User talk:JimmyMac82

This user may have left Wikipedia. JimmyMac82 has not edited Wikipedia since July 30, 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello JimmyMac82, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- SoothingR 10:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why do you keep removing the factual information that part of the ancient parish of Thurmaston is now within Leicester city's borders? Unexplained removal of information is frowned upon. Thanks, Morwen - Talk 17:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Details on LCFC page

Hi You appear to have mistakenly changed the position of new leicester winger Kaebi from MF to DF. Obviously not a significant thing, however as per almost every source he is indeed a winger (although Im aware in the world cup he played as a wing back). A few of the sources are here (football365, BBC, His own wiki page, the Sun): http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8720_2471012,00.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossein_Kaebi http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/wolverhampton_wanderers/3291187.stm http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2002390000-2007270148,00.html Additionally skysports has Kaebi as a winger also, though I cant remember the link! Please do not revert this change-but keep up your other good work on the LCFC page. Thanks!

'James, please refrain from your sarcastic and opionated comment. Id suggest constructive disccusion rather than writing 'digs' comments on one and others talk pages. It seems to me in this situation there are a large number of references for both sides of the argument - as you say, even the official LCFC website says he is a winger, and then later mentions he could be described as a pacey right back. Seems fair to me that we go by whatever the club themselves catagorise him as. Why dont we agree to set him up as whatever he is on this link: http://www.lcfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/ProfilesDetail/0,,10274,00.html The club havnt updated him yet, and im happy to leave him as a defender until then. Sound like a good compromise?

Looks like you were quite right - the city website is updated with Kaebi as a defender - will be interesting with him and Stearman competing for right back then. Cheers Iambalrog 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football club wikilinks

Hi there - just saw your contribution to England national football team. Just a quick note about wiklinking to football clubs - some clubs (e.g. Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Middlesbrough) have to be linked to in full, as their names coincide with the places they are based in. So rather than linking to Liverpool, you should link to Liverpool F.C. to get it right. If you just want to link to Liverpool but don't want the F.C. to show, then you can pipe your links using the vertical bar character, e.g. [[Liverpool F.C.|Liverpool]] will produce Liverpool.

Also, do check when linking to a footballer's name that the article about him exists there - some footballers (e.g. David James share their name with another person, and have (footballer) in the title after their name to disambiguate them. You can use the piping trick for them as well.

Hope the above helps. Happy editing! Qwghlm 19:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

England national football team

Could you and User:Mandel please consider discussing your differences of opinion on Talk:England national football team rather than continually reverting each other's edits. You are both in danger of violating the three revert rule. Thank you.

Respectfully, Qwghlm 18:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal squad

I could equally demand an apology from you. I myself have put a lot of work into creating the Template:Football squad player template, and converting football squad pages to use that template - take a look at my contributions from the 30th and 31st if you like. I have gone through and convert the text on 14 Premier League team pages into a standard template form and will be doing the same for the Football League ones. That template has been well discussed and debated by various football Wikipedians, while your contribution was entirely arbitrary. You simply obliterated all my hard work in favour of your version, with no prior discussion or proposal, nor did you even give any reason for doing so in the edit history.

I have enunciated my reasons for reverting at Talk:Arsenal F.C.#Squad_templates. You're welcome to discuss them there. Qwghlm 10:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although one part of my reason for reverting was down to opinion that the information was not necessary (though it is not just mine, but also the general consensus of those working on WikiProject Football), it did also mention it was changing back to the standard template. It was quite clear from the source code that it used a template, and even provided a link to instructions and further information about how to use it, in a commented-out line at the top. It would have been appreciated if you had considered the fact a template existed and that some effort had been put into setting it up that way, before overwriting it with your own format. Qwghlm 11:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be civil

It's not hard, please try and be civil... WP:CIVIL and not slag folk off in edit summaries (like this). Thanks/wangi 13:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:A maybury.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:A maybury.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree Image:41301440 fryatt empics 270.jpeg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:41301440 fryatt empics 270.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

ITN Sports highlights

Take a look at a selection of ITN's sporting highlights from the past two months:

And over the past week, there have also been items on the US Open golf major and Roland Garros tennis tournament. That's a rather diverse selection of international sporting events. Because of the NHL's two week break during the Winter Olympics in February, it just so happened that the NHL finals ended within 36 hrs. of the NBA final. That's the only reason why both events ended up in the same space of ITN the last couple of days.

Please be more careful with your future comments and avoid riling up people; please assume good faith. Don't make such bold claims, without doing any research first.

Cheers --Madchester 00:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SERIE A

All I did was remove the changes that I had made just 10 minutes earlier. Look at the history of the page and you will see me there twice. After I made the first change (noting that Juventus had lost 2 titles) I noticed that the editor just before me did not want any changes made to the SERIE A page until some future time and I just followed his advice and changed things back to 29 titles and will let someone else edit the page.Juveboy 23:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF

WTF are you talking about? Jooler 13:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jooler 13:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bomb

Re: [1] - Look, deaths are a tragedy, but that doesn't make them necessarily notable. Otherwise, we'd have every death from a car crash posted on the Wikipedia main page. The Apollo and Viking missions were hugely significant to humanity as a whole, and that's why they get featured. There was no need to wig out at me, and certainly no need to threaten to have me banned from Wikipedia. 67.50.35.181 02:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that was me, sorry. — ceejayoz ^talk 03:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider individual rocket attacks in the middle east to be "just another incident", as well. They're not notable alone. The Israel-Lebanon conflict is notable; a Katushya attack is not (unless it itself does something notable, like blowing up someone important or something). — ceejayoz ^talk 16:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stalker

He has openly admitted that deliberately popping up on votes regarding American English vs. British English after I've been there. Can you please try to be sensible and compartmentalise disputes and not make them personal. It's part of WP:CIVIL. Comments such as your last one on page don't really achieve anything useful to anyone, yourself included. Jooler 07:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't left the discussion open-ended and walked off. I do have a life outside of Wikipedia and outside of that particular page you know! I didn't check over the last few days until you decided to flame me on my talk page! I was the last person to leave a message on the subject under the thread - What happened to the table? on 8 July. After that someone added the positions again and then someone else removed the postions once again proving that there is no consensus to keep the positions, you reverted and then I reverted you. You responded to my last message and then I responded to you! I haven't even look at the at the project page since then to know whether the positions are on the page or not! I have made my position perfectly clear several times, and there's no need to repeat what I've already said a dozen times. I am not the only one who does not think the "positions"/rankings should be there. Now get off of my back! Jooler 11:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said the last message on on 8 July - i.e. before the recent reversions. I've repeated myself too many times to do it again and I have no intention to respond to your last message which has nothing to to with the subject at all but is your demand for me to apologise, when I have nothing to apologise for. Jooler 12:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Midlands

Why have you just reverted the changes that I made to the East Midlands article? I corrected the emra URL (the one you reverted to is no longer valid) and corrected the regional HQ to Melton Mowbray, which is where the East Midlands Regional Assembly is based. Surely the location of the regional assembly is the government HQ for the region? The changes that I made were certainly not vandalism and I don't appreciate the suggestion that they were. --Michig 19:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jimmmmmmmmm! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. —Xyra e l / 07:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester City

Thanks for the message. Sorry about deleting the one of ten clubs in the top two tiers of English football comment , I was trying to incorporate stuff from misc facts into the intro, I must have deleted it and forgotten to add it to the intro. History, I agree with your point about uneveness-it's natural really if you go really far back, I suppose they could be more eveness between the late 50s to late 80s stuff compared with the 90s to the present. Regarding kit-you are right, see this page. I agree with what you've done to the manager section so far-I'll move my comments on each manager to the dedicated history of leicester city page if they are relevent. The statistics for manager wins/draw/defeats are available on the internet here (click on each manager individually]. Unfortunately I won't have access to a computer for a few days though. Cheers, Deus Ex 18:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah i just moved it to the history section its fine there as is Skitzouk 16:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

because its the currten era so is more importants as the change in the club will be rapid. Skitzouk 17:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i really dont care about the arsenal section, further more i did not create the milan era section just moved it into history, stop being so pompus it doesnt matter if the artical is featured or not the only people that care are leicester fans. Skitzouk 18:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if it bothers you that much set up a fan site then no-one but you can edit it as for me i do take care to write and structure things as best as i can WHEN I ACTUALLY WRITE THEM i did not create that section i moved it, and btw you did not write the whole leicester page it has been here since befor you were a member Skitzouk 19:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JimmyMac, just to let you know, even if you did or did not write most of the article concerned, nobody owns articles on Wikipedia, so don't try and disuade Skitzouk from editing because of this. If he makes bad edits there are better ways of getting your point across, for example pointing him to guidelines and policies. Thanks. John Hayes^talk 15:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read the whole conversation, and I did realise you were acting in good faith, and in the best interests of the article, which is why I have also been talking to him about the article (see his talk page), and why certain standards have to be kept. I just wanted to make sure that you didn't scare off someone who could be a valuable contributer in the future. Thanks for the reply John Hayes^talk 20:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tbh i dont edit the history section much unless i spot vandalism i'm more concerned with the players sections and individual articals, i have no problem with there not being a milan era section, i also am not bothered if there were all i did was take it from being a stand-alone section to a sub-section in the relevant section, i only glanced over it and tbh i 4t most had been previously mentioned, as for the rivalries i am concidering a slight re-write but wasn't sure how to structure it, last time i edited it was to add the o'neil-villa thingSkitzouk 19:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries

my addition is up there, if you feel it needs re-wording or restructuring then feel free

true you cant refrence it properly as my only refrence is conversations i've had with different fans, as for the logo's i'm sure you nicked them from someone else befor hand anyway ;) and no i din't add the pics Skitzouk 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

air speed man seems to have a problem with that section as he keeps adding the unrefrenced tag, do you have any? because that muppet seems to insist on them for it even though anyone with any common sence knows its all true. Skitzouk 11:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LCFC

Having looked through the article it's a lot better, I'm short of time now but I'll have a more detailed look later tonight or tomorrow morning. I don't think it will need much more work to be honest. Qwghlm 17:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football Managers

Thanks for adding more footballers and managers to wikipedia. As your articles are quite short, they are classified as stubs. When you finish adding a page, please add {{England-footy-bio-stub}} at the bottom of the article to allow other users to find your articles and to help you expand them to their full potential. AA Milne 14:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester City FAC

FAC can be, shall we say, character building. You're not that far off getting Leicester City featured, the things which need polishing should be achieved in the reasonably near future. I'll run through the article some time this week to deal with parts of the prose objections, and to assess exactly what needs doing before a second go at FAC. While you may be frustrated at User:Tony1's objection, he has written some good advice about copyediting at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a, you might find some of that useful. Oldelpaso 20:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

League Cup Final 1965

Hi. I've recently created an article on the 1965 League Cup final between Leicester City and Chelsea. I have the Chelsea line-ups for the final, but have struggled to find a definitive source for the Leicester line-ups (see here and here, for instance, for conflicting information). As a Leicester City fan, I was wondering if you could confirm these details. Thanks. SteveO 20:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Henry

I have responded to your last comment on the TH talkpage, here. If you have any other questions about the international or club templates, feel free to ask me directly. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 20:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Momo Sylla

Hi,

What is the copyright status of the image on the Momo Sylla page? Is it really public domain? Thanks. Nach0king 10:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Brasilsquad03.jpeg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Brasilsquad03.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 05:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Midlands Airport

I'm not sure what your problem is with the link I provided for the name. At this point I am begining to feel that you are not assuming good faith. I know full well that Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided says that links requiring registration should be avoided. However, in this case there is no other available link and at least it is free and anybody reading the article can check it easily. To check the references for Canadian airports would cost you about £45 to get the necessary manual. If you found an article that referenced a book that is no longer in print would you remove the parts of the article that were using it for a reference because something like that is much harder to verify. I am also interested in this edit. Where are the references for that? In the two links provided at the bottom of the Jason Jarrett (footballer) article they both say he is still with Hull. Should I revert that as unreferenced or should I assume that you know what you are talking about? But then I shouldn't have to dig about for that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:East Midlands Airport#Nottingham East Midlands/East Midlands before reverting again. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple references

Multiple references - easy peasy. For the first time you do the reference, do this:

<ref name="webRef">{{cite web | ... }}</ref>

Then the second, third times etc, use this as shorthand:

<ref name="webRef"/>

Note the additional slash between the " and > characters in the second example.

A decent example of this would be Emirates Stadium, which references the same webpage four times through the article. Hope this helps. Cheers. Qwghlm 00:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester City PR

You hadn't archived the first discussion so I did it for you. :) The archive is available at Wikipedia:Peer review/Leicester City F.C./archive1 while the current discussion is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Leicester City F.C./archive2 - I copy & pasted your comment kicking off the second PR into that one - hope that's OK. Make sure all future discussions are made in the new PR page not the archive. Cheers. Qwghlm 17:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Wesolowski.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wesolowski.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Iamunknown 20:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is....

How is the WORLD Snooker Championships not notable? I'm not adding the Masters or the UK Open this the highest achievement in this sport. Just because Amercan's don't play it doesn't mean it's not popular. Jimmmmmmmmm 13:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I am sorry if you feel aggrieved that an entry you have made to the historic events section of the “this day in history” pages has been removed, it is nothing personal. Also to correct your wild assumption of my nationality I am British, or more precisely English and resident in Hampshire.

Further while you will have noticed edits that I have made to snooker you seem to have overlooked my removal in the last 48 hours of: Super Bowl entries, North American Ice Hockey games, opening of some American Sports stadium, NASCAR events, the death of an American race horse. Also from events: Elvis receiving his draft papers as well as the birth of Jesus Christ and the death of Stonewall Jackson, both of which were already in their correct sections on the page, the silly coincidence in American date time format of 1:23:45 6/7/89 from 7th June, some American Rap Artists 8th album and the first 30 minute episode of the Simpsons.

All those having been noticed while reverting a hundred vanity birth entries, which of course indicates why if you post items to days around the current day as with your Snooker ones they will get noticed.

Please feel free to put back the more notable of the entries, I won’t remove them but there is every possibility that others will, I saw somebody else’s edit summary mentioning their feeling of non-notability. --Drappel 14:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Leicester City.png

Hello, Jimmmmmmmmm. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Leicester City.png) was found at the following location: User:Jimmmmmmmmm. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Leicester-City.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Leicester-City.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

username blocked

Your account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, contains the word Wikipedia or the name of any other Wikimedia Foundation project, or is otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username. Wikipedia:Username policy provides guidance on selecting an appropriate username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under an inappropriate username. If you would like to discuss the block, you may appeal on your talk page or email the administrator who blocked you. Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism or impersonation of another user, we will remove that block as soon as possible.

If you want to keep the contributions from your old account for your new username, please follow these directions:

Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} to your user talk page. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked.
You will have 24 hours after the unblock to file a request on Wikipedia:Changing username before you may be re-blocked. Note that this can only be done before you create the new one. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username. In many cases (especially if your account has few or no edits), it is a lot easier to create a new account.

This is specifically because the name consists of a lengthy or apparently random sequence of characters, e.g. "aaaaaaaaaaaa" or "ghfjkghdfjgkdhfjkg", in this case "mmmmmmmmm".--Chaser - T 19:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Allowing username change to JimmyMac82 (talk · contribs). Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking.

Request handled by: Chaser - T 23:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you can still edit your talk page while blocked. It's not necessary to create another account.--Chaser - T 23:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

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 which gains a consensus among editors. --Mais oui! 07:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LCFC Talk page

i started a topic on the lcfc talk page i'd appriciate your opinion on mate ;) --AfTaDaRkCrU 19:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation in Image:Elvis hammond.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Elvis hammond.jpg, by Angelo.romano (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Elvis hammond.jpg is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Elvis hammond.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 10:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lathaniel Rowe-Turner

the OS made a typo on his name in the squad section, if you read the match report from either saturday or tonight you'll see i put the correct version. AfTaDaRkCrU 23:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Midlands Airport

I'm not sure what your problem was here as you didn't leave an edit summary but the information I added was fully sourced. I assume that you have a problem with "Nottingham" still being in the title. I am looking at the "UK AIP (15 Mar 07) AD 2-EGNX-1-1" which says the airport is still being called "Nottingham East Midlands" by the UK government. I also accept that the link to the ICAO document is dated 20 July and does not have Nottingham in the title of the airpoirt. However, as the National Air Traffic Services which is part owned by the UK government is still showing Nottigham then that is what pilots will see. If there is a problem with anything else in there then let me know and we can work on it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you didn't bother to reply. I have updated the infobox with sourced material but left out the Nottingham name that I assume is causing your displeasure. Of course according to this the name is "East Midlands Airport: Nottingham, Leicester, Derby". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I was not searching for a page that tells me what I wanted. I was using reliable sources that are used in multiple airport articles on WIkipedia. The National Air Traffic Services, which is 59% owned byt the UK Government, and the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation are valid sources, both of which still use the older name. I am not disputing that the airport is referred to as East Midlands Airport, however pilots will look at their Aeronautical charts and the Aeronautical Information Publication and they will see that the airport is listed as Nottingham East Midlands Airport, so it's not wrong just an alternate name. This alternate naming is quite common and can be seen at Liverpool John Lennon Airport (Liverpool Airport), City of Derry Airport (Londonderry/Eglinton Airport), City Airport Manchester (Manchester/Barton Aerodrome) and Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport (Winnipeg International Airport) to name a few. So correctly the common name is "East Midlands Airport" and the less common name is Notingham East Midlands Airport. All I want to see is the full and correct information used and if at some time in the future the AIP drops the Nottingham then I would have removed it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Murray

Andy Murray is Scottish. Nothing you say or do will change that. You can blather on and on about how British is his nationality. It's not though. He is a British citizen, not a British national, nor is there such a thing as being of British ethnicity.

You are pushing your own agenda. I am proud to be Scottish, so is Andy Murray. He has stated as much quite explicitly. You are proud to be British, and there's nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with being proud to be English. You cannot strip people of their identity, though. By referring to Andy Murray as "Scottish", "British" is inferred.. The article is about Murray, not his tennis. The fact that he has reprsented both Scotland and Britain is irrelevant, in actual fact. The man is Scottish. Tim Henman is English.

It is nonsense to say that there is no sch thing as being Scottish or English. These countries have a longer history than the United Kingdom and that should be recognised. You do not have a national football team if your nation is not recongised as such. Even leaving all that saide, the consensus is that Murray should be called "Scottish". You are going against the consensus, not to mention insulting wikipedia users. Do it again and you will be reported. 82.40.19.192 23:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your own page contradicts your stance on Andy Murray. Your page says that you are proud to be English. How can you be proud to be English if "being English" is not possible? Murray is proud to be Scottish and the article reflects as much. It was decided long ago that he should be referred to as Scottish, so quit going against what has already been decided. You are pushing your own agenda. 77.102.8.117 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Murray

Murray has long since been described as Scottish. It was decided months ago. Just because you were not part of the discussion does not invalidate it. You are in the minority and going against the general consensus amounts to vandalism. Clydey 13:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say that this is now POV-pushing. The article says both "British" and "Scottish"- the only motive for removing one of them would be to push a particular POV. So please let the article have both- it is accurate and reflects common usage in the media etc. where a Scot can be described as Scottish, British or both, an Englishman as English, British or both, etc. Please do not push POV Lurker (said · done) 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rr report

Please see here. My apologies... • Lawrence Cohen 16:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I expected it. I was sticking to policy and had included 4 highly trustworthy references and Clyedy kept changing back. Do you have any idea where I can start a dicussion when my ban is over about getting rid of this Scottish power drive which seems to want to stamp every Scottish related article with Scotland al over it, even when other nations are using British. How can something be consensus when it goes against what the vast majority of article of a simular subject are doing? JimmyMac82 08:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit-warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Andy Murray (tennis). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Leicester. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tiptoety 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester

No, you need to be more careful, when you remove that much content from an article and do not explain yourself in the edit summary, than your edits appear to constitue vandalism. Tiptoety 22:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did read the article, and that is why i warned you, you removed a large amount of info, yes it may have been a little un-encyclopedic, but unless you have discussed it on the articles talk page, stated why you removed all that content in the edit summary, or not removed so much of the article, there would not have been this problem. Tiptoety 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say what you wish to say, removing that much content w/o using and edit summary deserves a warning, and by the way i warned you with a level 1 vandalism warn (which if you do not know, level 1 assumes good faith!) Tiptoety 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the text you removed was your own, or if you were the creator of the article and had just created it, i would not have reverted the edit. But due to the fact that you are aware of wikipedia policy's i believe a friendly reminder not to remove content w/o explaining yourself is not wrong, and is justified. Tiptoety 22:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Leicester-City.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Leicester-City.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Rab_douglas.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rab_douglas.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Kisnorbowatfordceleb.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Kisnorbowatfordceleb.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Stephen_hughes.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Stephen_hughes.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Paddy_mccarthy.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Paddy_mccarthy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Momo.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Momo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Tiatto.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tiatto.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:NEJ.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:NEJ.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Stearman.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Stearman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Henry FAC

As you had once nominated Thierry Henry for FA, you might be interested to know that the article is another FAC at the moment. Thanks, Chensiyuan 08:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Ladies Name Change

Try and be cival please, no need for rude edit summaries. Plus the name change has come about because Leeds stopped funding and the met started it, you should have removed the part about United stopping funs. JimmyMac82 (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I made my edit due to the information being fully incorrect. If Leeds had changed their name due to Bates removing funding then this would have occurred back in 2005 when the funding was removed, this however did not occur. Leeds Met Carnegie invested in 2007 (Last summer) however the club did not change their name. The reason for this name change is due to Leeds Met Carnegie wanting the Carnegie name as part of all the sports teams they are invested in, as I altered the article to state. I'm not sure why you are so offended by the edit summary, however it wasn't intended to cause offense, it was simply intended to indicate that I had altered the incorrect information to correct info.81.109.209.241 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest it was the "Erm no...." Maybe I'm being over sensitive but it indictate that are you a belittling people, it's a little "I know more than you and I'm going to show it, you idiot" If you going to edit arcticle please do so and leave edit summaries for what you have done, and just that, without belittling people.

As for the article, ok United stopped funding 3 years back and then the Met started last year and this year changed the name to fit with the others the Met invest in, and thats the whole story. You can't just leave the part about United out because it happened 3 years back, that event, obvoiusly directly resulted in the Ladies changing their name. JimmyMac82 (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you're reading way too much into my comment however I'm certainly not after an argument on the way user's perceive comments. The only other point I would make is that information on Leeds United withdrawing funding hasn't been removed, nor has it been denied. It's freely available in the "Financial Background" section. It's not in the name change section as if removing financial support had a bearing on the name change the club would have changed their name as soon as the financial support was withdrawn back in 2005. 81.109.209.241 (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello JimmyMac82! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 5 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Ian MacFarlane (footballer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League

Hi, just out of curiosity, when you made this edit did you read any of the comments? You just introduced delibirate factual errors on that article. Vardy had not scored 9 goals "as of 5 October" like the infobox said. When a infobox is updated you should update "EVERYTHING" according to sources, including the timestamps so others know it has been updated. Qed237 (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I missed changing the date, I apologise. But clearly the previous editor didn't bother changing all the stats on the page to match, so there's mistakes all over the place really. One thing I will say, it wasn't a deliberate factual error, it was mistake, and I don't like the tone of this message, and judging by your talk page I'm not the first person to take offence at your attitude. Calm it down a bit and be civil, don't throw accusation around, when people are have clearly made honest errors. JimmyMac82 (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to assume good faith when there is a lot of info in the hidden comments, that it seems like you completely ignored. And no previous mistake was made, as said the entire infobox is updated once, when all sources has been updated. Qed237 (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, if you had updated only Vardy goal, and then timestamp, all of the other stats in the infobox would have been wrong. For example it would not have been correct attendances "as of 17 Ocotber" since they were updated 5 October. Qed237 (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake was made by whoever updated the table in the main article and nothing else. That said you still talking to me like a piece of shit and being unpleasant, so let's just leave it there before I say something I regret. I'll repeat my point though about being civil, and me not being the first person to mention your attitude to you. I tried to help, but clearly I don't edit on here as much as you. JimmyMac82 (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm sure it's quite easy to assume good faith when my edit clearly wasn't vandalism. Vardy has scored 9 goals, I made mistakes in not editing other parts but it's clearly been edited with the intention of being correct. JimmyMac82 (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JimmyMac82. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]