User talk:Tocino

Rje 14:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Yes, that is how you do it. Gran2 06:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

SUFC

You removed the semi-protection (which I had requested) in your first edit. The problem was that a host of anon editors have been adding POV comments every few seconds since the games ended today (mixed up with some valid edits from others). My apologies if I undid constructive edits as well - as a United supporter my day has been a bad one. -- roundhouse 17:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 20:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

British Isles/Islands of Great Britain and Ireland

Are you kidding me? That's an actual dispute? Who knew the Irish could be so picky about something so insignificant, eh? :D - PeeJay 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I see where you and others are coming from with regard to the naming dispute, and I agree that changing the wording of the phrase does sidestep the issue. It was a good spot. It just seems rather silly to me to replace a widely accepted name for not just Great Britain and Ireland but also the surrounding islands like Shetland, Orkney, the Isle of Wight, etc. with a rather verbose example of political correctness gone mad.

I'm glad you enjoyed your trip to North Wales. Did you get over to Anglesey? The views of Snowdonia from there are pretty spectacular. As for you going to see United v Benfica, I can only imagine it would have been quite an experience. I'm going to be going to the United v Inter game on 1 August for what will be my first ever United match at Old Trafford. The excitement is quite overwhelming, even more so when I received the tickets in the post on Saturday.

Anyways, keep up the good work with helping maintain the Man Utd article :) - PeeJay 20:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the match might be a bit of a mixed bag, to be honest. Since tickets went on general sale, I'll be expecting a pretty even distribution of genuine fans who don't have season tickets and prawn sandwich eaters who just want to have the stigma of having been to a United game. I'm going to be sat in the Stretford End, so I'm hoping I'll get a decent smattering of true Reds around me, all willing to sing with me. I'm really looking forward to seeing Anderson, Nani, Hargreaves and hopefully Tevez in action. Believe it or not, this will actually be the first time I've been to OT for about three years, so it will be interesting to see the new quadrants in the flesh. I might try and pick up the new home shirt while I'm there, if it's grown on me enough by the time the game rolls around. - PeeJay 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Chris.B 18:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ermmm... how was my edit vandalism? I posted my thoughts in the NPOV section and eight hours later Gibnews deletes them and someone's elses comments without explanation. --Tocino 18:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, he moved them to an appropriate section because it did not conform to the talk page guidelines. You deleted his reply to your comment, thus removing a legitimate talk page comment, an action which could be construed as vandalism. -- Chris.B 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I thought he just deleted them entirely. I didn't notice that he moved them into another section. --Tocino 18:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just take more care next time. -- Chris.B 18:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinny Testaverde

Good work scooping everyone else on the Testaverde Panthers signing. youngamerican (wtf?) 17:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Names

Hi. I noticed you were changing instances of Red Star Belgrade to the local name. You do have a consensus for all these edits changing names, I take it? I'm not saying I disagree with them, just asking. --John 02:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing them to what the article is currently named, FK Crvena Zvezda. Red Star Belgrade redirects to FK Crvena Zvezda, so basically I'm correcting the links. Also, the current UEFA Champions League 2007-08 season and UEFA Cup 2007-08 have the club listed as Crvena Zvezda. Besides correcting the links, it is also creating uniformity, so instead of one artcile using one name and the other using a different one, they're all linking to the same, correct link. --Tocino 02:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hillsborough Disaster

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I believe user: Vera, Chuck & Dave has also made three reversions in a 24 hour period as well. He keeps posting a controversial and offensive statement, then once it gets deleted he puts it back up and orders editors to "Wait for a citation". Well by that same logic I could type in on the New York article that, "Aliens have landed in New York!" and I could say, "Wait for a citation," when someone rightfully deletes it. --Tocino 21:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There's usually a grace period to allow people to add citations, unless it's in violation of WP:BLP. Your hypothetical example is clearly absurd, and you couldn't expect to keep such a statement in the NY article. This claim, on the other hand, is realistic. It would be acceptable to remove it if it remains for a couple of weeks without citation. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League 2007-08 group stage

I found the attendance numbers on the UEFA media services page: http://www.uefa.com/uefa/mediaservices/presskits/ucl/md=5.html See the Full-time summary report for the attendance stats. --Jacobko (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

List of countries by Human Development Index

You currently seem to be engaged in an edit war in the article, List of countries by Human Development Index, claiming that an edit by User:Ostiferia is vandalism. Please read WP:Vandalism and WP:Edit war to understand what vandalism is and that edit warring is harmful. My advice for you is to try and gain more input on the matter being debated on the talk page or through an RfC in a calm and civil matter. Any further edit warring without an attempt to gain a consensus may result in a block. Thanks very much. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment at WP:AN/3RR. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 22:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Crvena Zvezda

Hi, seeing you have been involved in the previous RM discussion, I thought you might be interested in this one too. BanRay 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 deaths

Hello Tocino. Are you certain Yitzhak Shamir has died? GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No. He was listed on the Deaths in 2008 article so I put him on the 2008 article's deaths section. --Tocino 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know...

What you said isn't true. See List of states that have recognised the Republic of Kosovo. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a list of states that are planning to recognize the Republic of Kosovo. They have yet to formally do so however. --Tocino 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

I reverted this edit, as you inadvertantly reverted my last edit. Article is moving too quickly... J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

All of the countries that will not recognize Kosovo will have a reason, please be patient. Thanks.--RobNS 20:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to do, but if we put an explanation for each country's action then it will clog up the list. I suggest starting a new section and in that section you can explain, in prose, why each nation is doing what. --Tocino 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

I understand what you're trying to do, but if we put an explanation for each country's action then it will clog up the list. I suggest starting a new section and in that section you can explain, in prose, why each nation is doing what. --Tocino 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, will look into it. Cheers.--RobNS 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo: Taiwan problem

Hi, I'm just here to thank you for helping me keep up the NPOV for the placement of Taiwan. Users, especially Konekoniku has clear political objectives in trying to place Taiwan in the top countries list. You can tell by his name that he is of Japanese origin, and the guy that complained, name's "K kc chan", is an avid pan-green and Japanese supporter. I think we both realize what kind of people we are up against. As for Mareklug, he has a large vocabulary, but i cannot fathom why he supports independance movements so much, as he is Eastern European (seen from his website). We must keep constant vigilance to keep the article as NPOV as possible. Since each person is only allowed to revert twice per day, I suggest we work together in making the necessary reverts in the article. And I'd still like to hear your view on abolishing placing ROC on the list at all, and instead put the party in the "parties striving for more independant" section. Thanks again! --Ruolin59 01:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo map

I would but let's wait for some statement from MFAs of those countries. If they are concerned about their secessionist movements there is big chance they might decide not to recognize Kosovo. --Avala (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Andre Carson‎ Move

FYI... there's a move function you could've used... it's the button at the top of every wikipedia page sitting between the "history" and "watch" tabs... ti does all the work for you... iteven moves the talk page.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh... ok. I've had to do that before too.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

maps on commons

Maps on commons are now locked because of mareklug who rv them with the same old huge comments about me being personal. I don't know how to fight this as he is really vocal and hides his vandalism very well by yelling how I am pushing POV edits and how he is removing them. Reality being I am adding sourced information which he dislikes so he just blanks them. If you are an editor on commons it would be nice to see some help as an admin didn't want to look into it, he just locked it and gave last warnings before block to me and mareklug. --Avala (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

2008: Too Many Events

About your recent comments, I could see why people would go to 2008 for updates on current events such as the Northern Illinois University shooting or such. However there are some articles deemed to vague such as some political events like elections that do not indicate the outcomes or the results as the US elections, Cuban elections, or Pakastani election have done. Whenever a new event is added, it should be scrutinized carefully from a historic perspective. It seems like this page is immitating the Wikinews and Portal: Current Events which to me, it should not since the year should only highlight events that significantly make that particular year noteworthy from a historical perspective. I look to a style similar to World Almanac or World Book Yearbook for a similar style.Birdienest81 (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

ROC

I don't want to start a huge debate, because where ever someone puts ROC it is going to be POV, for example i believe it should be with all the other states that recognise Kosovo and you disagree. However ROC does not fit under the category "Regions or political parties striving for more autonomy or independence", as it is not an autonomy or independence. It has never declared independence and it is not an Autonomy as it is self governed and administrated. It is recognised by 23 countries. it is also acknowledged by around 90 countries link as opposed to been officially recognised. So it should be in another category other than the one you have currently put it in and the one i put it in early too. The article is not for states which recognise the ROC, but for states that recognise Kosovo. So ROC is a state which recognise Kosovo. But to please both me and you so we don't disagree on where the ROC should be placed, i suggest that we put the ROC in a separate table below "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent" and call the table "Partially recognised States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent". Do you agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, its just the ROC is completely different to the other Partially recognised states and other entities as was once fully recognised and has moved to and island and countries are unable to officially fully recognise ROC due to the PRC. Loads of countries have unofficial representatives in the ROC. It shouldn't be put with the others and not with fully recognised countries too. So thats why it should be separate. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

maps

I have updated those maps per wp article. Mareklug edited them according to his POV and not according to sources which is not the good way to edit Wikipedia. If he can't edit cool headed he shouldn't do it. --Avala (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted most of his vandalism ie. removing sourced content but I've missed Cuba. I will edit it. --Avala (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia has recognised Kosovo

That translation said that Malaysia's representative in Kosovo has been working with UNMIK in Kosovo and will change its status at the right time. UNMIK (United Nations Mission In Kosovo) has stated that Malaysia's representative in Kosovo (Mustafa J. Mansor) has announced that Malaysia Recognises Kosovo, so Malaysia has now changed its Status. This is an extremely reliable and valid reference Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Kosovo

Hi, I saw your article on Controversy over Kosovo independence and it has great potential. It is well written and has plenty of references. You'd be a great addition to WikiProject Kosovo. I've just joined and am eager to develop Kosovo-related articles. Are you? Rayhou (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This user participates in
WikiProject Kosovo.

Re: Project Kosovo

Small edits are definitely needed as much as new articles, maybe even more. They are what keeps this thing updated, corrected and running. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am not familiar with creating articles either, but I'm learning and so are we all, even more experienced ones like you. I hope to see you around! Rayhou (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Grsz 11 05:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Grsz 11 05:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Sarah Obama

I need your help. You voted to keep the article on Sarah Obama on her talk page. Jfire thinks that vote is insufficent. He/She insists that you revote on the page that is trying to delete her entry.

Please click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Onyango_Obama and revote to save the article from deletion. There are now literally hundreds of articles mentioning her in the press. I don't know why people want to hide Obama's roots when, as you point out, George Bush's roots are on wikipedia. GreekParadise 17:00, 16 March 2008

You have violated the WP:3RR by performing 4 identical reverts in quick succession in International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

This documents your 4 reverts. This is probably result in a block. Per Wikipedia policy, you should voluntarily undo your forcible revert and self-report the violation. May I add, that you are completely off base, and disruptive, going against consensus yet again and deleting evidence for POV reasons.

• (cur) (last) 14:29, 25 March 2008 Tocino (Talk | contribs) (117,514 bytes) (Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Ossetia are all unrecognized states) (undo)

(cur) (last) 14:24, 25 March 2008 Mareklug (Talk | contribs) (117,731 bytes) (User:Tocino certainly does not own this article either. And acting to spite User:Mareklug is a silly reason. "State" vs. "region" distinction was agreed to by several users. Cuba, Mali info = relevant) (undo) (cur) (last) 14:17, 25 March 2008 Shanticm (Talk | contribs) (117,514 bytes) (→States which declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo) (undo)

• (cur) (last) 14:16, 25 March 2008 Tocino (Talk | contribs) (116,914 bytes) (user:Mareklug does not own this article... he has provided no sufficient reasons for reverting my work.... this vandalism needs to be punished) (undo)

(cur) (last) 14:07, 25 March 2008 Mareklug (Talk | contribs) (117,131 bytes) (Undid revision 200859458 by Tocino (talk) yes there was consensus ("state" vs. "region") and the Cuba, Mali info is not irrelevant.) (undo)

• (cur) (last) 13:52, 25 March 2008 Tocino (Talk | contribs) (116,914 bytes) (reverted vandalism from user:Mareklug.... there is no consenus for that title... removing irrelevant information) (undo)

(cur) (last) 13:36, 25 March 2008 Mareklug (Talk | contribs) (117,131 bytes) (Undid revision 200847600 by Tocino (talk) Vandalized heading (was consensus-supported). Also, covertly removed CUBA, MALI info!) (undo)

• (cur) (last) 13:01, 25 March 2008 Tocino (Talk | contribs) (116,914 bytes) (fixed title)

--Mareklug ^talk 19:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Military of England

Please feel free to revert the edit - and redirect it where you feel most appropriate. It was a joke - about the second I've made in a year-and-a-half of editing here. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

Tocino, please refrain from writing edit summaries such as this. Don't let your disagreements make you cross the line into incivility. It is really not productive and will only inflame a dispute. Furthermore, I shall remind you that International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence is under probation (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo, later superseded by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia), meaning that any users that persistently engage in edit wars may be banned from editing it. This warning is not just meant to you, I will remind everyone at the talk page. Please, calm down and talk your agreements henceforth instead of plunging into edit wars and incivility. It's the only solution. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 17:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

Don't take every edit personally is probably the advice I wish to give. As with all articles related to Kosovo, it is going to be a ton of edits that might stick for a day or two and will get removed or modified. This is a work in progress, so while right now a lot of things will be in that above article, sooner or later, it will have to be trimmed. I don't know when that will happen, but it maybe will take the summer. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect spellings

Im starting to get really annoyed with certain editors who demand for Pristina to be spelled in an non-english way such as "Prishtina". Then they start complaining that it is POV to spell it with out the "h". Its just the English way of spelling. Same goes with "Kosova", in English it has an "o" at the end, not an "a". We don't have things written in German or Arabic or Zulu, so why should we have things written in Albanian, its POV writing in Albanian. It is English wikipedia we are using, therefore commonsense tells me that we should spell things in English, not any other language.
Any way my point being, should me and you ask for an edit request for all the "Prishtina" changed to "Pristina" as it should be on English wikipedia? Will you support me yeh? Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ive posted an edit request for change of "Prishtina" Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC) We should spell Pristina the same way the Republic of Kosovo's Constitution does as that makes sense. Kosovo's Constitution spells it as "Pristina". Please read Chapter 1 Article 13 Kosovo's Constitution They can not disagree with that. Ha! Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Pristina

Please would you give your view here [1] Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Top scorers

I got the times from a UEFA press release from last night. This one. – PeeJay 07:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to believe that the PDF is probably correct. Artyom was telling me earlier that the website's stats aren't so accurate these days. For example, they added 90 minutes to Zlatan's total minutes played, when he'd only played 80 minutes of the last game. – PeeJay 21:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

I invite you, per aministrator User:Husond's suggestion, to the article talk page to please discuss, not forcibly revert, the issues and sources: for representing which countries officially did not recognize Kosovo's independence, which countries have expresssly called for continuing negotiations in the framework of Serbia vs. Serbia's province, and why three maps (countries that officially recognized; point of view #1 of all reactions; a competing point of view #2 of all reactions) is much more NPOV and inclusive of information than just having the point of view #1 map alone. Please provide evidence for each country you have listed in the above categories. Many of their characterizations are openly contested on the talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and are not documented in that article in the way you have characterized them within 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Official reactions of some of the countries you listed are not congruent with available information, for example Morocco or Portugal. I see a need to conservatively represent solid, official information, regardless of one's viewpoint. I hope you agree. Writing "several" may be a more reliable and verifiable characterization than attempting to list all countries by name, other than those officially recognizing. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 22:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replying on my talk page and for adjusting some of the countries. If only one map can be shown, as you say, without harm for layout, could we make it the NPOV map that is used in the international reaction article? I hope you see that using one of two POV maps, when the POV is contested by the other, is not NPOV. Also, with adjusting other graphics (photographs), I believe the display of all three maps as I arranged it can work. Please note that I put hte two POV maps under a common headline. It can be reinforced with a visible border, which I suppressed. --Mareklug ^talk 23:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Links

Are needed in each section so the reader doesn't have to continuously scroll up and down. Grsz^talk 16:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty annoying if you're looking in the 7th round, and you have to scroll the whole way to the top to get the link for USC. Grsz^talk 16:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Cup

What do you mean by "What if they decide to have a replay?" Kingjeff (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 UEFA Cup Final

As far as I can tell, the shortened form of FC Zenit Saint Petersburg that is used most often in that article is "Zenit St. Petersburg", yet you have changed the name under the diagram of the club's kit to "Zenit Saint Petersburg". Why is this? – PeeJay 07:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I made it seem like I was making a big deal out of this. However, in the interests of consistency throughout the article, I think it would be best to consistently refer to the team as "Zenit St. Petersburg". – PeeJay 17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

Tocino, this diff of yours was brought to my attention and I must report that such comments are totally unacceptable. Not only they are deliberately uncivil and constitute a personal attack, as they also denote Wikistalking of User:Mareklug and display a xenophobic attitude towards a particular group of people this user happens to be among (in this case, immigrants). All of this is highly reprehensible on Wikipedia, aggravated by the fact that it happened on an article that is under an ARBCOM probation, which you had already been personally informed about. This time I will just leave a firm admonishment, but the next time I witness this kind of behavior from you I will be forced to issue a topic-ban. So please consider adhering strictly to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA henceforth. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 03:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, regardless of any provocation that might have prompted you to respond in that way, there is absolutely no excuse for your words. You are also mistaken in your view that users who are non-native speakers of English should somehow have limited ability to criticize the English used by natives. And you are also mistaken regarding user pages. They are in no way a mechanism to transform Wikipedia into a "social networking website", but to simply provide some information about a user. For example, the fact that I state on my user page that I'm a bilingual English-Portuguese speaker has resulted in many users requesting me to provide translations or help at places where knowledge of Portuguese could prove useful. The stalking accusation didn't come from reading the boxes, but from investigating a user to learn that he was an immigrant, and attempt to use that fact to discredit him. "Immigrant" is indeed not an insult. But you clearly made it into an insult. Anyway I'm glad that you have vowed to be more careful in the future. Please do never resort to incivility, it leads nowhere. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 16:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

The recocnition is right. You should apoligize for what you have written.84.134.102.27 (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)