Malarious

United Kingdom

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view{{{ Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. -->}#if:|. A contribution you made to [[:{{{1}}}]] appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem}}. Please remember to observe our core policies. {{{ Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. -->}#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}--John 16:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please can you give a transcription of the passage from the source you give which supports your "Great Power" claim, and do not make edits which are likely to be contested without using edit summaries. Viewfinder 15:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You might also like to contribute to the talk page at Great Power. Viewfinder 15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Italy

Wikipedia is not your soapbox for removing references and replacing American spellings with British spellings when the former is already more prevalent. See WP:ENGVAR. Sicilianmandolin 19:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nation

Hello,

Just a note that a nation is a community or group of people (e.g. the Nation of Islam or The Nation of Gods and Earths), it is not a division of land. England is a territory, not a group of people - the English people are a nation. In this capacity, and as it has no official meaning or source, I've removed it again from the lead per policy.

I hope that helps explain the removal. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've actually raised this at Talk:Scotland. It is a somewhat problematic situation (in my point of view) that this wording endures on this article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Scotland

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SFC9394 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for edit-warring on Scotland. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please use talk pages to obtain consensus. I raised your point at Talk:Scotland and did not know you were edit warring in the background. It is best practice to talk about edits that have been reverted rather than reinstate them in quick succession and with no formal discussion. Hope to see you around again, but on the talk page! -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In full agreement with Jza84. Malarious, you should've brought your concerns to the talk page first. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide edit summaries. Thank you. Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to England. Thank you. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

England

Looks like you are getting into another edit war. Constituent Country was agreed on the talk page both here and on Wales. If you don't agree go to the talk pages. --Snowded (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to United Kingdom, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. (Removing referenced information without an edit rationale.) Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 15:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Pretty please?! They really don't take all that long! Thanks. Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 14:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to United Kingdom, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at England. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries, please

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to United Kingdom. Thank you. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Clement Freud

Hi. I'm not sure if you meant to delete the references in this edit? If the objection was to their placement, perhaps you could move them somewhere else within the article, instead of deleting them? Much thanks. (an edit there or a reply here is fine :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was an accident. Cheers for correcting it!

MPs

I wasn't aware that this had been a consensual non-inclusion. I was only filling out the infoboxes as full as possible. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. But if you wouldn't mind keeping civil the next time you deal with a matter like this and signing you posts so people don't have to go into their history to find out who's talking to them, I'm sure it would be much appreciated. Out of curiosity, do you know where the discussion on omitting British Parliament from their infoboxes happened? Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, I suppose I'll run into you after the reshuffle. ;-) Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 2010

Warning

You seem to be engaged in a slow edit war on the above article. Please discuss this issue on the talk page to reach consensus before removing the graph again. I notice you have been blocked and recieved warnings before for edit waring so regard this as a final warning - you will be blocked again if you continue. Please use the talk page. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to discussion page for Gordon Brown, result of local election is relevant as he is elected as MP.

The paragrah you edited out was

Gordon Brown was re-elected to serve as a member of parliament for Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath constituency on 6th May 2010 with 29,559 votes representing 64.5% of votes.

You stated in notes for your edit the above was is poorly worded and irrelevant, why? It is fact and simply stated as fact.

I do not wish to engage in an edit war with you please clarify your reason for removing the entire paragragh in your edit to that article on talk page.

(Rovington (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)) On my talk page but not signed had to go to history was

Because it's fact that doesn't need to be there, we don't need to say he held his seat with that share in the lead, it's irrelevant to the lead. And poor primary because "member of parliament" didn't have the correct letters capitalised of course.

Malarious please sign your posts,in reply to the above wikipedia is about facts, the article is about Gordon Brown and his election as MP is very relevant, you could have edited the sentence rather than deleting it. Would you please review you edit.

(Rovington (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

Nick Clegg...

...has not been oficially named Deputy PM. Please do not add information to the contrary without a reliable source. Thanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 21:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC).

May 2010

You have made several reversions to the article United Kingdom, removing Nick Clegg from the infobox. Whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is included in the infobox is being discussed on the article Talkpage here. Should you have an opinion on the matter, it is better to engage in the discussion rather than deleting other editors contributions. Consensus should be reached on the Talk page rather through edit warring. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

MPs (2)

Can you show a consensus for the edits you made? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see the various talk pages, to gather tham all as one now is tiresome. I didn't make the edits myself, but given that it is now the format used by all current MPs, I feel the reversal of sporadic MPs is pointless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarious (talk • contribs)

If there is no central consensus to change these, I don't think they should be changed. Please don't undo any more of my edits unless you are able to point to a consensus to format them in a particular way. Thanks, --John (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, there is on individual discussion pages, I'm not going to go through and find them all individually now, you can do that. And if you really want to go through and personally change all 650 MPs, despite it being an improvement, then go ahead, but I find that ridiculous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarious (talk • contribs)

Can you even point to one of these "individual discussion pages"? I don't wish to operate against consensus but I didn't think the IP's changes were helpful. --John (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

E Milliband

Hi - I am attempting to get the aerticle assessed for GA status - there is a backlog apparently - do you know a user that could review it? Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 117Avenue (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox changes

Hi Malarious, Can I ask why you have been removing "order=" field from infoboxes? Is there some consensus about this? Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Berlusconi still officially in office

I see you have undone my last correction without providing any explanation (a practice generally reserved on Wikipedia for vandalism, which my 'undo' certainly was not). In the summary for my last edit, I suggested you consult the talk page here, where I have now posted a link to this video of the official press statement communicating the President's request for the resigning government to remain temporarily in office to cover day-to-day affairs. So, at the time of writing, Berlusconi technically remains PM. Thank you in advance for your courteous reply, preferably on the Berlusconi talk page.--MistyMorn (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Note about Silvio

Your recent editing history at Silvio Berlusconi shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove the link to Resignation of Silvio Berlusconi in the intro?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Chuka Umunna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leader of the Labour Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Prime Ministers

Rather than reverting back and forth please comment at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Prime Ministers by the numbers. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Edward Llewellyn (Conservative advisor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aide (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Imran Hussain (British politician).
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk or via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop changing articles without adding to them

You keep changing my posts with no sources, references or knowledge of what you are talking about, at least as indicted by the notes you make for your edits. All of my posts have been researched, sourced properly and current. You provide no information for why you are making changes or source information for those changes. Unless you can state a good reason for constantly changing and reverting the work of other editors, stop doing so. This is not a contest to see who can be the current editor and most popular, or what ever you are trying to acheive, it is meant to provide the most current information about a serious current event. If you cannot add to that, please stop editing and vandalizing the work of others. Thank you. The Moody Blue (Talk) 20:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Your recent editing history at Fabrice Muamba shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Halsteadk (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. When you recently edited John Prescott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leader of the Labour Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to La Liga 2011-12, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. hi, you probably did not notice at the top when editing, but nothing should be edited before matches are completed. please refrain from doing so again as it will simply put you in trouble HasperHunter (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. When you recently edited 2011–12 Liverpool F.C. season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Luis Suárez and Brad Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. When you recently edited Marco Rubio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlos Valdes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Paul Scriven, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Little-Rena (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:England squad England squad UEFA Euro 2012

A tag has been placed on Template:England squad England squad UEFA Euro 2012 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

André Villas-Boas

Hello, I've noticed you are insistent on the Premier League Asia Trophy being considered an honour, but the bottom line is that the trophy holds as much prestige a Emirates Cup or Amsterdam Tournament. It's an organised pre-season tournament, honours should be classified when they are won in a season. You can however notify that Villas-Boas won the 'Asia Trophy' in the Chelsea section. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

2012-13 Premier League Managerial Changes

Just a quick note to say that I've added the reference back in to the table of managerial changes. Instead of removing the one reference that was there it should have been changed to add in references for the other two. I have now done that. Spudgfsh (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. your behavior in edit summaries is inappropriate do not call people idiots! Lerdthenerd wiki defender 20:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Liverpool F.C. squad

Your recent editing history at Template:Liverpool F.C. squad shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tmol42 (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The editing of this article is unnecessary - it has not been announced by Liverpool officially and thus the position is vacant. Zanoni (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you meant to edit out players like Suso who are members of the Liverpool FC squad according to the official squad list Zanoni (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 21:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I would also STRONGLY suggest that you refrain from insulting other editors per WP:CIVIL; consider this your final warning before an indefinite block. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

LFC lead

Hi, the version of the lead I restored was what was decided upon by the community at the FAC where the article acquired featured status. Firstly the lead is too short and does not meet the needs of WP:LEAD, which requires the lead to summarise the article as a whole, which it does not do. Secondly, there was no consensus for this change as it has not been discussed, whereas the version of the lead that passed far did have consensus. I have reverted your edit, if you are not happy with this then we discuss it at the talk page, cheers. NapHit (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

Hi. When you recently edited 2012–13 Liverpool F.C. season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Liberty Stadium and Stamford Bridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Bet and beat

Why did you undo my change to the article Roger Federer? (The sentence was "On 8 July 2012, Federer bet Andy Murray 6–4, 7–5, 6–3 and 6–4 in the 2012 Wimbledon Final.") wikt:beat#Verb Wiktionary's entry for ''beat'' contains:

Verb

beat (third-person singular simple present beats, present participle beating, simple past beat, past participle beaten)

--Mortense (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andre Wisdom.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! dangerouspanda 00:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Template:Liverpool F.C. squad has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Wikipedia has a policy called "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", which discourages such edits. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reference to a reliable source. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Brendan Rodgers

I've reverted your edit to his table - competitive match stats only please. Regards, GiantSnowman 19:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

oh my word, I do apologise, I thought they were playing a friendly! GiantSnowman 20:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Bob Paisley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Honours

Don't call me stupid. I will reply in the morning. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, can I remind you of WP:Civil - if you're going to persist in chucking insults around, I will lodge a formal protest with a view to getting you blocked.

The question of the content and format of "Honours" sections has been discussed at WP:SOCCER many times, most recently at [1], with no real consensus being reached. The player manual of style is not particularly helpful and most editors agree that it should be re-written, but there is unlikely to be consensus on what it should look like. Whilst we should aim for consistency, there is never going to be a consistent style unless this was to be imposed from above.

I have looked at the various player/manager articles which are featured articles, which are "considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer" and "are used by editors as examples for writing other articles"[2]; these include Steve Bruce, Bobby Robson, Thierry Henry, John Wark, Bert Trautmann and Gilberto Silva. Unfortunately, the various honours sections are all differently formatted and have different content, so these are also no help in agreeing on a consensus.

The truth is that there is a lack of consistency across football player/manager articles. It is therefore disingenuous of you to claim in your edit summaries e.g. "How about, every other player and manager? We have to be consistent." or "See the format of every other player and manager for reference." You may be trying to impose your personal preference on Wikipedia but that is no more or less valid than my personal preference.

Turning to specifics, why do you wish to remove any reference to runners-up/finalists? For Keegan, managing Newcastle United to runners-up in the Premiership was possibly the pinnacle of his managerial career. Likewise, for Redknapp, taking Spurs to the FA Cup final is quite an achievement. You are not being consistent yourself; for Dave Jones, you seem happy to permit him to "keep" not only a runners-up position, but even a third-place play-off.

Perhaps we should scrap these honours sections altogether and just use the "Honours" box on the player/manager infobox. The documentation for this allows for runners-up and third place finishes to be included.

As for the numbers in brackets, I consider these to be at best an affectation and at worst an insult to the reader's intelligence. I can see the merit for a manager who has won a particular title multiple times or for Manager of the Month type awards, but otherwise they are just plain daft. To include "FA Cup (1)" is just plain nonsense.

I await your (reasoned) response. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

p.s. If you prefer, we can take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and seek input from other users.

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Kirkland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Jones (Welsh politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minister (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Alessandro Del Piero, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. GiantSnowman 16:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you removed factually correct and referenced information from an article without providing any edit summary or explanation. Your response was completely inappropriate - one more and I'll block you. GiantSnowman 18:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm an administrator. Regards, GiantSnowman 07:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Button

Do not keep removing information saying it's "unnecessary", particularly with ridiculous edit summaries like "Stop it", if you have no intention of explaining WHY you think it's unnecessary. Use the talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - September 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for personal attacks and general disruptive behaviour - despite warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

GiantSnowman 13:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malarious for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. GiantSnowman 18:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If you keep up with language like that then I'll block you again, socking or not socking. GiantSnowman 19:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)