User talk:Chanheigeorge/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

JUANFRAN

Hi there GEORGE, VASCO here,

thank you for your help in reverting to the proper national team stats in Juanfran's article. There is a chap who keeps reverting, using ENDLESS anonymous IP, from the proper 11 caps-0 goals, to 13-1. I already told him to please read FOOTBALLDATABASE.COM link and Spanish national team link i named NATIONAL TEAM DATA. Apparently he either does not know English or is just a vandal. Either way it would not surprise me...and the situation is getting a bit annoying.

From Portugal, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

FIPS codes are different from ISO 3166

Hi George, Sorry, I also correct in Portuguese, thanks. Jurema Oliveira (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

New flag templates

Hello Chanheigeorge, I saw your creation of {{flagicon simple}} and {{flag nodata}}, but then subsequently decided to use new country data templates (for the Walloon Region and Flemish Region) to accomplish the task you were looking to solve (which was the right thing to do, in my opinion). Do you still want those two templates, or can we delete them per WP:CSD#G7 with your permission? Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I should say that if you agree, just let me know here. No need to actually put the {{db-author}} tag on all of them. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

World Cup

"...Brazil has...." is correct since the subject is singular ie a single team known as Brazil. "Have" would be correct if the sentence said..."the Brazilians have won......" Will you revert...or should I????--Buster7 (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The following has been moved from my page for continuity.--Buster7 (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the singular or plural debate has been there for a while. People come in and often edit it one way or the other. I'm not an expert, but comparing the two sentences:

• Brazil, the only team to have played in every tournament, have won it a record five times. They are....
• Brazil, the only team to have played in every tournament, has won it a record five times. It is....

The first one seems to be better. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Brazil is the subject word of the sentence in question. It is a singular word and requires a singular verb. Brazil, used here, refers to the singular team....one of many teams. For example, in order to use the verb "have' we would need to change the subject word from 'Brazil' to 'The Brazilians'.

• He,she,it 'has'...Brazil, a single entity
• they 'have' ......Brazilians, the members on the team.

I hope this explains why the second structure is the correct one. --Buster7 (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

More World Cup

You just deleted the following:

• On only two occasions since World War II (1978 and 2006) has neither of these two teams contested the final.

I wonder why. I thought it was a very interestring Sport Trivia type fact. Were you going to move it? It added to the article.--Buster7 (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Didn't know you were here until your edit on Beijing! Any other common friends of ours here? HkCaGu (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Help!

Hi there GEORGE, VASCO here,

Since you help me before, i tell you again: what can we do with this vandal, anonymous? He keeps changing infoboxes at his pleasure, and inserting lies. Take this four examples, Arnaldo Edi Lopes da Silva (here, he removed wikilink of PORTUGAL NATIONAL U21 TEAM and inserted just PORTUGAL, and has inserted lies about him being called up to the main national team), Juanfran (with all the links i provided, he still changes his national stats, and now has merged the U21 and A teams' stats, just because), Geraldo Alves (also removed national team link, and changed to nation) and Gustavo Manduca (he inserted national team lies, which i removed; How could he have scored against Belgium in the Olympics when this nation did not even appear? Also, checking - it is available on Wikipedia - the match reports of that competition, we can clearly see that Manduca did not score, against Belgium or any other team).

A common pattern? They are ALL AEK Athens FC players. Have a nice week from Portugal,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thought of this now: If you can't report this or do anything about, could you (please) tell me what steps to take? Thank you very much in advance, cheers! --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Colombia Departments

Hi, there's been a suggestion to change the naming convention for Colombia departments at Talk:Department_of_Caquetá#Discussion. Your input is requested. Thanks!--Aervanath (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Tsalenjikha district

A tag has been placed on Tsalenjikha district requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Naohiro19 revertvandal (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Khobi district

A tag has been placed on Khobi district requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Naohiro19 revertvandal (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Parishes of Guernsey

I have no strong views about whether it should be Parishes "of" or "in" Guernsey. What you should not do, however, is make such a change unilaterally - renaming categories is handled at WP:CFD. Furthermore, putting up the depopulated category for speedy deletion on the grounds that it has been empty for 4 days, when you only started emptying it 6 minutes beforehand, is completely inappropriate. I am reverting your changes; please list the matter at CFD if you want to continue with this. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 00:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

CFD nominations

Hello Chanheigeorge, thanks a lot for all your CFD nominations, whilst doing some of them I noticed that you haven't tagged the old categories, you can tag the old category with {{subst:cfr-speedy|new name}} Again, thank you for all the nominations, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

PS, I tagged your the latest nomination for you, cheers Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

1930 FIFA World Cup

The above article is being re-assessed as part of the GA Sweeps project The re-assessment has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass; otherwise it will fail. See Talk:1930 FIFA World Cup for things needing to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Pesaro and Urbino

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pesaro and Urbino, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Province of Pesaro e Urbino. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Monza and Brianza

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Monza and Brianza, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Province of Monza e Brianza. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - CAF Third Round

Note that: Nothing is decided for FIFA 2010 qualifications, still now. The situation is different for CAF Cup, but not for the WC. There are still 3 "away" matches so Cote d'Ivoire, for exemple, will ensure (still now) nothing. It could lose the other matches, it could be simply surpassed by Burkina Faso or other. Nothing is decided for WC qualifications. Only the 1st (per group) will be qualified. Greetings --95.234.25.103 (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

UEFA qualifying rounds

I was not aware of those other articles about qualifying rounds, but I would be happy to start an AfD for all of them when I get home from cricket practice, if you wish. – PeeJay 16:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of UEFA Champions League 2009–10 qualifying rounds

An article that you have been involved in editing, UEFA Champions League 2009–10 qualifying rounds, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Champions League 2009–10 qualifying rounds. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – PeeJay 21:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Brazil spots in Libertadores

Interesting. Thanks for informing me. I don't read Portuguese, just Spanish and English.
I'm confused at the same time. According to what you put, ":b) If the Copa Libertadores 2009 champion is not Brazilian, then #1, #2, and #3 go to Second Phase, and #4 goes to First Phase." There are five spots for Brazil. Brazil 1, 2, 3, 4 go to the second phase, and 5 go to the first phase IF the Libertadores champ is not a Brazilian team. So can you please check if this ":a) If the Copa Libertadores 2009 champion is Brazilian, then #1 and #2 go to Second Phase, and #3 and #4 go to First Phase." is correct since I'm guessing you read Portuguese. Digirami (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. Digirami (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Out of process category changes

Please do not empty categories without taking the proposal to WP:CFD. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Municipalities of Lithuania

The "List of" is necessary, per WP:LISTNAME. Besides the fact that these are featured lists and need to comply with the MOS to be of featured standards, "List of" implies that the article is merely a listing of the municipalities, while an article might go into the history and details of the divisions themselves. Compare Characters of Halo (a featured article) to List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters (a featured list). I respectfully ask you to revert your moves. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Champions League qualifying paths

Actually, according to http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/competitions/UCL/84/52/77/845277_DOWNLOAD.pdf and http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/format/index.html, the two paths are known as the Champions Path and the Non-Champions path, not the Best-Placed Path. – PeeJay 10:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Northamptonshire

Hi Chanheigeorge/Archive 5! A Top Priority article you have been involved with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Northamptonshire, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there. (This is a generic message. if it has been placed on your talk page inadvertantly, please ignore it.) --Kudpung --Kudpung (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Group by matchday?

You have just put through a whole lot of edits under group by matchday. However, this is not what you are doing, you are just putting lines between sets of matches played on the wsame day (or a day or two apart). Where matches have been postponed etc, you are no longer grouping by matchday - if you were, the matchday structure would be maintained (ie, the matches would be displayed out of chronological order). This is NOT the same as what has occurred in the CONCACAF hexagonal, (where the postponed match has been listed as "Round Five - rescheduled" rather than being "grouped by matchday") or what happens in CONMEBOL, which are the only pleases this is appropriate. I think these distinctions are highly arbitrary, and the edits are quite silly. Please reconsider. You might also want to consider how this sort of thing would play out in the UEFA context. Jlsa (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I noted you have many edits related to Moldova. If you are interested, please consider joining Wikipedia:MDL. Dc76\^talk 12:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Aston Villa Squad 1982 European Cup

Template:Aston Villa Squad 1982 European Cup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. – PeeJay 22:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cnote2

Sorry was on wikibreak, saw your message,[1] the template should be fixed now. Replied on my talk,[2] there are new features, updated the docs. Have fun! ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of George Dunlop (footballer)

I have nominated George Dunlop (footballer), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Dunlop (footballer). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Subdivisions

Have seen you created NUTS:CH :-), so I think it is now complete. What can be done with the naming, see

• Talk:District (made a list to analyze the topic)
• Talk:Districts of Portugal (some dispute, but nobody involves after the complaints. So I think X District is ok)
• Talk:Administrative divisions of Morocco

TrueColour (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I started sorting Austrian districts to better categories, not sure what to do with statuary cities, since they are not districts they should not be there at all. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Districts_of_Austria&diff=324114552&oldid=318076323 TrueColour (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

1958 FIFA World Cup qualification

Hi. I noticed that you made this [edit] ages, ages and ages ago. I was wondering if you had a link, source or citation as to where you got this information from? I would know to know why FIFA rejected the entry of Korea Republic. I seriously cannot find this information anywhere. Also told me ages to find ou who made this edit. Thank you very much. Bonesyardz (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed once again for your help and time. Cheers. Bonesyardz (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

I wish you Merry and Blessed Christmas. Have a great, happy and peaceful time, my friend. Hope 2010 will be good for you in editing. - Darwinek (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Redirect of Walloon Region to Wallonia

I agree with Oreo Priest who is redirecting Walloon Region to Wallonia.We really had a difficult discussion about that and that's the best solution Oreo Priest wrote. Because, in Belgium or Wallonia we do say 'Wallonia' if we are speaking of it as a whole. When ypu are in relationship with the administration and so on or in order to speak about the rules, tle laws, the civil servants, the powers... we are speaking about the Walloon Region. I think it is clear. When we are spending holidays in Paris in holidays, we don't say : "Nous passons quelques jours dans la Ville de Paris" but simply "Nous passons quelques jours à Paris". Don't you think it is the same in all the languages and all the countries? Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10