection to it because my grandmother is a survivor ), I really have trouble not giving non-biased facts, so I basically only look and not touch. Wikipedia is so limited to me, not in the humber of articles, but with what you can do.
Also, I am terribly sorry for the deliberate vandilism - and yes, I did do it intentionally - I caused on the RuneScape page several times. I did it because I wanted to see what messages would be sent to me as a result of what I did. I was only curious ( though it gives me no excuse ) and that's why we're all on Wikipedia, isn't it? Because we're a little curious on what the world is.
Thank you for your explanation. I reverted an edit on RuneScape[1] as it did not conform to NPOV by User:70.83.159.47 and left a message thanking them for experimenting ... etc. [2]. I did this as part of Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. I now understand that you were that editor. Please check out Help:Talk page which will answer more questions for you on talk pages. I am glad that you enjoy Wikipedia and I hope that you will check out the other links that I left for you. The thought of everyone giving knowledge freely from which everyone may benefit is a wonderful thing. I understand that feelings sometimes get in the way but it is then wise to take time to reflect and gather one's thoughts ... before, perhaps, objectively discussing matters on an article's talk page. If you ever need my help, I will be only too happy to oblige. -- Alias Flood02:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of your help
I'm glad there are people like you here to help me around at Wikipedia, and I'm glad that WIkipedia talkpages aren't like regular chat rooms or forums, where anything goes.
Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I’ve made some rather large additions to 2006 FIFA World Cup sponsorship and would appreciate if you could take a look at them and possibly reconsider your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 FIFA World Cup sponsorship. I thought it was a worthy topic, even though it had a wretched article, so I added information about revenue and the sponsorship process, the sponsor related controversies of this World Cup (tickets distribution, Budweiser in Germany, Mcdonalds at a sporting event), and took out the copyvios. Please take a look. Thanks! Vickser19:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have also changed my comment from Delete to Keep. Thank you for your work and for letting me know of the changes. -- Alias Flood22:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note and, also, for arranging my totd box so that it does not foul the view of my userboxes. I must confess that it did not obstruct the view on my own monitor but, with hindsight, I should have made sure that this would be the case for everyone. Thank you for resolving this for me. It really is appreciated. Regards -- Alias Flood00:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
I keep seeing you around doing good work, whether its reverting vandalism on an article on my watchlist or improving Liverpool related topics. I considered nominating you for adminship, but these days people rarely seem to pass unless they've been active for at least six months, irrespective of how good a candidate they are. Have a barnstar for now, and remind me to nominate you on RFA in a month or two! Oldelpaso18:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cyLEDGE article has now been edited to take into account justified criticisms by several users. Please accept our apologies for what may have seemed excessive or unclear marketing jargon (the jargon which, for better or worse, we are most familar with...), and have done our best to follow the Wiki Style manual. Though cyLEDGE contains the company site as an external link, it is not so much a marketing campaign than it is an attempt to communicate what we are doing and get reactions from other people working or interested in the field. Since there is a natural affinity to cyLEDGE's activities and open-platforms such as Wikipedia, it is important for us to be present there - an additional paragraph has been added to make as clear as possible what the issues at stake are, and which we are trying to come to terms with. I hope you will reconsider your proposed deletion in view of these changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knusper (talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 July 2006.
I just wanted to know how to make those little boxes on the right side of the screen where it says "This User..." and everything. When you find the time, can you please message me and give me the information so that I may find out. Thank you.
I am glad that you took me up on my offer of help. I meant it when it was offered.
This link will give you an overview and this link will advise you of the controversies that some boxes can have. This link will take you to an index of the galleries where you will find userboxes to suit most descriptions and purposes.
Putting a userbox on your page is easy. Simply copy and paste them into an information table like this:-
{{Boxboxtop|About Tromboneplayer}}
{{user trombone}}
{{Boxboxbottom}}
Copying and pasting this into your userpage, will produce this picture with words:-
I just put down a list of "This User ..." boxes. I have another thing to ask of you, if you don't mind. I want to put down another user box, but the box that says:
Categories: Wikipedians who like The Simpsons
is blocking any more boxes from coming in. Any ideas on what to do?
Having looked for (this) Peter Kellogg on Google, the only claim to notability that I could find for him was that he was rich largely due to his father. I can see that his father's firm meets WP:CORP (although the article on Spear, Leeds & Kellogg is minimal both in size and quality). I do not see that this person merits an article in his own right but I do not object to the redirect to Spear, Leeds & Kellogg that was proposed by this AfD's nominator.
Thank you for your note. In light of this, I have amended my comment to Keep per expansion and cited notability. Thank you also for cleaning up the article in the way that you have. -- Alias Flood01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Football AID 23 July - 30 July
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.
2006 FIFA World Cup has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Jermaine Pennant
With regard to Pennants move to Liverpool, I did indeed provide a reference, Sky Sports. This was offered in good faith, as I assumed it was a reliable source. I did not know that the BBC had the monopoly on such news. I didn't just "hear it on TV" as you said, I saw it on what I believed was a reputable site.--Robotforaday16:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apologies. Your edit was one of many to Jermaine Pennant and Liverpool F.C. during the last 24 hours. From your edit summary, I wrongly interpreted that you had seen the information on Sky News TV. Again, my apologies to you. -- Alias Flood16:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I understand. For future reference, what sources are deemed most appropriate for citation? I have now cited the BBC, which seems the most preferred, however, I also used the news on the Liverpool F.C. official website. Would that have been acceptable? I can understand why Sky Sports might not always be 100% trusted...--Robotforaday17:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Robotforaday and thank you for your understanding. As with most things on Wikipedia, there are few set rules but one of the core policies is verfiability which links in closely with the guideline on reliable sources. Reading these helps editors to understand that 'verifying sources' should have a degree of longevity and be held in high regard as being reputable. In the main, for Wikipedia, I tend to look for sources such as the BBC, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, etcetera and shy away from the tabloids (unless the article is linked to tabloids). For football articles, the official website can also be a good source for announcements — whereas forums, blogs, fansites and unofficial sites tend not to be reliable. It is very important, in my opinion and that of many other editors, for Wikipedia not to reflect personal opinion or original research and to that end Wikipedia, along with most reputable enclopaedias, acts as a tertiary source summarising the secondary sources of such well reputed publications. Other links which you may find useful, and generally acceptable for football articles, are those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links. I hope that this information helps you in some way and, also, helps to make up for my earlier mistake. Please let me know if I may be of any further help to you in this or any matter here on Wikipedia. Regards -- Alias Flood02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Acadame North artical
Your comment about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acadame north the micronation being a 'possible hoax' has disturbed me Acadame North has about 6-8 pages all on the search engine msn I have found a lot more blogs about it too. Acadame North has a 250 article Constitution along with a 300 article criminal code. Acadame North also proudly displays satellite imagery of our nation. I hope this is sufficient proof that Acadame North is not a hoax questions comments please go on my talk page thanks--Acadamenorth21:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just wondering if you would give me some backing here. I've reverted 2 edits already from User:71.136.228.139 how keeps changing Carricks page to say he players with Manchester united. If he does again could you please give him a warning as my warnings so far don't seem to have any effect.
You and your fair and balanced editing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.86.38 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 31 July 2006.
Hi there and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your note about The Beatles. Please allow me to explain a little more. When I made this edit, I left you a note thanking you for experimenting with the page and I explained that your post had been reverted. I suggested that you make further tests in the sandbox which many new users find useful as well as referring you to the welcome page. Your edit claiming that "Thiers is huge amounts of evidence to suggest that the Beatles where are the greatest band of all time." did not cite sources and was considered, therefore, not to conform to a neutral point of view. A neutral point of view is required for all articles and the onus for providing sources lies with the editor making the claim. I notice that your edit was reverted also by User:Akamadhere for the same reasons. Please take a moment to look over your contributions for spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors before submitting them in final. This will help lessen the amount of copyediting work that fellow Wikipedians need to do, and will help improve the overall appearance of Wikipedia. This is not meant to be a disciplinary message, but merely a friendly request. Thank you!
I hope that this explains things more for you. Here are some other links that newcomers find useful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. You might also find it useful to create an account which affords many benefits. Again, welcome! Alias Flood23:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your BS Warn Against Me
This warning you gave me was utter bullshit. All I did was add an apostrophe to in certain places in Centurion Tank in the section about the Sho't tank; that is the correct name and previously it had been 'shot'. That is ALL I DID you can check the history for my IP in Centurion Tank and see what I edited (well duh). There's the edits right here. -->
With reference to these edits [3], [4], [5], of over two months ago (21st May) and your note concerning them (31st July), I picked up the amendments as part of my recent changes patrol for vandalism. As the changes were made without any edit summaries, seemingly by an anonymous user (i.e. one without an account), and simply inserted an apostrophe inside of the widely recognised word shot changing it to sho't, they appeared to be nonsense and I left you a note accordingly at that time [6]. For this, I apologise but I am sure that you will be able to understand the confusion. In order to prevent similar misunderstandings, when editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed and why, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers or changing familiar words to those not so widely recognised.
In your note to me, you used the term, "This warning you gave me was utter bullshit." Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policy on civility which you will find does not tolerate such rudeness.
It would appear that the article to which you refer has been deleted — although I do not recollect being a part of that particular debate. Wikipedia:Deletion review considers appeals to restore pages that have been deleted. It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora. Before using the Review, it is advisable to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. I hope that this helps to point you in the right direction. Regards, Alias Flood19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry..I don't really recall. So you're saying that it had been deleted before but Wikipedia is getting them back? If so, why are they protected? (SKITTLES19:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
It is unclear whether the article has been deleted on more than one occasion but the page is now protected from recreation by any editor without them first going through the processes detailed in my earlier note. I hope that this helps. Regards, Alias Flood19:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Liverpool F.C.
Hi there. Just noticed that you have just archived the June and July discussions on Talk:Liverpool F.C. into Talk:Liverpool F.C./Archive 2. For your information I followed the move procedure of archiving, rather than the cut and paste procedure, because that will allow the discussion history to be preserved on the archive page rather than on the talk page, and this should make it easier and more direct to trace the edit history of the topics on the archive pages. IMHO it'd be better to follow one procedure for a talk page for consistency's sake. What do you think? --Pkchan15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Pkchan. I wanted to start another archive as the page had reached 93 kilobytes but as so many of the conversations are current or ongoing, I did not want to leave the main talk page without a history. As you no doubt know, the end result of both procedures is the same except that the page history is also moved to the subpage when the move procedure is used rather than the cut and paste procedure. As there were also conversations that needed to be moved to Talk:Liverpool F.C./Archive 1 as well as to Talk:Liverpool F.C./Archive 2, I decided to use the move procedure. Regards -- Alias Flood17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kenny Dalglish
Changed declined back to refuse, if you click on the link at the end you should find the following in a Guardian article:
' Dalglish, a former Footballer of the Year, then refused to give police a statement.' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.156.33.151 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 August 2006.
Vandalism?
I looked up an article, and it said I had a new message:
