Hello, Juve2000, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 07:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. No problem. By the way, you can sign messages on Talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~. Thanks. —Whouk (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you reverted changes and stated that Juventus won the last two titles? They have just been stripped of them and the champions for those two season is not decided yet. Either way it's not gonna be Juve. Jimmmmmmmmm 21:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juve2000 - Please leave messages for other editors on their talk pages rather than their main user pages. It's more polite, and they're more likely to see a message on the talk page because a notice will pop up for them. I moved your message for Jimmmmmmmmm onto his talk page. Thanks, and see you around. - Tapir Terrific 23:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message: No problem! I just noticed it while going through the Recent Changes log - I tend to pay attention to user pages being edited by others because that's often a sign of vandalism, so it caught my eye. I figured it was just a mistake, though, so no worries! - Tapir Terrific 01:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the table of contents to the way you want it to be, with the '2006/2007 Italian Cup Season' being the 4th heading, and the quarters being subheadings of it, I also changed the Arezzo-Perugia game to its previous state, where it would let people know that the game ended 0-0 after 120 minutes. --- Tha Eastsydah 19:38, August 20 2006 (UTC)

We could use the Champions League style chart for all the games from the Round of 16 until the Final, it's a good idea actually, but we will see what we are going to do after the 3rd round. --- Tha Eastsydah 20:34, August 10 2006 (UTC)

Bracket

Good catch on the home/away detail on the bracket I added to Coppa Italia 2006-07. I had used the PDF bracket released by the Lega Calcio and copied it exactly. I went back and redid the bracket so that the top team in each pairing was the home team in the first leg. I don't know if brackets will be feasible for this next year's Coppa; I suppose we'll have to wait until the Lega Calcio releases more information. —Ed Cormany 01:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juve, It’s curious that none of these terms feels quite right and that each one of them is felt to be absolutely wrong or silly to at least some people. (It’s actually ‘municipality’ that I find really awkward, which I imagine has something to with my being English.)

As I said to Carlossuarez46 (whose message you will have seen on my talk page above yours, and whose preference is for ‘comune’ with anglicised plural ‘comunes’) it might be worth reviving the most recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#English_form_of_the_Italian_word_comune. I imagine that would be the best place to attempt to achieve a consensus. You might need to mention to people who were involved in the discussion that it had been rebooted.

However, there are a few similar discussions scattered around and they tend to end up half-agreeing on a different word each time. Personally I tend to use ‘commune’, because that’s the word my Collins Concise dictionary recommends for such municipalities in France, Belgium and Italy.

Good luck! It would certainly be useful to standardize the names of the various categories and lists; and, indeed, to standardize the structure of the category trees across the various regions: the Italian Wikipedia has them much better organized than ours.

By the way, I am curious to know which of my edits led you to my talk page. I tend to imagine that what I write in article space will remain unread for years.

Cheers! —Ian Spackman 22:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If we were starting from scratch, I’d be rather in favour of taking a more unstructured approach to writing about places in Italy. After all, outside of the info boxes we don’t write much about local government; and probably the last thing a reader wants to know about Pollenzo is whether it’s a comune, a frazione, a località, a municipio, a vocabolo (that’s new one on me—I’ve just found it in it:Frazione comunale), a rione, a municipalità, a circonscr… |falls asleep|.

• I always forget how to respond to these things. Does me editing my own 'user talk' end up on yours, or do I have to create a new heading on your 'user talk'? If I get no response from this, I will know its the latter. I will take your advice and open the discussion on the word 'commune'. I guess I dislike it because I associate the word with communist collective farming or hippy retreats. In my view, an Italian 'comune' is no different than, lets say, a Canandian municipality or city for that matter. They both have mayors and a city council. A frazione, to me, is an italian town that doesn't have its own government, and is dependent on the 'comune'.

• As for how I found you, I noticed you edited my revision of the Serie D (italian soccer) page. I have no complaints, but I'm curious how you came across my changes. I would have expected those that had recently edited the same page to be the first to make any improvements to my editing.

• I still have so much to learn about Wikipedia. Talk to you soon. Juveboy 00:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Serie D. I would have been watching that because I have made a few edits to Italian football clubs (either because they belong to places that interested me, or because something random took me there) and when one of them, A.S. Casale Calcio, got relegated from Serie C I thought I had better find out how significant a drop that was. (Interesting that the word Serie entered the English language so quickly, when we could quite easily have translated it as ‘Division’.)

As for the C-word, a problem for British English speakers is that all of the alternatives are pretty alien or technical. We don’t commonly talk about English ‘municipalities’. I think that when writing about a settlement it’s usually better to use terms like ‘city’, ‘town’, ‘village’ or ‘hamlet’, when it’s clear which of those applies. But quite often, even when not talking about the (fairly dreary) subject of local government, you do have to use an equivalent for comune. For instance when its used in the territorial sense—to describe the permitted production zones of a DOC wine or a DOP cheese, say. To talk about sheep grazing in a municipality seems very weird to me, though it may well be perfectly idiomatic in Canadian English. Sometimes here, too, circumlocutions are possible: ‘the vineyards surrounding the seven villages A,B,C…’. But it’s not always that simple.

By the way, I do think that you editors of Italian football articles are doing a great job. There’s an extraordinarily wide coverage, even of very minor teams. And the social-historical aspects are often fascinating even to lapsed fans like myself. (My own team, Swindon Town, got relegated last season, too.) Cheers! —Ian Spackman 10:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ya. I see you add to Italian Football articles from time to time. Just wondering if you want to check out Wikipedia:Italian Football. We are just hoping to organise our efforts towards improving articles better. If you want to sign up just put your name down under participants on the project. You can do as much or as little work as you like and any ideas on improving pages would be great. Niall123 19:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind signing up, but I do not know how to 'contribute' to the project. What exactly is done here? Juveboy 18:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JuveBoy. Certainly I remember you: you’re a Canadian aren�’t you? I don’t know whether I am a good person to ask, but here’s what I see. If I’ve understood the page history, so far only one anonymous user on one occasion has removed the club totals. You then re-inserted them because you thought they were useful. So nothing you could call a problem yet. Just a minor disagreement. But obviously you don’t want it to spiral out of control. (And skirmishes between just two editors can be the hardest to resolve because neither can be outvoted and walking away can look like bottling out.)

The first question to ask yourself is: which style do you think is the best? Does including club totals add to the article, or does it detract from the article by overloading it with extraneous information? There are arguments on both sides and be absolutely open to changing your mind! Also, is there really a standard? (There’s no rule to say that every article has to be formatted in the same way, but if lots and lots of similar lists are formatted in one way there is reason to follow that convention.)

If by then I had decided the anon was right I would change the format of the article to ‘his’ (or her) style along with an edit summary saying ‘Reformatted: on second thoughts I agree with [whoever]’.

But if I still thought I was right I think I would put a short note on the article’s talk page explaining why I preferred to include club totals, but adding that I was perfectly open to persuasion and inviting people to give their opinions. Then if the anon changed it again I would revert him, but include a polite note asking him to put his arguments on the talk page before changing again.

Another good approach would be ask for comments on the WikiProject Italian Football talk page. I am sure there are people there who would be happy to express their views.

(My view on the substantive issue, by the way, is that including the club totals is useful because it strikes me that it must be easier to score a lot of goals for a high-scoring team.)

Finally, the brilliant thing about this from your point of view is that it proves that someone is actually reading the page you have put the work into! I am sure that that is not always the case. I did quite a lot of work recently on a List of Italian Cheeses (it takes all sorts!). I imported it, following a pointer from an anon user on a talk page, from the Dutch Wikipedia and then went through it formatting, turning all the red-links into sensible red-links for the English-language ’pedia, starting to get sources for the cheeses (it is such a long list that it looks like a prank, especially when it includes cheeses with names like Bastardo di Grappa), adding a few new cheeses, etc., etc. I plan to do more work on it—adding or expanding descriptions, finding sources, clarifying which names are actually synonyns, reformatting (though I keep changing my mind as to what format would be the best. But: no-one else has edited it. Not even a robot!

Sorry for rambling. But keep up the good work, and enjoy doing it. —Ian Spackman 21:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page should be kept. I think there are a number of users who called for the Serie B detailed page to be deleted yet called for the Football Championship results to be kept. If you get maybe another vote or 2 to retain, the page won't be deleted on the grounds that no concensus was reached. Niall123 16:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You better have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Liga 2006/2007 results December 2006. Basically a non footballing wikipedian has nominated the detailed results sections of Serie A and La Liga for deletion. I'm personally totally against them being deleted. I've voted to keep the pages and I just thought I'd highlight this as you might want to vote either way on this. Thanks Niall123 18:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically a few non footballing guys with Administrator ambitions went around looking for things to delete. They saw the results and goalscorers pages and thought they were prime material for deletion. One guy even went and changed the rules of wikipedia just to strenghten his case for deletion. Add in a group of guys from the Football wikiproject who don't seem to add anything to wikipedia and all they seem to do is constantly vote of deletion pages in regards to football. NO real concencus was reached in reality, in fact, the majority vote in all cases was to keep, yet they all still got deleted. Niall123 18:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too found it very unusual that no reason was given. As I've said, the guy who nominated it is a wannabe Administrator and I think he's on a mission to show everyone how he's a marvelous wikipedian. I'm going to keep an eye on him. If he runs for admin, I'll vote against him. Niall123 19:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to see if you can expand the article to more then just an article. Maybe something about the scandal. Kingjeff 00:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that is very relevent to this season for Juve. Kingjeff 00:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; however, it was User:Daddy Kindsoul who splitted Serie C into Serie C1 and Serie C2. I just set up articles for the current season for all divisions from Serie C1 to Eccellenza. --Angelo 22:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is: the two playoffs finalists, and only these two ones, are placed at the top of the special table of replacement teams. So, in case three teams are cancelled by the federation, the first two to be elected for admission to Serie C2 are the two Serie D playoff finalists, and the third is not necessarily a playoff semifinalist. It's unclear if they would be admitted to Serie C2 in any case (there's a difference of views between the Serie C League and the Italian Non-League Association). --Angelo 17:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In every other 2006/07 season articles the participating clubs are placed before the classification. Why should we change it? CapPixel 13:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I moved the 2006/07 clubs from the general Serie C1 and Serie C2 pages to the specific seasons, as it has more sense. Anyway, during the season, also in Serie B the clubs were before the calssification and that was changed a couple of months ago, I think. Anyway, on the Italian Football project talk page we had agreed to take the Serie A 2006/07 season article as a model for the other seasons articles. I think the team details should be first for basically two resons: the participating teams are decided before the start of the season and the final classifications and ususally the "protagonists" are presented at the beginning of the "story".

Anyway I agree to move the discussion to the task force talk page, but I think it's not a major issue. CapPixel 13:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How far back does Serie D go? I can make the template quickly if you like. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - I've worked it out: {{Serie D seasons}}. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to leave them as redlinks, as even if they aren't filled in, it shows how far back the league goes, plus someone might be tempted to find out! пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By current format, I assume you mean the other Italian ones. As far as I'm aware, they and a couple of others are the only ones which do not conform to the standard version. And if we don't have standardisation within the same topic, where are we left? пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it was standard as it appears to be well laid out and appears in the largest templates, e.g. {{The Football League Seasons}} and {{FA Cup Seasons}}. You're more than welcome to bring up the issue on WT:FOOTY if you're unhappy. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the onus is on the people reverting. If someone makes a change and one doesn't like it, you have to have a decent reason (beyond not liking it) to change back to the original, especially when you consider that people might have spent a good amount of time coding such changes. If everyone reverted every time they saw an edit they didn't like, we wouldn't get very far. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Although the ones I gave an example above are only a year old, I reckon they are probably the oldest ones around. The whole "seasons" article phenomenon only took off fairly recently. As you can see from the history, the Serie A one was only created at the end of April. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's using a standard for other wikis, not for the english one. And telling the true, I don't really like the "new" layout. I think we should take the issue on the football project page. CapPixel (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, ok. Anyway the alignment that Number57 is using isn't the one agreed there. CapPixel (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with Number57's version I feel is in someways specific to the Italian articles. The way its aligned looks messy mostly because lots of the Italian leagues start in a season with "9" on the end, so it leaves an entire row with just one season making it look wrong. - Ordinaria (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way you left it (here) was fine. It would appear that User:CapPixel also agrees to this now (along with all but one editor on WP:FOOTY, so can we agree to use the decade alignment, but with 100% font. I don't really fancy any more edit warring :) пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, sorry i didn't get to write you a comment earlier, but i haven't been on Wikipedia in a few days. i'm not in favor of the changes you made to the brackets, especially adding the team's positions every place they appear. it makes the bracket very hard to read, and breaks the formatting in several places. also, as in the past i think we should only link team names in the brackets in the first round in which that team participates, but that is of less concern. —Ed Cormany (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi again. i think the best option is to fix the seeding section, listing how each team in the tournament qualified, and removing that information from the bracket. and yes, we need a way of indicating home teams. i am fairly certain (but will double check) that in the preliminary round brackets the top team is the home team in all cases, so we shouldn't have to do any template modifying or formatting, just make a note. —Ed Cormany (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my changes are based upon previous Coppa articles and other football tournament articles around Wikipedia. i checked WP:FOOTY to see if there was an official standard, and there was not, but if one did exist i'm sure it would be in agreement with the vast majority of current pages. i doubt you can find another league tournament page which lists each team's standing from the previous year each time it mentions them. on other league cup pages (for example the FA Cup), hundreds of teams that almost nobody has ever heard of are listed, and clicking through is the only way to find out more information about them. i agree that the seeding chart is unwieldy; if you have any suggestions on how to reformat it, i am open to those. as for the seedings, they are real, and were published by the Lega Calcio at [1]. finally, as for determining what level an unknown team plays at, the quickest way to do that is click on the team name and look on their article page. that is hardly inconvenient. —Ed Cormany (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 14:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, i've understood whta you're talking about, but i'm sorry to say that i haven't found a symbol for missing penalties yet. I think that nobody has already created it, because it's a little detail in a game... Sorry for not being useful. Pietro1992 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietro1992 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! No, there were other teams and other tournaments that weren't recognized by FIGC at the time. For example, the very first interregional football tournament in Italy was organized in 1896 by the Gymnastic Federation and the winner was Udinese, but this was never recognized by FIGC. CapPixel (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to make one. i don't want to risk screwing up. cause then other wiki people delete it and messaage you saying a whole buch of stuff. do you know hotw to make one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DVDdates (talk • contribs) 04:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you did a great job on the 2009 Toronto Blue Jays season. Just wanted to thank you for your help editing that, and helping deatil it so well. I hope you can contribute to the 2010 too. User_Talk:BlueJaysFan32 —Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The wording on that template was actually a long discussed situation and the consensus was to have it be what was on there prior to what you changed it to. The reason we call it reseeding is to make it clear that the brackets are not followed after the second round. Thus the highest seed left from the first round is reseeded #1 and the second highest is reseeded #2 and so on. They are re-seeded by use, if not by word. -DJSasso (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually lets discuss at template talk page. I am going to copy my comment there. -DJSasso (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would you be interested in joining WikiProject Toronto Blue Jays? BLUEJAYSFAN32 ^(TALK|JAYS) 21:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who made that change. I miscalculated, was looking at the wrong lines when I was doing the math. Thanks for catching and fixing that. --173.75.59.49 (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your message. It's always hard feeling after your nearly 4-hour works have reverted very quickly :). Yes, I totally agree that Positions by Round is very relevant and if possible, I will share my ideas in the football project later. Thanks again. Tontotti (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on the {{2010 AL East standings}}. I was using espn.com and mlb.com, but they both appear to be wrong. My fault! — X96lee15 (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally agree, but the official Toronto Blue Jays website [2] has what I was entering. Also, [3] reflects what MLB.com has as well. I am keeping with what the official sites are stating as their home/road splits...

Hi. When you recently edited 2012 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jerome Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forza juve!! i am a huge fan of the Jueventus.... Good Luck on your soccer player career... Showing Some Love. My favorite players are Andrea Pirlo and Buffon Miss Bono (zootalk) 13:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this diff, Max has been in contact with OTRS. Apparently, having his age published is denying him work, which is funny because the second source provides his age too.

Just answering the question, I have no comment either way. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Give me a ring!} 21:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I was just wondering why you reverted my edit towards the Toronto Raptors seasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatSportsGuy (talk • contribs) 01:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have responses.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently contributed to the discussion at talk:Living Presidents of the United States about changes I have made. I initiated that discussion and have tried to drive it to consensus, in the process making more recent talk page edits than the other editors combined. For your participation in that discussion, I thank you. I am, however, wondering about my participation in that discussion.

• Have I been pushing my own ideas too much?
• Have I ignored those with opinions different from mine?
• Can you think of any way my talk page involvement could have been improved?

You may answer me here, on my talk page, or by e-mail. Thank you for your desire to improve this online encyclopedia! YBG (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the minor nature of the role. I apply the rule of three to my editing style, so when possible I utilize that in the deaths sections. Three roles for an actor, three teams for an athlete, three books for an author, etc. His role in Commandments is minor, but it's also one of the more well regarded films in cinema's history. It's mentioned frequently in articles about his death and I figured it could be utilized as an example of his filmography. Rusted AutoParts 18:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finding an unvandalised version turned out to be harder than I though. Semi-protection is in place for the draft page now, though, so you can work without IPs interfering. Circéus (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]