Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Slumgum (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 19 August 2006 (→www.soccer-europe.com: :o(). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

From User talk:Palffy, to me:

How dare you get rid of my own response on MY OWN page? You don't deserve anything from me, you're the lousiest Misplaced Pages editor I've ever seen. --Palffy 23:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Three-Revert Rule

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Ukraine national football team. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Stifle (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing talk page warnings

Please do not remove warnings and other content from your talk page. It is considered uncivil and may be vandalism. You can archive it instead. Stifle (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I simply read the text and removed it because it was no longer useful, but if the rules require to keep all the warnings I'll keep them. I am just not sure about one thing: should I keep all the comments, or can delete the non-warning threads after they are "closed"?--Kwame Nkrumah 23:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly recommend keeping (or archiving) them all, but there is nothing against deleting a non-warning message that you have replied to. Stifle (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppets

For your information, it is considered a violation of sock puppet policy to create new accounts to circumvent restrictions or make a position seem like it has more support than it sounds. New users do not make their first post on WP:ANI, as User:Spunti did. While I have no evidence to accuse you of anything and thus do not do so, I would just like to bring all this to your attention. Stifle (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way I can prove it is not a sockpuppet of mine? Also, I read in sock puppet policy there are allowed uses of sockpuppets, such as "Keeping heated issues in one small area".--Kwame Nkrumah 23:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR Response

Hi and thank you for your response to a 3RR violation. Although I may not agree with your ruling, I will accept it as is. The problem now is that the same person has now began harassing me, , on my own talk page and is deleting my OWN responses without my permission. I'm not exactly sure what the right thing for me to do is, but I just want nothing to do with this guy. I apologize for some of the strong language that I've used in my responses, but I have never seen anyone as persistent as this poster. Thanks and let me know, --Palffy 23:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Before your decision, I put a 3RR warning in his talk page, which Palffy removed. When you wrote me that it is forbidden to remove warnings, I readded it, with your text as an explanation: he removed it again. My question is if the keep-the-warning rule applies to each contributor, or only to selected ones.--Kwame Nkrumah 23:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just heading to bed, can you please post on WP:ANI and another admin will sort it out. Stifle (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Palffy

I feel that you should stop putting the three revert rule warning on Palffy's userpage. He has already gotten the message, and now he is feeling harassed. It is probably best to simply step away from him as this conflict is clearly not getting anywhere. The page is now protected, so it's best to continue discussion on the talk page. Thank you. Cowman109 18:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This time I will ask you to please stop provoking Palffy and posting comments on his user talk page that could appear as confrontational. I already asked you to leave him alone, so please stop making edits that could be viewed as harrassment. Thank you. Cowman109 20:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I was simply explaining why I am not answering to his posts. If you think this is disruption... (is it 6 or 3 hours?)

Decline reason:

Time to step back from this and take a break

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

Personal attacks

Personal attacks on other wikipedians are unacceptable. Please refrain from such. --Doc 21:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove admin warnings from your talkpage either. --Doc 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'm asking you nicely to remove that from your user page. Perhaps it isn't a personal attack, but it is hardly WP:CIVIL and it isn't helping people try to co-operate together on this project. If you have a dispute with another user either a) ignore them b) discuss with them c) use the official dispute proceedures what you are doing now looks to be a lot like trolling. --Doc 21:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is allowed, you can't enforce you request, am I wrong? ( I am trying to understand)--Kwame Nkrumah 21:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's more of an issue of general decency and civility towards other editors. It certainly doesn't promote a positive editing environment to have such a section on your user page, for example. Cowman109 22:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. However, I shall wait for Doc's one, before giving my opinion on the matter.--Kwame Nkrumah 22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What you have on your userpage is disruptive and provokative. Remove it, or I will have to conclude that you intend to be disruptive. For that I will block you. It may well be that another user is engaging in personal attacks (I'll investigate that) but it does not excuse you being disruptive. --Doc 22:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I thanked you for removing it, now you push it by replacing it with more disruption. I can only conclude that you are going to waste your evening (and mine) with more lawyering and light trolling. Well, probably nothing is to be gained by your editing for the next few hours, so I'm blocking you for 6 hours 3hours. When you come back - EDIT ARTICLES - and stop the time wasting nonsense. You were warned. --Doc 22:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I really do not understand you. I removed a text you did not like because you said it was a provocation. I put a text in which I explained why I am not answering to Palffy in Template talk:Infobox National football team and Talk:FC Chernomorets Odessa (admins told us to stay apart) and you block me? The funny part is that all this started because I quarrelled with an editor that has been provoking and attacking me the whole time (you told me you would have been investigating, you should have found his attacks by now), and I get scolded because I did not EDIT ARTICLES?--Kwame Nkrumah 23:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your initial text was inappropriate, we expect editors to behave in a mature and constructive manner. You seem to have misunderstood the point, singling out another editor based on a disagreement is not constructive and is not something which should be emblazoned on your userpage (See WP:USER for details on user pages). This is a fairly short block and I suggest you use it to consider if there isn't a better way to deal with your issues with the other editor. --pgk 23:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What I do not understand is, if I am told I cannot interact with another user, why I am blocked when I write this on my page? And apart this, writing I won't answer to someone is a good reason for a three hours block? --Kwame Nkrumah 23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I do not understand the relationship between this edit and the comment to the three-hours punishment ("disruption, trolling and personal attacks")--Kwame Nkrumah 23:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

See what your userpage is not, it is not merely your page to do with as you please. --pgk 00:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I read the link and still don't see what's wrong with my edit. However...--Kwame Nkrumah 00:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you genuinely don't understand where you are going wrong, then go to WP:WELCOME and try to get an understanding of what wikipedia is about. If you still can't see what's wrong, then I doubt that wikipedia is really for you. --Doc 00:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You told me not to mess with this guy. I wrote "I'm not messing with this guy". You block me for "disruption, trolling and personal attacks". Where is the disruption? When I trolled? Above all, when I personally attacked anyone?--Kwame Nkrumah 00:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Your post on WP:ANI

I replied here. Bishonen | talk 03:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC).

Civility warning

I find this edit to be less than civil: I also don't find your user page in its current state to be very civil, it's borderline at best. Please try to be more civil in future or you may find yourself blocked again. Also, read the wrong version... if there is a revert war, it is lame to complain about which version ends up protected or reverted to. Removal of this warning without a clear indication that you have read and understood it might result in your being blocked. Please do not remove it or subsequent warnings. You should reply here, I have this page on watch. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. You may be not happy with the post, but I was explaining my position with civility. Civility and distaste for a user (admin) actions are compatible.

Also, my issues with those users affect my edits. I think I am allowed to write down what are the issues I have open with them.

It is lame to complain for an admin to protect a page on the "wrong version", and infact I did not complain when he did the first time. The second time he protected the "right version", but later reverted the protection and moved back to the "wrong version". This means he actually endorsed the two pages. Am I allowed to complain for a protection that turned into an endorsement?

I will remove this thread once it is closed.

Kwame Nkrumah

No, you're not allowed to complain. You can point things out, you can work on the talk page of the article or template to work through differences but you are not allowed to "complain". You really need to read the link I gave you as it refutes the argument you are making. You're complaining about who reverted what instead of working through differences on the talk page, and that is the wrong approach. At this rate, if you don't change your approach, you'll never be able to edit here successfully, I am afraid. This warning thread needs to stay until you demonstrate successful editing, which right now you have not, so other admins know that there is an issue here (and they are encouraged to look at the history to see that in fact you have been warned before). Removal of it will result in a block or a protected page. Also, please don't use excessive paragraph breaks, and sign your posts with ~~~~ thanks. ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Don't format my edits according to your personal taste.
2. The link you sent me is under the Category:Humor of Wikimedia. Do you really want me to follow what is written there? (Did you actually read what is written inside?)
3. I am not complaining about who reverted, but about the fact that the guy who should simply protect a page reverted to his preferred version, and this is not what "wrong version" means. If you accept a request for protection, you are not allowed to do an arbitration at the same time.

--Kwame Nkrumah 14:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You're wikilawyering, and I (and many other admins) am not a big fan of that. Go with the intent and the spirit not the letter. You've been warned and just so you know, you now have more admins watching you than before. I characterise your behaviour as borderline incivil and I caution you again to be more civil or there will be consequences. This warning needs to stay. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

(I removed the reference to category humor, you need to prefix it with a : for it not to add the page to the category)... and yes I've read it many times. I suspect you haven't read it enough times yet to know why it applies in this case, because it does. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, could you please quote the relevant section here? Thanks.--Kwame Nkrumah 14:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm not going to play that wikilawyer game with you. it's all relevant. It conveys spirit and intent and you need to internalise it. All of it. As well as the advice Doc G gave you (that you removed without giving evidence that you understood what he was getting at which gives me great concern). In fact why not review all of WP:5P?? I think you need some additional thinking about what it means to edit here. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Serbia kits

I found pictures of the new Nike kit on the Football Association of Serbia website. The English language version has not been updated, but you can see the images in the latest news section of the Serbian language version. There is also another English language-only website that reports on South-Eastern European football, and you see a news article there as well JadranSport. --Lowg 16:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no photo recently that confirms the socks, but there is a old image that they did released before the kit was finalized that also represents this ... another article on JadranSport. There was also an article on UEFA.com that confirmed this as well as the white away kit, but there are no images there. --Lowg 18:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Spunti

I have indefinitely blocked User:Spunti as a checkuser request has confirmed it to be a sockpuppet of yours that you used to circumvent the three revert rule on Ukraine national football team. If you continue to use sock puppets to disrupt the encyclopedia, you will be blocked again. Thank you. Cowman109 19:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Elo ratings history on national football team infobox

Hi, saw your addition of the optional Elo rating history fields to Template:Infobox National football team. Good concept, and personally I support Elo ratings over FIFA ratings generally. But - do you know of an actual source for this data? The Elo ratings site itself seems only to have the maximum rating for each team, with no date, and nothing about the lowest rating. -- Wantok 10:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I plan to take each team page, with all the matches and the relative rankings, grep each team line, take the highest and lowest ranking, and publish them. I shall add the first values soon.--Kwame Nkrumah 13:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

www.soccer-europe.com

Actually, in the user's discussion page at User talk:Soccer-europe.com, it says:

Soccer-europe.com 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)To all authors : Please make sure my site is credited whenever my images are used as follows :

© http://soccer-europe.com

I realize I neglected to include the copyright symbol, but it's clear that the user wants the site credited every time images from the site are used. Ytny 00:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's not that important to have pictures for footballer pages, but personally, I'd prefer to have an image with a copyright notice than to have users keep putting up unfree images they find on websites. To me, that's the lesser of the two evils. But if you want to take the pictures down, I won't have a problem with it. Ytny 00:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think User talk:Soccer-europe.com is the best place to start, since the page is devoted to discussing images from soccer-europe.com, and maybe add a link to the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football? Ytny 00:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't start radical blanket changes without discussing or giving some indication of your intentions. I feel that the proverb "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" is apt.  Slumgum T. C.   18:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)