User talk:Matthew hk/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

1998–99 in Bosnia and Herzegovina football

Isn't using the country name in that way like having "1998–99 in England football". Shouldn't it be "1998–99 in Bosnian football", i.e. using the demonym? --Jameboy (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The RSSSF had Serbs and Croats League, it just don't have a unified league. Matthew_hk tc 07:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Elia Legati

About your recent edits to the Elia Legati article, please note that co-ownership deals are not usually listed like loan spells in the infobox. Besides, the reference I had added (and now reinstained) is form the official website of the Lega Calcio. So, let's avoid an edit war about that. ;-) — Luxic (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes co-ownership is shown, just like Adriano Leite Ribeiro. If Legati left for club again, just simply remove the Milan and became:

Elia Legati

Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2006–2009	A.C. Milan	0	(0)
2006–2008	→ Legnano (loan)	57	(0)
2008–2009	→ Monaco (loan)	0	(0)
2009	→ Novara (loan)	13	(0)
2009–2010	Crotone	40	(1)
2010–	new club	0	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

Stupid

Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2006–2009	A.C. Milan	0	(0)
2006–2008	→ Legnano (loan)	57	(0)
2008–2009	→ Monaco (loan)	0	(0)
2009	→ Novara (loan)	13	(0)
2009–2010	Crotone	40	(1)
2010–	A.C. Milan	0	(0)
2010–	→ new club (loan)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

But if the remain, or just loaned out, it is stupid to say he had two spells at Milan, as Milan still keep 50% in 2009-10 season.

Fir the ref, people seldom cite the transfer list just like this one [1] (it had few information, Which information that the co-ownership tell to people that not familiar to Italian market?), if you can hack the link of the news in Crotone web site, i prefer to use Crotone official announcement. Matthew_hk tc 21:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the best would be an English source then. I'll check if I can find a reliable one. For now, we can simply leave them both (as in your latest edit).
As for the infobox, the problem is that when a player is co-owned by two clubs, he might still be loaned out to a third club. For example, Davide Di Gennaro in the 2008–09 season was signed by Genoa in a co-ownership deal with Milan, but later was loaned out to Reggina. — Luxic (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It just case by case, for Di Gennaro current format is better.(same case likes Luca Antonini but Marco Borriello use both as Milan co-owned with Treviso) Matthew_hk tc 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

For sure, it's case by case. But in my opinion it would be better to have some sort of consistency throught the articles. So, since we are both members of the Italian football task-force, I think we could talk it over with other participants and try to decide which one of the two formats is better. What do you think? — Luxic (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a note,

The term is sockpuppet. Not socket puppet. It refers to the real life sockpuppets, the puppets which are sock based which one wears on their hand.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Bonucci

The Italy U-21 B is not an official team. Any vandalism.--82.57.166.251 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Luigi Sartor

MATTHEW, VASCO here,

Last time, i removed some info in this player, even though it had references. The English was very poor, which made the refs useless. Now, you inserted it again, OK, i'll leave it be, but i have again arranged English language significantly.

Please, leave the storyline which i created now, as i also left your refs - but i removed parts of story where the English makes no sense. Respect other people's work, i'll respect yours. Happy editing, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Please feel free to respond to a report involving you at WP:ANI, here. Thanks, and have a nice day. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I am sorry you took as an insult my humor at WP:ANI. I think it's a bit of overkill for Drmies to start a thread on that board over a period, and I tried to use humor to make both of you aware of it. That being said, Drmies did not add that unsourced information to the footballer's article, he merely put a period on the end of it. It would be kind of you to remove the warning from his talk page. Generally, we don't put template messages like that on long-term editor's talk pages. It's seen as an insult. So if you could do that, that would really help the whole situation. Again, I'm sorry my attempt at humor insulted you. N419BH 05:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Warnings

Please do not add warnings to any page unless you are able to explain your action in reasonable English. This is in relation to User talk:Drmies#new signing where you issued (diff) a level 3 warning template to a respected editor. The mistake of using a templated warning for a regular editor is a minor issue, but what is disturbing is that you seem unable to comprehend that your warning was for an edit (diff) that added a single period to make a complete sentence. Even that is not so bad, but when you are notified on your talk page, you just delete the message (diff) with edit summary "read" and provide no indication that you acknowledge your error. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Level 3 warnings

Level 3 warnings are not to be issued to new editors or any other editor the first time they make a mistake. This is a violation of WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL. A quick look tells me that you're issuing level 3 to everyone even if it is their first edit. Coupled with the fact that you're also issuing this warnings to people who haven't done anything wrong, this is inappropriate and causing disruption. Please review the warning level system and issue warnings appropriately. There is also still on-going discussion on AN/I regarding the way you've been issuing warnings.--Crossmr (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

I've gone ahead and unblocked you. It's very clear at this point that you understand the problem for which you were blocked. I trust you now understand that if you are blocked in the future you should not keep editing under your IP but negotiate an unblock through your registered account. Block evasion is against policy all by itself.

Please remember from now on to start with an assumption of good faith (and usually with a level 1 warning), and I hope you will apologize to User talk:Drmies now that you understand that fixing a punctuation problem doesn't make somebody responsible for bad content in the article. He doesn't deserve that, and apologizing would be the right thing to do. At the very least we have to be polite to each other; being friendly is even better, even if it is sometimes hard.

You are welcome to come by my talk page any time you want to discuss these issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Matthew hk. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blocked

I've blocked you per the thread on ANI where it has become clear that you either can't or won't understand how your actions were wrong. Please request unblock using {{unblock|reason}} when you understand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Please add this comment to that thread:

i checked my template message and i did warned everyone who contribute that article that's related to that transfer rumour (related to that sentence) including correcting the wording and other very minor edit. Which clearly a practice of assume everyone (who edited that article) bad faith. When i re-check their contribution related to that issue, some were not suitable for any warning, instead, a welcome template should be used, or point out that the transfer rumor is not appropriate and suggest ways to solve in positive tone.

Decline reason:

Pending answer to Moonriddengirl's comment below - once yopu reply to that, we can see if you can be unblocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Matthew_hk tc 18:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Matthew, conversation at ANI suggests that you may not yet realize why it was wrong for you to issue this warning at all. I can see that you do a good job keeping articles verifiable, and it looks like a very frustrating and time-consuming job, but we want to be sure that you're not driving away other contributors. Since your English is "level 2" (far better than my languages! :D), would you like me to try to find somebody who might help translate? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

EN-2 is someone change it back 2~3 years ago (was EN-3 if using my IELTS result to compare with the wiki table, but someone edited my userpage to EN-2 and tell me not to change it). Yes it look like blind fire on User talk:Drmies and on User talk:69.206.147.199 diff, which the former do nothing harm and the latter is a good faith edits (which Marrone did call-up Juve training camp and transferred to Siena on same day, announced on 1 July, which i posted the message on 2 July)

but i still not agree 79.119.209.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which may be test1, or a welcome template with additional message. Matthew_hk tc 18:47, 4 July 2010

P.S. Hong Kong had education on English from nursery to university. i used English textbook for most of my subject since grade 7, i although my grammar and spelling suck. I just read the topic sentence of the discussion thread, and did not read the whole thing and just saying my own words. And then save and gone to do something else. I apologized to my blind fire to all edited that page. Matthew_hk tc 18:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would have a hard time evaluating whether someone is "level 2" or "level 3", myself. :) As I said, you are better in English than I am in any other language (at least living languages; the ones I've studied are no longer spoken). But I'm afraid that I do have a little bit of trouble following your meaning here in some of your communication. It seems as though you are saying that you "fired blindly" (made a mistake?) with the warnings at User talk:Drmies and User talk:69.206.147.199, but when you say you still do not agree with User:79.119.209.104, are you saying that you think that the "only warning" you issue him was appropriate for this edit? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

May be i was angered to the edits regarding the rumour of the player's future, and give warning to (nearly) everyone who edited the article. Not every page likes David Silva (current deal with ManCity) Zlatan Ibrahimovic (last year) and Juan Roman Riquelme (currently free agent) were protected for edit war on the deal is done, subject to XXX, or even gossip (Maicon above, was linked to Real Madrid and clearly not FCM Targu Mures nor AFC Progresul Bucureşti) Which my way to stop transfer rumour introduced to wikipedia is a uncivil way: look likes shouting to everyone who did not find the deal is not done (or even a gossip, top players linked to the top clubs in the world, at least 4+ in numbers). Matthew_hk tc 19:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And page likes F.C. Internazionale Milano there is a hidden text

<!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Do NOT add new players before their signing is officially announced by the club.

-- Do not add clubnumber until it's official.

-- This is Wikipedia, not a football gazette. Any unconfirmed and unsourced signing will be

– removed at sight.

– Thanks in advance.

– Also, please list ONLY players who are fully featured with the first team squad (see link below)!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

and i was consider that was a warning. But in fact i cannot assume everyone notice it. And it is a slippy slope that assume people read it and still made some "mistake" were in fact bad faith. Such as Toldo, media rumoured he will retire (or already retired as a player), in although the official web of Inter Milan still listed him in 2010/11 squad along with new signing Castellazzi.[2].

Someone edited the page, presented a unknown site in edit summary, even just add 2010 to infobox diff, and then i throw a robot like message, which may in fact not helpful to solve the issue, in although it has 400+view a day. But higher viewing is not a reason to assume all editor were bad faith and give excessive warning. Matthew_hk tc 19:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

For clarity for others who might review this, let me note that I don't plan to take action on your unblock request myself. I think fresh eyes are needed here (and with reference to the ANI thread). But you do seem to be getting the point to me. People miss the general warnings all the time, so I don't doubt that they could miss the hidden text as well. I work copyright cleanup; every edit screen on Wikipedia warns people not to violate copyright, but new people do it in evident unawareness routinely. We do try to encourage newcomers, though, so it's important that we extend the benefit of the doubt to them. When they first begin editing, we should presume that they were trying to make the article better and just don't understand the way we work. If you will agree to control your frustration when you see incorrect material added and to keep your warnings to users appropriate and friendly (a review of WP:BITE helps), I personally would support your unblock. I have to warn you, though, that if you go back to giving people extreme warnings for relatively innocent edits, you are likely to be blocked again, and this time it might last. You do good work, but we have to make sure that we keep new people coming in and helping, too. (I'm bolding that text so that any admin who reviews your unblock request won't miss it. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the arching issue is about this one Diff Matthew_hk tc 20:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean the conversation about archiving talk pages on ANI? I realize that warning was given to you about article talk pages, not your own. It's a good idea, though, to keep stuff on your talk page until you've had a good chance to answer it. It keeps the environment feelings respectful and cooperative. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I had no schedule for archiving talk page but usually after the issue ended, not all replies to me were kept. Matthew_hk tc 20:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding talk page archiving you were told 2 years ago how often you should archive User_talk:Matthew_hk/Archive_7#Archiving.--Crossmr (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What he's saying is that that note was about this. He subsumed the "Tawain" section into an existing section. Given the sequence of Husond's edits, that seems right: [3], [4]. It looks to me also to be related to article talk page archiving, not user talk page archiving. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Update

Following what's been said at ANI, I believe what is desired at this point:

1. for you to plainly agree to begin with a level 1 warning, such as {{Uw-unsourced1}}, when you are leaving a note for somebody who has no previous warnings. You can then give {{Uw-unsourced2}}, {{Uw-unsourced3}} and {{Uw-unsourced4}} if they continue. If they already have a level 1 note, you can start with a level 2 and so on.
2. for you to plainly acknowledge that you should not give warnings to people who have done nothing wrong (no warnings for people who fix punctuation problems, etc.)

If you go back to "biting" people by giving harsher warnings than they deserve, you will be blocked again.

You should also consider apologizing to User:Drmies at his talk page, if you are unblocked, for threatening him with a block for adding a period to an article. If nothing else, it would be good for you to go there and admit that you made a mistake because people looking at his talk page history later may think that he actually did what he was accused of. If you admit your error, he can show them easily that he did not.

Please clearly state whether you understand these conditions and will follow them. Your English has, I'm afraid, been a little hard to follow at times. I mean no offense by that; as I said before, your English is far better than, say, my Chinese (is there a level below 0? :D), but it's the reality here, and in this case clarity is crucial. I'd suggest keeping your response simple and to the point. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

{

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Here is my reason to request unblock. I was giving un-appropriate warning to user that unrelated to original research and bite new user. I apologize to people that received un-appropriate warning from me. (But differ from ANI, I seldom or I don’t remember I did issue any level 4 warning to anyone). From now on, I should read my report on ANI carefully and figure out what happened, instead of keep saying my own words and not “listen”. From now on, I should give level 1 warning (or just welcome template) to people with few edits, except a clear obvious vandal (and they should communicate to figure that happen instead of giving robot like level2 message) and kept the level 3 teamplate for people who received warning before and did the same thing repeatly.

Decline reason:

Unless and until you can provide acceptable answers to the questions below related to block evasion I can't see this account getting unblocked. You just dug this hole a whole lot deeper, you might want to reconsider your chosen course of action. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

I think this is fairly clear, but there are now some additional factors that may bear consideration. A contributor came to my talk page to indicate that you have been editing in spite of your block as 210.6.121.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The contribution history suggests this may be true, particularly in the case of this article where you seem to have just continued your work in spite of community sanctions. It seems likely you have also been editing as 210.6.121.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Has this been you? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Matthew, it's pretty obvious that this is you. Both IPs have been blocked for a short period of time; I hope no more than that will be necessary. You can't keep contributing to Wikipedia while you are blocked. This is called "block evasion", and it can lead to you being banned, which among other things could mean that any change you make to Wikipedia will be reverted on sight. Not a good thing for anybody. Your notes here are much better and suggest that you really have gotten a grasp of the problem. Don't create new ones, please. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree this needs addressed, but I think it sounds like you have a pretty good grasp of the problem and how to rectify it, personally. Just my two cents, for any other admins who want to factor that in. - Vianello (Talk) 20:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A key part of the problem was the inability of Matthew hk to respond to complaints: the only response was to delete the message from this talk page and carry on. I believe a proper appreciation of that situation is even more important than understanding that level 1 warnings come before level 3. (Yes, deletion is allowed, but delete and ignore is bad practice.) Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's me, my ip (121.21) once auto-blocked but (just same ip [5]) unknown reason there is no block log and not blocked. I did not know i should not edit anything when i blocked, which i just want to update the player's article with citing reliable source.

Something off-topic, WP:Footy formed somewhat a MOS style on infobox and about transfer rumours. Normally WP:footy suggested that the current club should changed after the deal done. And when the deal done is verified by club announcement on both club or just either club. And alternative verified method is the official transfer list (likes this one [6]), and that's why David Silva and Zlatan Ibrahimović were semi-protected and even lock and every one need to submit edit request (personally locked the page discourage editing to me). But in fact not every page followed that "rule" as some club lack of club announcement for signing free agent and a very reliable source was accepted. Likes La Gazzetta dello Sports about Inter Milan transfer, as the newspaper often receive first hand information from the club.

And for a normal player transfer process, is the club reached an agreement, then the new club discussed with the players for the personal teams (contract terms), then medical tests, and finally signed a contract and submitted to the league office. Normally, the last 2 (signED the contract and the submission) stage the deal never failed, so someone in the project suggested that at that stage should update the player article to reflect his new club. But in the first 3 stage, should not. (but the deal was almost done, pending to medicals Seems worth the mention in the text in although some distance far away from he surely is the new player and worte he is the player of his new club at that time.

And i do try to communicate with User:Juve10 about transfer rumour and he read it and he changed the page of Motta after juventus announced Motta passed the medicals and pending finalization of contract and joined the bus to the training camp (which somewhat he clearly a member of Juventus). But before Juve's announcement, we just knew that Juve and Udinese reached an agreement. And for Toldo, ignore that part using a harsh level 3 templated message, i do try to communicate with other editors that there is no official announcement yet (but i did not say Toldo was once listed in 2010-11 squad along with the new goalkeeper in the message to support my claim, my fault) and seems it is a rumour until 7 July announced on http://www.inter.it and Official Inter TV channel. And for Elia Legati edit war, i do started a discussion with him and first problem solved (and that link he add did broken and replaced by another link [7] in official site, the the infobox mos i haven't think yet, but followed Luxic decision.

But for VascoAmaral. may be we both don't listen.Both can't communicate in English and even i don't know Luigi Sartor became a edit war, which he did not inform me and sometimes remove the cite and re-write with his own word (and wrong, i cite signed a 4-year contract with Inter he wrote signed a 4-year contract with Parma and remove the cite) I was removed his external link (zerozero) and he remove my external link (Portuguese Liga official site). It is hard to say which better, but i was explained i found zerozero sometimes, or often wrong for player's non-Portuguese League career (or an Italian footballer that never played in Portugal), which it is my reason to remove that site, he just ordered me not to remove it and i followed.

And about sortkey problem of Vitor Hugo Gomes Passos (which the namespace of Pele was Vitor Hugo Gomes Passos), i changed Vasco's Pele to Passos, Vitor Hugo Gomes to avoid hidden sortkey problem. Yes, it is my fault not to explain to him about hidden sortkey.

And for Míchel (footballer born 1977), i did not explained there is some other Michel born 1977 (without dialect) in Brazil [8] and somewhere else. And yes, it is a little bit biting to give warning for this one diff but i should explained more to him as he do have problem with citing source and adding unreferenced material.

And most recently is Mauricio Pinilla. Many players were signed and resold immediately (i don't know Footy MoS suggest list or not list such 1 day club, but Leonardo Bonucci is not listed as Genoa player in infobox).

And Vasco keeps on listing Pinilla was a player of Inter 2003-2007 in infobox, (just like Victor Obinna, Obinna became a Inter player officially in 2008 not 2005 and Pinilla never, because Inter needed to register them as Chieco player in order to use Chievo's non-EU registration quota for new signing from abroad) but i still accepted his request and list him as 2003 Inter.

But he still keeps on changed the club name to something can't explained. First of all, he claimed he aimed to made a short name for the club. But made the club name shorter cannot made the infobox narrower, secondly i explained in edit summary there is no such Universidad Chile instead of Universidad de Chile (literally University of Chile, de likes of) and no such Vasco Gama (Vasco da Gama is a name of a notable person and if to shorten the club name it should be Vasco). May be my another fault that not explained to him in talk page for 3RR, ownership of article and nonsense of Vasco Gama. Matthew_hk tc 00:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And he did not list Vasco Faísca as inter player in infobox Matthew_hk tc 00:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Matthew: Sincerely i do not know why have you not sent me a message to MY talk page to talk about these things, i visited this page by chance and...BOOOM! Again (not the first time) calling me names ("nonsense" is like saying i am stupid or similar) and telling FALSE info (i have stopped adding 2003–07 in Pinilla's box, about his stay at Inter). About the rest: i have never complained about your changes at Pelé (footballer born 1987)'s page name, they were OK. My changes to Luigi Sartor were explained: yes the article had many many refs, but the English was not understandable, at all. I made a mistake about the 4-year contract (with Inter not with Parma, yes you were right), you reinstated it and i did not remove it again. I made a mistake, you never do? And by the way, i NEVER received an apology for being accused of vandalism, twice, when i was editing anonymous, never understood that (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:217.129.67.28#August_2007 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:217.129.67.28#Bruno_Vale).

About the "de" and "do" i remove in boxes: of course i know the full names are, in this case, UNIVERSIDAD DE CHILE and VASCO DA GAMA, but it makes the box smaller (it's -2 letters, not +2) and the full name appears in storyline, so there is (there should not be at least) no problem with that. Seriously, if you look at a player box and read "UNIVERSIDAD CHILE", without the "DE", you don't know what club we are talking about? I do. Yes and i forgot to add Inter in Vasco Faísca's box, first of all because i do not know until when he belonged to the club, just remember he was bought at the same time than Marco Caneira and Paulo Costa. If you know the exact years, please add them in his box.

I did not know there was a MICHEL in Brazil born in 1977, so you did a good job there in changing the name on the Spanish player, congratulations. If you have any more questions about my edits (and again, yes i make mistakes too, and i do not own WP articles, but neither do you), please send ME a message, not to your talk page, please.

About the ZEROZEROFOOTBALL.COM and LPFP.PT sites: yes i removed once or twice the second link, but now i have stopped doing it (another thing you never told me about in my talkpage). The first, ZEROZERO, his very good for Portuguese footballers because of pictures and career clubs (yes it is very incomplete in stats - but it is good from 2006/07 and after - but i only add them to Portuguese footballers). Until some other time - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• I know now that you could not have messaged me in my talk page, you were blocked. I apologize for that. See, it's easy to apologize when you make/say something wrong. Happy editing (i also see now that you have been unblocked) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hi there MATTHEW, VASCO here,

Yes i agree, we should discuss stuff when doubts emerge, in the article's talkpage or at WP:FOOTY. I also apologize for some of my summaries, sometimes i want to help so badly that i do BAD things. Sorry again, happy editing - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles

Thanks for your brilliant article writing! Ironholds (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

autopatrolled

Although you shouldn't notice any difference you I've switched the autopatrolled flag on your account back on.©Geni 13:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jaguares de Chiapas.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jaguares de Chiapas.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Denis Tonucci

Just wanted to say, nice work with that guy. It's rare to see such a well sourced, heavily expanded new football biography, especially on a player so young. Keep up the good work! --WFC-- 02:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi there MATTHEW, VASCO here,

please, as you did in Filipe Luís Kasmirski, do not remove references without explanation, especially UEFA.com ones. Yes, one source says 12 millions, another 13.5. Let's keep both for the time being, if there any developments then we will change it.

Continue the good work, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation question

Hi, Matthew. I hope things are going well for you. :) I've got a question about an article that may be translated from the Chinese Wikipedia, and I was trying to think who I knew who speaks Chinese. You came to mind. If you have time, could you perhaps help me out by taking a look at the article at zh:定武帝 and comparing it to the article at Zhu Benli, Prince of Han? I have two concerns. First, I need to make sure that if our article was directly translated even partially from the Chinese article that we give credit, so it isn't a copyright problem. It looks to me like it might be a partial direct translation. Second, I wonder if the article in the English Wikipedia is giving the full story. I can't read Chinese at all, but Google Translate makes it seem like people aren't really sure this guy ever existed ([9]). If that's true, we definitely need our article to include that information.

If you don't have time or if this is something you'd rather not look at, please let me know, and I'll track down somebody else. I know this isn't exactly your usual area. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. The article on the English language Wikipedia has been deleted. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

i will go to shanghai for a week. from the title Zhu Benli zh:定武帝 is the same person. but the historians does not widely recognize that he exist, or just a folk. But there is many research about him, the person should had an article, just i had to find source to cite it. chinese wiki were often lack of inline citation. Matthew_hk tc 19:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems like even if he is possibly just a folk tale, we might want an article on him. I'm having trouble finding sources in English, but if you find any maybe we can do something about it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Matthew hk. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Diego Angelo

Oh, sorry. I trusted TMW, but I should have checked the official site of the club as you did. Luxic (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Matthew hk. You have new messages at Omgosh30's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Matthew hk. You have new messages at Omgosh30's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Matthew hk. You have new messages at Omgosh30's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Matthew hk. You have new messages at Omgosh30's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE: Luca Lagnese

I don't understand why you would threaten to call on my edits. I got the info specifically from one of the references that I specifically leave. And also, not always am I the one to put the wrong number of appearances even if I was the creator of the article. I have made some errors in the past just as everyone has, and you always seem to point at me. Juve10 (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Pedro Obiang

Pedro Mba Spain U17: 24/02/2009 http://rfef.es/index.jsp?nodo=39&ANYO=2009&CATEGORIA=7&ID=1161 Spain 2 Romania 0; 26/02/2009 http://rfef.es/index.jsp?nodo=39&ANYO=2009&CATEGORIA=7&ID=1164 Spain 0 Romania 0

Mega60 (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Anderson

No the UEFA article did not say loan back. All it said is he would return to Brazil to REST before the start of the campaign.

• The Annual Report 2005/06 of Porto ([10]) p.011 says that Porto took on Anderson in the January transfer window of 2006.
• Man United website ([11]) says he joined Porto in Jan 2006.
• A much more recent UEFA source ([12]) says that he joined Porto in December 2005.
• The Portuguese source seems to say that Anderson was signed by a consortium and then he was DUE to sign for Porto. We couldn't be sure the deal happened according to schedule.

I consider Man Utd and Porto to be the most reliable source since they have first hand access to the player. Craddocktm (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If your point on Gestifute is right, it isn't possible for Anderson to join Porto in June 2005, since FIFA rules would make that transfer illegal and void. Therefore, strictly speaking, he was only signed by Gestifute in June 2005 and did not join Porto until January 2006. Craddocktm (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2010 Copa FGF

The article 2010 Copa FGF has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While this local competition in general may meet WP:N, articles about single seasons are not deemed notable by WP:FOOTY. Furthermore, the main article of this competition does not exist yet. Please create Copa FGF with general information about the competition.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 15:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Vid Belec

All set. It's unprotected if you'd like to create an article. Thanks for letting me know! PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Matthew hk's Day!

Matthew hk has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Matthew hk's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Matthew hk! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Saint Martin (France)

Category:Saint Martin (France), which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Andrea Caroppo

Okay, look, I know i have made errors based off of information in the past, but its not like this all just comes out of my head. Im not purposely making erros such as the one of Andrea Caroppo, in which i meant to fix myself anyway, or silly errors like that of Andre Cuneaz, but if I know its false, i fix it or someone else does. I dont understand why you make such a big deal about it. Bock me over a silly error? Common man. It happens Juve10 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Matthew hk. You have new messages at Luxic's talk page.
Message added 23:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Maycol Andriani

The article Maycol Andriani has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:ATHLETE due to not having played in a fully professional league

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TM 03:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)