Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear bot, you must be joking, I have been signing for 8 years and now you will add the signature to this message too (test). --Tanonero (msg) 18:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Great work on all the Italy national football team results, it is very appreciated! Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Thanks a lot, really appreciated. It motivates me in light of how much there is still to do. --Tanonero (msg) 14:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I figured you deserved it after all your contributions, and clearly you are continuing on with the job. Many more decades to go! Keep up the brilliant work! Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You better create first Coppa Italia missing seasons then seasons in Serie C or D. Coppa Italia has the top teams and many seasons are missing or contains almost no information ! Also in the section of "Winners by year" add "Finals by year" with the score from the final. Help improving a major competition from your country ! Thank you !--86.121.107.224 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. You might be right, but at the moment I am more interested in creating some missing Serie C seasons every now and then. --Tanonero (msg) 02:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tanonero. I recently created the article List of Italy national football team hat-tricks using Italy - Hat-tricks. For the most part, I think they're all there, however when adding more football boxes to the 1910-29 results page, I came across a match Italy won over Egypt 11-3, Football at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Bronze medal match. My concern is that three players in that match got hat tricks, however were never listed in the site of Italy hat-tricks. I began to believe they didn't include Olympic games, however after looking at Germany national football team hat-tricks it is evident they are still included. I think even though it isn't in the source we should still include those three names. Maybe you have access to a better source? What do you think? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Hi Vaselineeeeeeee. I don't know why 11v11.com didn't include those hat-tricks, however, I would add them in the article you created by using a single official source (such as this one) next to Banchero's, Magnozzi's and Schiavio's names. --Tanonero (msg) 11:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that source, and thanks for putting the FIFA reports and correct time zones in to the results page (the times always confuse me :)) In regards to the extra time for Italy vs Spain at the Summer Olympics, Football at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Quarter finals, doesn't list it as a.e.t since I don't think they were the same rules we use today since no penalty shootout resulted from it. I believe they play the 90 minutes, and if tied, they go to extra time, and if still tied, they do a replay later on (no penalties back then I guess). I think it is also the same thing for the match on 31 August 1920 Italy vs Norway which says a.e.t but not listed, 1920 Summer Olympics. However for the 1912 Summer Olympics, you put a.e.t since it made sense since Finland actually won that game without having to do another replay... Should we just had a.e.t to all 3 of those matches (the 1912 is already like that), even though it isn't a "true extra time", or maybe put a little script note stating the game was played in 120 minutes or something like that? Also, for how you switched Italy vs France and Uruguay vs Italy from home and away, I'd like to point out that in rsssf, they have it as Italy as home, as well as on Football at the 1928 Summer Olympics#First round and Italy away on Football at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Semi-finals. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Thanks for getting in touch again. The penalty shootouts were introduced much later than extra times in the history of football, therefore, I believe we should just specify when extra times occurred even when they just led to a reply. Extra-times and penalties are two different rules and for decades not related. With regards to the home-away situations, shouldn't we use what official sources say (like the FIFA website), rather than self-referring to what has been reported on Wikipedia itself? I believe we should. Finally, I am not sure about putting the International Cup in bold because it was a friendly tournament. --Tanonero (msg) 15:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't even look at the FIFA report... I was just looking at RSSSF and other wiki tournament pages. I guess it can go back since FIFA did it like that. Also, I agree about the a.e.t we should use it for all 3 matches. And for the bolding, even though it was a "friendly" tournament, it still counts as a title towards Italy which they won as well as the 1933-35 edition of it. I think that should be bolded as such. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Tanonero, hope all is well. I noticed for your section in when Italy won 9-0 over USA in the 1948 Summer Olympics Francesco Pernigo scored 4 goals. The odd thing is, is that 11v11 didn't include his goals (they did include the other players that scored over 3 goals). I think it is safe to add Pernigo to the list citing the FIFA report similar to how we included the three players discussed previously above. What do you think? Also, in the future if you see any goals that are 3 or more when doing the results and you recall that they may not have been reported in 11v11, and hence are not present in the article list, please bring them to my attention so we can discuss their potential addition. Thanks :) Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Hi. I reckon that 11v11 didn't include Pernigo's 4 four goals because as far as I know national football teams participate at the Olympic Games with an under-21 team plus a few overages. This is perhaps the reason why some sources don't add the statistics concerning Olympic teams to the ones of the major selections. That being said, the FIGC acknowledges his goals as scored with the Nazionale A (Francesco Pernigo), therefore you are good to go.

Changing the subject, I am not sure that I undestartand this edit of yours. How can someone understand what the bold players refer to? --Tanonero (msg) 10:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed odd to have that there since it seems self explanitory that the players listed are part of the team of the year for that specific year that is in the heading. If you take a glance at UEFA Team of the Year, they use basically the same format, and do not use a key to identify the "player" column. I don't think it's necessary since it is essentially a given. If there are certain colours in the tables or numbers (like how we do with a changed coach), then there must be some sort of key or legend. Just having a column with a heading shouldn't need a key. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, what am I saying, haha. No, you're right. I didn't realize it was talking about the bold players. Let me make that clearer. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, I just used an italic sentence with "bold" in bold so it is easily caught by the eye; which is often used in situations like these (I don't think a table is necessary). Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I should read things more carefully! haha Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome. :) --Tanonero (msg) 12:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao, just wanted to let you know I found two more players, Annibale Frossi and Carlo Biagi in the 1936 Summer Olympics who scored 3 and 4 goals respectively against Japan (8-0) which were not listed in 11v11, however I will now add them to the hat-trick list using the same method as the player above, Annibale Frossi and Carlo Biagi, whose goals are recorded with Nazionale A team. Kindly keep an eye out for any more players as we go on. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Will do.--Tanonero (msg) 10:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tanonero, I've just finished off the last year (1938), so all you need now to publish is to finish off 1939. It's great so see this monumental task get tackled very efficiently with the both of us! Two more decades to go (which are longer at that). We'll just need to keep trudging on! :) One question out of curiosity: For the time in Amsterdam, Netherlands using that site it says there are transitions from AT (obviously Amsterdam time) --> NST (which is what? Netherlands Standard Time? I can't seem to find any info on this...). Looking at UTC+00:20, it says it was used in the Netherlands from 1909-1940 (it doesn't mention anything about NST). Do you have any insight on this or is it nothing significant? As an FYI In Canada for a specific Canadian province it stands for Newfoundland Standard Time (which I doubt that's what it stands for in this case). Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Yes! Almost there, I'll try to finish it off and publish it by today. With regards to NST, I don't have a clue. I researched about this apparent UTC+1:19:32 with no luck. If there is any Wikipedia time zones project, we can ask for clarifications there. --Tanonero (msg) 11:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Time Zones, however it looks like it was a failed proposal and isn't a functioning project now. Maybe I will just ask it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Yeah, let's give it a try, thanks a lot. --Tanonero (msg) 14:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do. I'll tag you in it shortly and see what kind of response we get. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So someone responded to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Historical time zones in national football results pages thread. They say it is daylight savings time, which makes sense since in that website it says DST end/start. I assumed it was Netherlands Standard Time, but he suggests it is Netherlands Summer Time, which makes more sense I think since in that website it also shows the transition to NST as summer begins and to AT as the summer ends. Although there is no article for the UTC+01:20 time, I think we should still change it to reflect this since it seems likely that this was a real Netherlands time. It's just very odd we can't find any other sources on this matter (at least not in English)... Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Hi Vaselineeeeeee, thanks for taking the time to do this. I agree with everything you said. Besides, I found that this website confirms that the summer time in Netherlands was UTC+01:20. --Tanonero (msg) 09:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Question: You know when you're on an article and on the left hand side of the page you can click a bunch of other languages that are about the same article? I've made a couple articles where there is a corresponding one in Italian, for example, however it does not show under the list of languages... I thought it would do it automatically but I guess not? I tried to click the "edit links" and see if I could add it, but I couldn't figure it out... Would you know anything about this or where I could ask it? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Yes, interlanguage links. They work just fine with me. They are not added automatically per se, but they are when you link an article to the equivalent article in another language, and the latter has been already link to other languages' articles. Can you provide me with some example about en.wiki articles that you want to interlink? --Tanonero (msg) 14:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This for example List of Italy national football team managers. I tried doing it, and I thought it worked as I saved it, however when I returned to the page, they still weren't there. Now I just went back to it, and they're there... So I guess it needed a few minutes? Is it correct? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just tried it again on 1933–35 Central European International Cup, and I think I understand it now. Thanks. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Exactly, the central system takes a short time to update. Regards, --Tanonero (msg) 14:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd; when I put UTC–03:00 it showed up as a red link. Then when changed to - it was linked. But now it seems to link with – so whatever you did to make it work thanks :) Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: It's odd indeed. Anyway, the second time was linked to a redirect though. Regards, --Tanonero (msg) 15:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I was wondering if I can edit your sandbox with you to help out with the next decades of fixtures? Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Of course you can. Would you like to continue from where I left while I'll start from the bottom? --Tanonero (msg) 23:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan :) Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I am a new user trying to contribute. This is my first edit so i beg you pardon just in case something went wrong. Wikipedia suggested me to try to improve some grammatical incorrections and misspellings in this article and i tried my best at it. I am not a native english speaker. I speak spanish and swedish fluently and i think that my english is not so bad, but it is absolutely not perfect. // Wikijosele Wikijosele (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikijosele: Hi Wikijosele, welcome to Wikipedia. Nothing went wrong and your contribution was really appreciated. I am not an English native speaker myself, but that doens't stop me from improving grammar and syntax in here. Best regards. --Tanonero (msg) 19:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Tanonero. Nothing about Wiki, just some friendly discussion :): I just noticed in your section of the results and added the match about Italy vs USSR in the semi finals that it was decided by a coin toss! I've never really looked into the details of these very early results before now, but my was I astonished that you could win a game off the lucky guess of a coin toss (especially a game of that magnitude). Imagine if Giacinto Facchetti didn't guess it correctly; we never would have won our only Euro! And also imagine if these rules still existed today... Just goes to show how much football has changed (with aet and replays to penalties as well... which may not have been a good thing...). I saw an article just today saying that Serie A would begin to test with video replay. This could be a big moment for football as well. I mean, it should be a good thing if they could implement it to accurately call an offside (Like Italy at the 2010 World cup, or Juve against Bayern just a couple weeks ago) or even something like the Suarez bite on Chiellini! If we had video replay then, we likely would have made it out of the group... Just something to wonder. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: I hear you. Every time I stumbled upon a reminder of that coin toss, I feel like that victory is somewhat delegitimized. Today the most similar decisive moments to a coin toss are penalty shootouts, which are more influenced by factors like luck and nerves than they are by skills (it is not by chance that they are referred to as a lottery). But yes, it has changed in this regards. I have mixed feelings about the implementation of video replays though. On one hand, they should bring along more objectivity (which is a good thing per se), but on the other hand it'd remove some of the unpredictability which has always been part of football (the penalty not given to Barcelona yesterday is only the most recent example). I don't know, probably my reticence is just stemming from a conservative point of view (which would stand as long as referees mistakes are genuinely caused by the mere fallible human nature rather than conditionings of any sort). What I know, however, is that the application of more technology in football is not going to stop the relentless polemics that go along with any football discussion in Italy. :) --Tanonero (msg) 18:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know there are pros and cons to video replay... Living in Canada (this includes USA views as well) where more people are used to North American sports like hockey, baseball, American football, etc, everything is video replayed, and seems to work well. However, in games like those, when there is a whistle, the time stops, unlike football. So if the reviewing takes too long in football, there would be way too much stoppage time at the end of the game... I don't know, maybe you have to take the good with the bad, but when having video replay could stop an outrageous act like Suarez biting Chiellini, I'd be all for it. We have the technology now to do it, so at least it's good they will test it. I mean, would someone not want a penalty or offside to be accurately called? It isn't very fair that something incorrect can go by, especially since it can change the outcome of a match drastically. I think it would tone down a lot of the whining you hear that the call was terrible (well, if we had video, we would know for sure and could prevent it). It seems far too often that the wrong call is issued... Why wouldn't we not want to prevent that? I don't think the reviewing should take too long though anyway since it should be someone's sole job to review plays like that in the matter of 30 seconds or so and tell the referee through an ear piece or something like that... There are a bunch of variables that have to go into the decision of implementation, especially since football is so wide spread all over the world. It's hard to please everyone. But it is just so disheartening (especially if it is against the team you support) to watch the replays after the game is already done when the player is clearly onside, or a player should have clearly been given a penalty, or it was clearly a dive in the box and shouldn't have been one! I think this can all be avoided or at least prevented. I don't think we should continue on with letting the wrong calls go by. But there are certainly vastly different opinions due to culture between people in Europe and people in North America (Europe's is usually the only one that matters which is probably why we've been without video for this long haha). I just think that the good would outweigh the bad. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the fact that video replays could literally stop (or prevent from happening) acts like Suarez's bite, but they would have surely had an impact during the game rather than afterwards (Suarez was banned for a number of matches, but he got away with it until the end of the match). Other than this, I entirely agree with you. --Tanonero (msg) 10:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean it may not stop the acts from happening, but it would possibly reduce it since players would know they would be caught since it's all on video during the game itself that the ref would be made aware of. It was good that Suarez got the suspensions later to discourage an act like that from happening again, however, it is too late! We should discourage it from the get go, not after the fact. The game is already done, Italy already lost, the wrong call was already made, and then they try to fix it after like a consolation... Everything just happens too late and it doesn't have to happen like that as often as it does. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Tanonero. Can I ask a favour? In January I nominated Gianluigi Buffon for Good Article Status and it is now finally being reviewed. If you have any extra time, feel free to take a look at the reviewers comments at Talk:Gianluigi Buffon/GA1 and help get Buffon get to GA status! Just keep it in your watichlist to see any updates, if you please. Grazie mille. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Ok, I'll do what I can. --Tanonero (msg) 14:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Andrea Pirlo/GA1 and Talk:Gianluigi Buffon/GA1 have both been passed!!! And without any further fixes needed! It was that good!
  • Also, now that I have some more free time for the next week or two, would you mind if I motored through the years for the Italy results? I wouldn't want to step on your toes!
    • And again with the interlanguage links on the side of the article, sometimes there is a star beside the language indicating that the article in that language is a good article I presume? Would you happen to know anything about that and how to add it? Much appreciated, thanks. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Vaselineeeeeeee: Hi Vaselineeeeeee, congratulations for that! You can "motor" (I didn't know this application of this verb) as much as you want to. I've been very busy, but I'll try to make some contributions as well. With regards to the star, yes, it indicates a quality article, but I don't happen to know how to add it. It may be automatically done. --Tanonero (msg) 11:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll monitor the star for a couple days and see what happens, if not I'll ask at FOOTY. You probably know now anyway, but a "motor" (like a car motor (engine)) is fast. So basically "motoring" through something means your going through it fast (which may forfeit more mistakes, but I hope not!). Maybe it's a North American thing? I don't know... Anyway, since there are still tons of results to go, I figured that, while I have a week or two free, I may as well contribute as much as I can until I'm more busy again. No worries if your busy, any contributions help (I was a little busy the last couple days which is why I haven't put up a result in a few days). Even if you look over some of my additions for any errors, that would be great! Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao! I've just finished the last results for this round for publishing. I hope I didn't go too fast, just check it over for any errors :) These results are just so long overdue, it's best to pump them out as soon as possible. Also, if you look at the Bulgaria match in 1966, for some reason the  BUL {{flag|BUL|1948}} isn't displaying the correct flag... Any solutions? Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 04:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: There is not such a thing as going too fast, yet you have been incredible. I'll check it over for any error before publishing it. Thanks for your hard work. --Tanonero (msg) 09:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good to hear :) Any word about the flag? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Oh, yeah, I had forgotten it. I fixed the flag. As you can see here, the label for that flag is 1946. Cheers, --Tanonero (msg) 12:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, so there isn't a code for 1948... That seems odd because at the wiki page for its flag, it states there is a 1948 rendition? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: The 1948 rendition (emblem of People's Republic of Bulgaria placed on the left side of the white stripe) is displayed by using the 1946 label. There may be an error in the data of the template. --Tanonero (msg) 12:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, because the 1946 and the 1948 flags emblems in the corner are almost identical except the 46 is redish and the 48 is whiteish. But if there's no code for the 1948, then that's how it is I guess. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about the flag of Greece? The article states the old flag was used from 1822-1969 and from 1975-1978. Well I need the flag for 1972 which isn't in the range... I can't find any flag used in 1972 on the article, should I just use the first flag? Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, for the UEFA Euro 1972, Wiki counts the quarter finals as part of the UEFA Euro 1972 qualifying#Quarter-finals, but UEFA considers it part of the knockout phase Even if UEFA is correct (which they likely are), I would still have to link the round to the qualifying wiki page since the quarter finals is on there... It's kind of confusing but what do you think is the best thing to do? Maybe pipe it as the qualifying since the matches are there, but display it as the tournament? It may confuse the reader if we do that and they click it and it brings them to the qualifying page even though we say it's part of the actual tournament.. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★

@Vaselineeeeeeee: I'd would use the normal Greek flag in 1972 given the circumstances. Regarding the UEFA tournament, I would stick to wiki in consideration of the fact that those matches were played in the spring, clearly as qualifying ones. --Tanonero (msg) 17:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the normal Greek flag being this one ? Agreed about Euro. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: What about this one? --Tanonero (msg) 17:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the one between 1970-74/75. I just tried {{flagicon|GRE|1970}} and it seems to be correct (darker tinge of blue than the current one). I couldn't find it on the Flag of Greece page unless I'm blind? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just found it on that page; haha I am blind. All is good now :) Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Maybe just distracted. ;) --Tanonero (msg) 17:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was in a different section than the other flags I was looking at so I didn't catch it. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao! I just wanted to stop by again to say how fun that project was, and working with you! I know you liked to work on getting Serie C and D seasons in order (I don't have much interest in that to be honest, but someone's got to do it!) It's good to see less redlinks in the template below with all the results completed. There is one last article I would like to create about Italy's records, which is redlinked in the template. If you take a look at England national football team records, theirs obviously has a lot of contributions since it is the English Wiki (to replicate their's would take forever). Also Spain national football team records seems to be more simplistic and to the point which I can see being like the Italy records. For example, 11v11 seems to be a good source for this kind of stuff. I couldn't find a corresponding records page on the Italian wiki which is unfortunate. If you have any better sources or want to help a bit or add anything (only if you have time), that would be cool. Maybe I'll try it in my sandbox. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Ciao! It was really fun indeed and it is a relief to see no red links. It's not that I particularly enjoy creating those Serie C and D seasons. My (very long term) objective is just to create the seasons to which the local football team of my home town have participated. I am aware of the lack of a statistics and records of Italy's article on it.wiki and I can't suggest any particular source gathering that sort of information. However, I do believe that finding singular sources for each record (provided that these records are in a way significant) to compensate what you can't find on 11v11 is a doable task and I can help with that. Just link me your sandbox when you'll have started working on it and I'll see what I can do. Regards, --Tanonero (msg) 12:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, that makes sense why you do those seasons then. My nonno on my father's side is originally from Pachino, which I see if very close to Lentini, same province. That's pretty cool! I couldn't find any football team of Pachino, do they even have a team? Well this is my sandbox:User:Vaselineeeeeeee/sandbox. I hope to put a dent in it today starting with copy and paste then with 11v11 and then anything else we can find later. Thanks for your support. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Oh yes, quite close indeed. I've been there a few times. The town is fairly famous for its amazing tomatoes. There is a football club playing in Promozione. Thanks for the link, I'll start referencing very soon. --Tanonero (msg) 14:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I found it A.S.D. Pachino Calcio. They don't even have a page in English or Italian. That's interesting about the tomatoes; didn't even know they had an article! Thanks. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, so I've finished, the bulk, of the records page. It isn't comparable to the England page, but as I said, it would take too long. I think the main, most important records are there. If you see that you want to add anything or reference anything else, go for it. If not, I will likely publish it in the morning and we can just work off there if anything else is needed. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created Italy national football team records Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Vaselineeeeeeee: Many thanks, very good article. --Tanonero (msg) 08:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tanonero. I'm getting some good citations and additions from another wiki-pal of mine (can't take all the credit). Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 11:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man! Hope all is well. Today Italy won a friendly match against the Fiorentina Primavera. I checked the Italia1910 site for unofficials, which isn't updated (maybe it will be later). This match must be unofficial right and should be included in the list? Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee:, Hi! I am not sure, perhaps it should be intended more as a training match than an unofficial friendly, considering also that it was played behind closed doors. --Tanonero (msg) 09:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC) P.S.: I consulted many articles and I couldn't find one that reported the minutes of the goals. --Tanonero (msg) 09:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. We'll just leave it as is for now unless we see otherwise later. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing someone else's edits without having the courtesy to explain why is highly disruptive. What was your reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.212.99 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being a talk page stalker, but IP, please be civil. The reason your edit is being reverted is because it is Wikipedia convention to bold the subject of the article in the first sentence. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed. But it's more specific than that: the article title has to be bolded, not merely similar or related text; and there should be no links in the bold text. Someone who knew the guidelines would not have reverted my edit; someone ignorant but at least courteous would have explained what they were doing. Someone who undid my edit without explaining why and in contravention of the guidelines was merely being disruptive. It was uncivil to behave that way; it is not uncivil to complain about it. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It says right in the link you provided "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence" Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And if the article title is "List of FIFA World Cup records", then that text should be bolded. But the text that you bolded was "records of the FIFA World Cup", which is not the article title but merely related text. The guidelines, as I explained twice already, say "if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear". And you are bolding a link, where the guidelines say "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead". How many times do you normally need to have the guidelines explained to you before you stop destroying people's work? What bit of the guidelines do you still not understand?

I notice that the person whose talk page you decided to have this argument on actually undid their most recent revert. But you decided to take up the baton of reverting for no good reason. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for no good reason. It is stated in the link. I've also changed it so it includes the "list of" part of the sentence to incorporate the whole article title. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed for no good reason. You are ignoring the guidelines. What part of "no links in the bolded text" are you not grasping? How are you failing to perceive that "list of records of the FIFA World Cup" is not the title of the article? You are being disruptive, for no reason whatsoever. Your behaviour is indistinguishable from vandalism now. 79.158.212.99 (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To whom are you talking? --Tanonero (msg) 00:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he's talking about me. Personally, I don't think the bold in the first sentence needs to be the article title verbatim, especially for a list like this. Those guidelines take that into account. As for a link in the bold, I see that is in the guideline that you are not supposed to do that. Perhaps we should remove the link. Overall, I don't see a big issue either way as I've seen it before like this on Wiki (doesn't mean it's right though, I know). Sorry for going on so much here, Tanonero. The IP does have a valid case though. I think the guidelines should encompass what to do in list situations like this. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao again! I don't know about you, but I certainly couldn't believe my eyes today. That penalty shootout was a disaster besides Buffon. How Zaza and Pelle could miss those is beyond me. Yes there is lots of pressure and your up against Neuer, but still, very frustrating. Above all, I feel bad for Buffon how that was his last chance at a Euro and that the record that Germany has never beaten us in a competitive match... broken. Buffon did well in the shootout, saving Muller's and guessing right several times, and he even should have had that last one! How did it just go under him? Ahh, tough loss... I would hate to see Germany win it all now, although it seems very likely now. This really should have been a final. The toughness of the bottom branch of the knockout tree was ridiculous with a great victory against Spain, then with the likes of France and Germany. I love how energetic Conte is, but I think he has made some crucial mistakes today with not subbing players earlier. Well, his last match now anyway. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you said. I would have liked to see more tactical variety, but at the end of the day I believe that this Italy (on the paper the poorest I can remember in 30 years of following football) have overperformed and reached where ex-ante nobody would have thought. For Conte the formation comes first, and the player have to adapt. Therefore, my feeling is that some offensive talent has been wasted or underused (El Sharaawy and partially Insigne above all, even though Eder did very well and was one of the best overall). Surely I would have replaced Pellè at some point to try taking advantage of fresh legs upfront. Now I look forward to seeing the work of Ventura, who uses the same formation and is less of a motivator, but more of a connoisseur (and surely more flexible than Conte). Besides, I believe that the Germans had the upper hand in the shoot-outs, therefore I would have liked to see a less renunciatory attitude during the extra times. Yet, most players wasted time in order to maintain the score level, which suggests that in their mind bringing Germany all the way to the shoot-outs was already something miraculous. --Tanonero (msg) 10:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seemed as if Italy wanted to bring it to penalties even though Germany's penalty record is one of the best, like you said. This was probably one of the worst Italy teams on paper, like you said, but was such a fairytale story throughout the tournament with great wins against Belgium and Spain. Many compared it to Italy in 1982. Germany was probably the better team on the field, but the better team doesn't always win... They obviously had better attack, but we did a good job to defend it. As soon as Zaza was doing that stupid tiptoe nonsense up to the ball, I was sure he would mess it up bad. Then Pelle trying to play mind games with Neuer... You're trying to do that against one of the best keepers and you think that will work? The only thing those things did was sike the shooters out themselves. I don't even blame Darmian for missing since it shouldn't have even gone all the way to him. It should've been finished from the beginning. And tough luck for Bonucci going the opposite way from his regulation time penalty... Hard to think of what to do when you have to take a second one. When Schwinstegar missed his fifth, I really thought we would win as the football gods had to be on Italy's side and couldn't let the record be broken haha. Yes, lets see what Ventura can do now. We have a tough World Cup qualifying group with Spain now that we must top. I too felt that El Sharaawy and Insigne were wasted in this tournament. I still can't believe we were without several of our midfielders like Verratti and Marchisio, even Pirlo and then Candreva, and still able to pull it off against Spain and so nearly against Germany! Barzagli has now retired and there may be some worries about the defence. I guess we have Ogbonna and later Rugani, but still, sad to see him go and how he reacted in his interview. I love watching penalties as they're exciting, until the team I care about is in them... Penalties always get lots of flack for being the wrong way to decide games, but there isn't much else you can do unless you want to let the players play until the 200th minute or do a coin toss! haha. The bottom line was is that Germany came to win and Italy just seemed to want to try and win. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________

Dude............. How can we even begin to describe a World Cup without Italy??? Reading our above posts, we were pretty hopeful of Ventura, but it seems now he was only destined for failure, and bringing our beloved team and reputation down with him. It's very sad to see, especially since his tactics were all over the place and could not get the team to gel properly. The formations he played most of the time were crazy, and leaving star quality on the bench and at home. He will likely resign or get fired, but it's too little too late and should've happened much sooner. Look at what Croatia did with their coaching situation, and they made it. It's painful to see the only goal coming from a horrid deflection off De Rossi in the first leg, especially when we had quite a few really good chances with Belotti and Darmian, and in the second leg as well, however, also many wasted opportunities. Bonucci since joining Milan has looked in worse form, making several blind passes up the middle which led to dangerous counter attacks. It was agonizing to watch the minutes wind down without a goal to show for it, that goal we so desperately needed just to take to extra time. We were fortunate not to get two penalties called on us, but at the same time, we could've had a penalty first. 60 years since this last happened and it comes at a time where Italy have been lackluster at the past two World Cups as well. So, so, so sad that Buffon, Chiellini, Barzagli, and De Rossi's careers end in such a fashion. Especially for Gigi...he always wanted to retire after the 2018 World Cup, play at 40 like Zoff, but never even came to fruition. It frustrates me that we were even in this situation, having to be in Spain's group, then coming second to play arguably the hardest second seed playoff team the Swedes. It also frustrates me how teams like Serbia and Denmark/Ireland are in the World Cup, but not Italy. It's just unbelievable. This summer will not be the same with all the football going on around us and not being able to take part. It's so very hard to swallow. Anyway, hopefully this will allow the national team to rebuild and give youngsters experience before Euro 2020 qualification. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Hi, I am currently travelling and didn't have much time to reply sooner. I couldn't even watch the second leg, but the sadness is still all there for me. I would describe it as a purely tactical and emotional failure, as the talent was there (even though not comparable with previous campaings) to at least score a goal to Sweden in 180 minutes. Hopefully this will serve as a lesson according to which it is understood that the CT is a role to be earned at an international level, and that the manager that takes it has to show human qualities such as flexibility, charisma, and quick-mindness, besides football qualities. The WC won't be the same, but we didn't do well enough to get there. Tanonero (msg) 17:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, safe travels! You're right, we didn't play well enough. But I can't get past the fact that other alternatives were not tried and Ventura stuck to the same failing tactics! I can't believe he still hasn't resigned yet officially, along with Tavecchio; if they had any dignity or remorse, they would've by now. I hope whoever is picked will undo this mess and supply what we need for this team. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, no problem, perfectly reasonable explanation. Sorry for being a bit "nosy" but when I get bored I just randomly surf Wikipedia and stumble across people's user pages as I think they are interesting. Next time, I'll just ask you first :). By the way, I've noticed you contribute in video games as well, other than just football (pretty cool by the way haha), they have a task force and user box {{Template:User WPVG}}. Just a thought. I think it's interesting to showcase project(s). Even the general football task force. Again, by all means, take my words with a grain of salt if you choose, this is just some random stuff I do when I need to kill some time. Best regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tanonero, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Swarm ♠ 20:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, @Swarm:! --Tanonero (msg) 20:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per completezza la richiesta per assegnarlo veniva da me. Mi stupisce che questa informazione non sia riportata. Forse dovrebbero?

Non ci conosciamo, ma faccio analisi utenze e quindi mi sto dedicando a osservare it-N attivi su altre wiki. Ogni tanto ci scappa la segnalazione per un flag. faccio anche un po' di networking. Ciao!--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexmar983: Grazie mille per la segnalazione! Mi ero autocandidato all'inizio della mia contribuzione (quasi esclusiva) su enwiki, ma mi era stato detto di non avere ancora abbastanza articoli, prima che il tutto cadesse nel dimenticatoio. L'analisi utenza la fai per interesse personale o sei nella ricerca anche tu? --Tanonero (msg) 19:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

interesse persnale. Sono nella ricerca sì ma come chimico.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ti segnalo meta:Writing week/Italy--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexmar983: Grazie per la segnalazione, vedo se ho il tempo di creare un articolo. --Tanonero (msg) 10:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you're doing well! Congrats winning the Derby d'Italia over the weekend, especially after Inter had a terrible first Europa League match; Juve didn't do that great in their first Champions League match either. Hopefully they both pick it up. Now, the report and stack parameter have been updated. We no longer need to write [LINK Report] anymore. Just pasting the link into the parameter gives it the same appearance when saved. Also, the stack parameter is no longer necessary as the football result boxes are now automatically stacked. Again, gives the same appearance either way. I've updated the new format to the first set of date range for the Italy results and will slowly get it all updated. If you have any time in the meantime to help update to this new format, that would be great. I know it is a tedious, mundane and repetitive task, but if you have the patience it would be great to get it updated to the current format. Thanks. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Hi.Yeah, to win at the Derby d'Italia was amazing, and I hope it will serve as a confidence enhancer for the Inter squad. The Europa League game wasn't a good indicator of Inter's overall strength. Many good players have not been included in the European list for financial reason, but I believe they still have (barely) the quality to make it through the group stage. Juve, on the other hand, will qualify for sure. Siviglia are an excellent team and a draw against them is not a complete disaster. On topic, I can definitely help in the next few days, but I noticed that the links compiled with the old format give the same visual outcome. I guess, therefore, that this isn't an urgent update. Also, can't a bot make all the changes in just a few minutes? --Tanonero (msg) 10:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're exactly right, it gives the same visual appearance. The only thing is is that we don't need all the extra code for no reason. I've been trying to cut it down along with another editor in the Italian Serie A club season articles, so I figured we should do it here too. A bot you say? How could we go about doing that? Would that bot also be able to get rid of the extra code on all other pages as well?

I've asked if a bot would be possible on the bot request page. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 11:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Sorry, it's been hectic lately. Yes, that's the page I was going to suggest for a bot request. Good luck with that. --Tanonero (msg) 08:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey how's it going? Do you know if this link for the Italy-France match in June is an official match? I was told in an edit summary on the main national team page that it was a game that will be played by former players, but I don't see mention of that on the site? The FIGC schedule takes a while to update, so even though it doesn't say it there, it doesn't mean it isn't a real match yet. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Hi, buddy. After a quick search I found a few articles (such as this and this) stating that Italy-France will be a charity match played by former players ("vecchie glorie") of both teams. We should, therefore, remove this entry from the list of matches. --Tanonero (msg) 14:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Just in case since you modified after the first save, I ping @Vaselineeeeeeee: again for you. Ping functions as far as I remember need the user's signature to be saved together with the pinged user. If the user name is changed later without the signature, it is not received. It's usually like that, in my experience.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexmar983:Thanks a lot! In fact, I wasn't sure it would have worked, but I was relying on Vaselineeeeeeee checking this page out of his own free will. :) --Tanonero (msg) 15:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie tanti! I've removed it. And yes, I would've checked your talk page out anyway since the "current" was gone, but thanks Alexmar983. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Some unknown person removed Sleepy Hollow from the List of superhero television series, saying it doesn't call the main character a superhero. However, the source, http://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/sleepy-hollow/240688/sleepy-hollow-and-the-abyss-gazes-back-review, refers to the two main characters as "biblical superheroes." What do you think?Sparkles32 (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkles32:. Hi, I had already read about your opinion on support of Sleepy Hollow being listed as a superhero TV series on the other talk page. Having read the quote at issue from the source, I tend to agree with you on the matter. You might reenter the entry on the list as you already explained your edit. I doubt that the IP will ever reply to your question. --Tanonero (msg) 23:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! God bless!!!Sparkles32 (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao! Come va? I'm pretty excited for the Champions League final match next Saturday, I hope Juve can bring it home for Italy! Anyway, a user added a note to the San Marino match to be played 31 May 2017 on Italy national football team forthcoming matches, saying that the match will be unofficial and not include apps and goals in stats. ON FIGC website I don't think it mentions that here. I'm wondering if you know anything about it? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 11:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee:. Ciao, man! Well, according to this official source, the game against San Marino represents the first friendly of the Nazionale dei calciatori emergenti, tr: National team of emerging players. So, it appears that it won't be the "normal" national team to play that game, but whether the resulting statistics will be officially counted I don't know, I guess we will find it out afterwards. --Tanonero (msg) 16:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I asked Riktetta, the user who added the note about the match not counting for official appearances. See his talk page User talk:Riktetta#San Marino source?. The logic seems to be there; only three players called have played for Italy previously, however, I thought it was mostly because a lot of the players will still be with Juventus in the Champions League. I wonder if the match would belong in Italy national football team results (unofficial matches)...curious to see if it gets added to http://www.italia1910.com/statistiche-le-partite-non-ufficiali.asp. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.figc.it/nazionali/GareSquadra?squadra=1&mode=GARE_SQUADRA Because it's not in the schedule? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.figc.it/en/204/2537896/2017/05/News.shtml Look here where it says"first official Azzurri match" Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also refereed by FIFA sanctioned ref Sandro Schärer. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Hi, I was writing you, but you anticipated me. Basically, there is still a little confusion source-wise, so I am following the debate on the Italian Wikipedia. There, I found this news from La Stampa stating that "Il test amichevole contro San Marino non mette in gioco punti per scalare il ranking Fifa", meaning that the game at issue didn't count towards the FIFA World Rankings like official friendlies do. To me, that is a pretty on point way to define a game as not official. Besides, as I showed to you in the summary of my edits, the game is not listed among the Nazionale A's games on the FIGC official website. I'll keep researching about this anyway. --Tanonero (msg) 00:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True. This is annoying. I looked at the Italian wiki too and when someone tried to add the match to their results page, User:Oswald (something)..... reverted it saying if it's not official. I asked him if he has another source as well. But your source is pretty much there. It's not on that 1910Italia page, I wanna see if they put it soon. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: I don't think we need to wait for the 1910Italia website to be updated before listing the game among the unofficial matches. A little update about ranking/officialdom. FIFA website confirms no ranked game for Italy (source), even though they strangely listed two games in April that were actually played in March. More indicatively, the game against San Marino is not listed at all here, while other friendlies (like the last vs the Netherlands) are. Just out of curiosity, why is this annoying to you? :) --Tanonero (msg) 00:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your research. I undid most of my edits to other pages. I'll probably add the match to the unofficials page for now. I'm a firm believer Wikipedia:The deadline is now (also stated on my user page), and I like to update these things as soon as possible (unless I'm out watching the game or something like I will be on Saturday). When there is lack of sourcing or vagueness, etc. I find it annoying, because it doesn't take much to confirm the match is or isn't official, especially if FIFA is hinting at it but not explicitly writing it. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Oh, that makes sense. I weirdly thought that the game not being official was annoying to you (you know, 8–0, bragging and staff), rather than the lack of precise sources. My bad. :) Anyway, FIFA not considering it makes the game clearly unofficial, so we are good to go. --Tanonero (msg) 00:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ahahaha nah we already knew San Marino was crap anyway lol. Hey the Utente:OswaldLR guy wrote back to me and gave me this http://sport.sky.it/calcio/nazionale/2017/05/31/italia-san-marino-empoli-stadio-castellani.html and said also since it wasn't in FIGC data base, so I think we're good too. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising the issue at WT:FOOTY, I was gonna do the same. I hope other people might know something, although it really does seem it is unofficial. I've undone the stats for the goalscorers, but haven't checked the rest of the players. As of now, I think we can count it as unofficial until proven otherwise. You know what's also annoying is that IPs and other inexperienced (or uninformed) users will probably add this unofficial match stats to the players' page every so often, especially Lapadula, which will be something to look out for. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DUDE! They actually added the unofficial match to http://www.italia1910.com/statistiche-le-partite-non-ufficiali.asp LOL! I'm putting all the players who played in the match in my watchlist because people keep adding their caps. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How's it goin'? I was thinking if you're gonna add the third place medals etc. to the honours, you'll probably have to add the bronze medals for the 1928 Olympics and 2004 Olympics. Also the Central European International Cup years, although I've only ever found individual game sheets here, not a comprehensive squad. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Hi, man. I know, I will add the Olympic bronzes, but not the Central European International Cup because it was amateurish and to me should not be included among the honours. --Tanonero (msg) 09:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC) PS: Neither FIFA, nor UEFA nor FIGC mention it, and therefore neither should we.[reply]

The article is called 2017–18 Serie C, did they change it back to Serie C, or is this misinformation? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 11:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: They changed it back... again... --Tanonero (msg) 11:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian Wiki still call the main Lega Pro article "Lega Pro" but site this for a name change back to Serie C. If this is the case, shouldn't the main page be renamed as well? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 11:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Probably the Italian wiki users fear that it will change name again in a few days... Anyway, yes, I believe the name of the main page should reflect the new denomination. --Tanonero (msg) 11:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you knew, but DoctorHver (talk) made a bulk removal at the List of superhero television series. He/she said there was too much stuff and that the list should only consist of American shows. Only he/she got rid of a couple of American shows too and left some Canadian shows. It's not just removals; DoctorHver (talk) left somewhat of a mess. And I don't know about the length, but the list is supposed to be about all superhero shows in general. Is it okay if I undo the changes?Sparkles32 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkles32: Hi and thanks for your message. It seems like DoctorHver has proceeded in the removal without considering the lengthy discussion that took place with regards to the criteria of inclusion/exclusion. It is absolutely ok with me if you undo the changes as well as fix the table. Thanks in advance for doing this. --Tanonero (msg) 09:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the removals. DoctorHver (talk) might have something to say about this, but we'll see. Thanks! God bless!!!Sparkles32 (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ho sentito che User:Threecharlie passa dalla Scozia e cercava contatti in zona. Lo pingo.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Threecharlie and Alexmar983: Da qualche mese non sono più in Scozia avendo trovato lavoro nel londinese, ma sono comunque disponibile ad aiutare e rispondere come posso alle domande di Threecharlie. --Tanonero (msg) 14:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tanonero. I am not sure how to explain it, possibly it is a language barrier. Just try to put chronology together please. When a song is being composed in 1968, it could not have been performed before Stalin who died in 1953. It is not possible, he was dead for 15 years. However, in this "documentary" there is a footage of it. I have provided a reference as a proof. Nowhere did I indicate that the song was dedicated to Stalin. It was never my point. I am not sure why you insist on keeping what is obviously a false statement and edit my comment. Please kindly reconsider. Appreciate it ! G Melehov (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@G Melehov: Hi and thank you for your message. Now I see your point. However, I still struggle with the justification for emphasizing that such a performance is impossible to find in any other documentary (which we can't state without a source). Secondly, although I watched the documentary twice, I don't remember whether the song was performed before Stalin or not. If this was the case, it'd mean that this performance was actually really possible for one of the following reasons: a) Stalin was actually still alive after 1968 (which I'd exclude :D ); b) the song wasn't actually composed in 1968 (which may be, and perhaps we need better sources, possibly in Russian, that tell us more about the origins of this song; c) in the documentary they aren't actually performing before Stalin. Instead, you're pushing the idea that this performance is more than rare, namely impossible to find anywhere else but in this documentary because of the contradiction in the timeline (whereas as you put it, it should be impossible that ever happened at all). Regarding false statements, I only rephrased by stating that the documentary features rare archival footage (sourced), among which there is this song performed (sourced). Perhpas this second statement is false, in the sense that the actually performance is not that rare to find in general, but only before a person who had died 15 years before, which is no longer within the "rarity" domain. What are you actually suggesting when emphasizing the "impossibility"? Tanonero (msg) 17:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@G Melehov: UPDATE: if this is the part you are referring to (video), it doens't seem to me like they are actually performing before Staling, but that an archival footage of Stalin is shown when they nominate his name (although still B&W, the footage seems different to me, and Stalin appears in slow motion, too). --Tanonero (msg) 17:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanonero, Ok, I see what you are saying and it is my fault of trying to be sarcastic, which was inappropriate. What I really wanted to say is that the footage you found is obviously fabricated (therefore could not be found in any other documentary :=). I have linked both the reference to Stalin and the reference to song to their respective Wiki pages where you could see that Stalin indeed died 15 years before the song was composed. The reference that I have provided proves that it is actually one of the key moments of the “documentary” (the review starts from this point, I saw several others that mentioned it, sorry you did not consider it notice worthy first time:=). The author of “documentary” is trying to prove his view that that hockey in USSR was of the highest propaganda status (see everyone Stalin himself was there), however, in reality this argument is supported by fabricated footage. The “documentary” is fool of similar propagandistic tricks. For example in Russian Tretyak says “If we didn’t deliver results we were denied bonuses”, however, in English it is translated “If we didn’t deliver results we were denied salaries”. Big difference! Funny, but this movie is a propaganda about propaganda that never were. So, I just wanted to point it out, but should have been more direct. Thank you !

UPDATE: Just wanted to add that after the "20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" (see Wiki page) that took place 14–25 February 1956 Stalin's name could not have been mentioned anywhere, so children could not have dedicated this song composed in 1068 to him as you interpreted the footage, it is a fake footage, sorry :=) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Melehov (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@G Melehov: Well, I don't really understand why you didn't explicitly refer to the fabrication and the propaganda aspects from the start, considering the misunderstanding that was occurring between us. May you kindly link to me the references to Stalin and the song that you are referring to? I couldn't find them through your chronology of contributions. --Tanonero (msg) 18:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanonero: My bad, I am really sorry to cause this back and forth, just seeing bullshit mountains everywhere as it relates to USSR and Russia made me a bit sarcastic and ironic, I'll not do it again. "No Coward Plays Hockey" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Coward_Plays_Hockey) and Stalin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin). Appreciate your patience and time ! G Melehov (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@G Melehov: It's OK. I had already checked those articles. When you said "I have linked both the reference to Stalin and the reference to song to their respective Wiki pages", I understood that you had actually found references that revealed the propaganda perpetrated by the documentary. To me it is clear that Stalin is not actually before the children, and it may not have been the intention of the directors to let us think that it was so. We can't state that they purposely fabricated that video to let the audience think that the children were performing before Stalin, unless we have a reliable source stating so. Besides, in my humble opinion, this would the sloppiest of propaganda, as it is clear that the footage of Stalin is overlapped there (by the authors? Or was it like this when the authors decided to use it?), besides being easily debunked with simple reference to the timeline. At this point I would remove all the second part of the sentence at issue (as no longer relevant) and only keep the statement about rare archival footage. --Tanonero (msg) 10:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanonero: Tanonero, hi ! No problem. However, as a sociologist isn't it amazing to what extend people would contort the facts and their interpretation to fit into their world view to make sure that it is consistent with everything they already made their mind about ? If the facts clearly prove opposite, it is a problem of facts. Thousands of reasons would be found to explain why it was necessary to stitch the footage. However, if you would check the link to the review http://www.cultjer.com/red-army-is-simply-a-great-story-even-without-the-hockey you would find that it objectively describes what a viewer of this "documentary" saw : "A bunch of Russian boys are singing for Stalin. The song ends something like this :”… real men play hockey. Cowards don’t play hockey.” Everyone claps. They made their point." It is such a key moment of the "documentary" that the author of review starts with it. I found this interpretation in other reviews on Netflix, where people again were amazed by this fact. If nobody would be making a big deal about it, I probably wouldn't think much, however, because so many people are wowing, I thought that it maybe beneficial to tell them that is is not possible. What will happen next is that other people will be referencing this "documentary" in their works as a proof that Stalin was a main sponsor of the hockey and the players were scared for their lives and were not payed salaries. It is how the bullshit mountain continues to grow. I see that there is no way to stop it. If there is a demand, there is a supply. I will leave it ... G Melehov (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@G Melehov: It is very interesting indeed, and it also is surely worth investigating further. However, it seems like I want to play devil's advocate here, whereas I am only sticking to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, according to which users' interpretations do not belong. And I am only saying this because as far as we know that article represents only the point of view of who wrote it and potentially misinterpreted what watched. I am sorry if you feel despondent, and sometimes it feels like the search for neutrality and reliability gets in the middle of truth. But it is the way it is on Wikipedia. What we could do, however, is finding a reliable source that highlights this controversy. If, as you said, many people were left with the idea that Stalin was a main sponsor partly because of footage representing him in front of the performing children, there may be some source which contradicts this wrong representation with specific reference to the footage provided (fabricated or not). It doesn't need be in English. We find this source (in Russian would be perfectly fine, I don't know whether it is your mother tongue, sorry for assuming), we report the controversy on the Red Army article. Best regards, --Tanonero (msg) 18:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I come from wikipedia in Spanish and my English is not very good, that's why I'm going to be brief with my question ¿What is the function of this code? "& n b s p ;"
Just leave blank spaces :S --Jean Eudri (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean Eudri: Hi, no, not just that. It is a Non-breaking space or espacio duro. --Tanonero (msg) 20:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying my doubt Tanonero :D --Jean Eudri (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hope all is well. I wanted you to go over my translation at Sicily's anthem Madreterra. I think I've got most of it, I just need help making sense of "Sicilia terra mia tu « rosa aulentissima » nel tempo" and the order of the wording in "Sicilia terra mia bandiera liberata in mezzo al vento". Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee:: Wow, nice job, that's an excellent translation and I wouldn't change anything to what you've done. Aulentissima is the superlative of aulenta, which is very rare and means that smells nice. I would, therefore, translate it with "(very) scented or perfumed rose". The order of the wording of the other sentence would be "Sicily my land freed flag in the middle of the wind". Funnily enough, I never heard of this song before. :D --Tanonero (msg) 15:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! "Sicily my land you "very scented rose" over time" just doesn't make much sense in English lol Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee::Oh, I had overlooked "nel tempo". That would be something like "long-lasting": "Sicily my land you long-lasting scented rose." A bit-more sense now. :D

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's a requested move at Inter Milan, and I thought you might like to know if you're not watching it seeing as you're an Inter fan. I am appropriately notifying you, and have had no past indication of which title you prefer. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I should really learn how to upload images, but could you please add the logo used at it:Serie A - without the sponsor TIM as they are no longer - to enwiki for Serie A. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Hi, the complicated thing about uploading images is which license to use. As the file is not automatically movable to Commons, I am not going to touch it for now, sorry. In the Project Football you would surely find someone that knows more about how to do it. --Tanonero (msg) 22:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no worries thanks, I'll ask at the project. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your revert. I am just saying that the film series character is notable on its own. Much like Clark Kent (Smallville), Oliver Queen (Arrowverse), Joker (The Dark Knight), Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) are. Plus not to mention my work so far with Superman (Salkind films), Peter Parker (Spider-Man film series) etc. That’s all. I am not saying that the certain info should go there or that’s what the name title should be. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 03:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhenderson777: Hi and thank for your message. I get it now. I just found that kind of visible suggestion intrusive to readers, but if you think it can be useful, revert my edit back. Have a good day. Tanonero (msg) 10:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have noticed that you have nominated and reviewed multiple football articles for GA nominations; would it be possible for you to take a look at my Lebanon national football team article nomination if you had time?

Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You reverted the info that I had added on the 1934 World Cup page. That concerns selected player playing for a "foreign club" from o Qualifyed but non participated country. The info is true (see table of Brazil rooster) and particular because the First Time in history... Added this kind of info provides such utily. I don't understand why you cancell. Friendly. Shanon11

@Shanon11: If you look at the squads for the 1930 World Cup, you can see how this had already happened in the Yugoslavia squad, in which two called players were playing in the French championship. Regards, Tanonero (msg) 21:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But in 1930 France was present and participates ! For 1934 edition, it was the first case from a Qualifyed but non participated country (Uruguay as tenant was direct qualified don't want to travel to Europe). The first case with players from a non qualified "league" was in 1958. Friendly. Shanon11

@Shanon11: I see. It doesn't really sound like a notable information to me, but feel free to add it back. I would suggest to add it in the Brazil section. Also, it wouldn't hurt to add a reference since we cannot refer to other wiki pages to support the veracity of an information. --Tanonero (msg) 11:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please take a look at this move discussion? I'm having a bit of trouble regarding one specific user (In ictu oculi) who's being a bit disruptive. Could you give an opinion on the matter? Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I hope all is well. I was taking a look at List of England international footballers, and I thought the way they do pos., debut matches and last (or most recent) matches is a cool feature I think we could work towards with List of Italy international footballers. This could be our next bigger project lol what do you think? I also aim to create the leftover redlinks for the international footballers in the summer. I see you're working on a Serie D project in your sandbox, so I will probably set this up in my sandbox hopefully in a month or so, and you can feel free to contribute. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Hi, well, it does look cool, even though I think that such an addition would make the page much heavier to load and edit. In fact, this may be one of the reasons why they decided to split the list by number of caps. Anyway, if you set up the table in a sandbox, I will certainly provide some help. Regards, --Tanonero (msg) 23:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: After having looked at the list, I think that it may not be even necessary to duplicate the table in a sandbox. Differently, we could work directly in the page by replacing the structure and the content of the first's and last cap's columns with the specific matches at issue. --Tanonero (msg) 23:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will certainly make the page larger, but if it becomes necessary to split it into number of caps the way they did it at England, then that would be a fine alternative. I think it would also look better than leaving the last cap column empty for players who have not been there for a long time but are still not retired, as having an entry for their "most recent cap" would look much nicer and complete. It may take a few full days to complete, so to avoid incomplete stats with a wonky table (as there will be differences in the number of columns), it may be better to work in a sandbox for a bit before we have it fully complete. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. So I've been working my way to creating the last bit of Italy international footballer articles (I have about 20 left down from 60). My next course of action would be to implement a similar structure to the England international player pages. Right now I have the full list of players with the first one for Abate done at User:Vaselineeeeeeee/sandbox. Later I'd want to also make pages for the cap players, 2-3 cap players and 4-9 cap players to separate from 10 cap and above players to make these lists more manageable. I think it would be best to remove the honours column as it compresses the table a lot, but have made a symbol key to note the players that won first place major honours which I think would be more clean. If you have extra time here and there, please feel free to work on my sandbox. All the best, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: To be frank, if I had known that we were going to lose complete information about the honours (namely, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place) I would have never agreed on restructuring the article. To me, honours represent a much important piece of information than the opponent of the last game, which is trivial but we had for the sake of completeness. This is particularly true for Italy that, differently from England, is one of the most decorated national teams. Could we perhaps add the list of honours by player in the statistics page? --Tanonero (msg) 06:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I didn't want to get rid of it either because I know you added it and it does offer valuable information, however it since we are adding more columns it gets very squished. I've thought of a possible solution where we could use refn notes, and each note could be a place in a competition, so for example Abate would have two notes for second at Euro 2012 and third at 2013 Confederation, or if many players have this combination, one note that combines the two can be made, and this note can be super-scripted beside the players name or in keep the honours column and just have the note refn in its place, that way it'll remove the squishing. I still like the idea of having the opponents, but the key info I really wanted added was the positions of the players. See my User:Vaselineeeeeeee/sandbox for the updated example. :) I think this would be the best solution; the gold, silver and bronze medals are not a huge loss, the less cruft the better, as long as the info is there. If you start working on it, just skip the players with only one cap and we'll come back to it when we make that article because the formatting is slightly different for the opponent columns. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 11:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Well, the position is another information I have some doubts about. They were originally in the list, but got removed because the traditional categorisation (GK, DF, MF, FW) would not really apply for wingers (which can be both midfielders or attackers, depending on the system) and players who have played in a variety of positions. Also, I think there also was the problem of retrieving accurate information about the positions of some footballers playing during the start of the XX century. --Tanonero (msg) 12:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Another mild problem is that updating the list will be more time-consuming as asking the user to do so across several articles depending on the numbers of caps. Perhaps a compromise would have been to do something like this, with no "Notes", the position, and two additional narrow columns for Confederation Cup and Olympic Games. I'm sorry for having such a conservative outlook, but I really liked the article the way it is/was. --Tanonero (msg) 12:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, I value your input. Oh like that way at Germany, competitions split and therefore we only need to pipe the year to cut space. It's a Featured Article so it's a good basis as well. Well, with regards to the positions, I know what you mean that the positions were slightly different pre 1960 as they showed at the England page, but in general the positions of defence, mid and forward don’t change. Besides, the FIGC player profiles (the external link I added to the page last night) state the position they played in, at least the position they played in when they played for Italy. So for that reason I don’t see any reason for not reinstating them after your removal in 2015. With regards to the different pages base on caps, I see how it could be a bit more cumbersome to update, but policy speaking, pages shouldn’t be overly large. I’m not big on the policy so I really don’t care, but it’s definitely part of the reason why we, and pages before ours for the Italy results were broken into year intervals of 20. So I think with all that being said, I don’t mind with leaving the page intact as a whole, but I strongly agree with adding the general positions and keeping the honours as you’ve said; I guess I’m on the fence about adding the opponents as it may be trivial, and the Featured Article doesn't include it, so I'm fine with not adding it. So essentially we can clean up the honours and add the general positions as they do at Germany (I don't think it's necessary to include the competitions they played in but didn't receieve a medal, though as they do. User:Vaselineeeeeeee/sandbox new example (the last cap column is wide because the others haven't been changed yet). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the players with only one cap, I was thinking about doing a colspan since they technically never had a last cap. It was their first and last cap. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Fine with me. --Tanonero (msg) 16:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Long time no read! Anyway, there's a problem. Once again, another editor has made a big removal at the List of superhero television series. He/she says the shows are self-evidently non-superhero shows. It appears this editor's removal is due to personal opinions; plus, the editor is ignoring the sources and has left a big mess. The editor's name is User:Kchishol1970. May I have permission to restore it? God bless!!!Sparkles32 (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkles32: Hi, I see that user @SummerPhDv2.0: has already done what you asked me to do. For future reference, you don't need permission, we have the same rights. --Tanonero (msg) 11:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just didn't want to risk another edit war. God bless!!!Sparkles32 (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The fact that the structure of Elio e le Storie Tese's "Piattaforma" is similar to "Piange... il telefono" can be very easily be verified by listening to both songs. This is why I had a link to the Modugno song on the page. The style in which the father's voice and the child's voice alternate with each other is also similar, and the voices themselves are similar. All of this is in the songs themselves, so it is not really unsourced.Ugo1970 (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ugo1970: The similarities have to be self-evident in order for them to be reported unsourced (and I am not denying they are, I haven't checked the two songs comparatively yet). However, I find it strange that co-composer Rocco Tanica doesn't mention Modugno's song in his analysis of Piattaforma. Tanonero (msg) 11:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is because Modugno's song is not Modugno's at all. He translated an older song in French. I even dare to say that, in the exaggerated technicality of the lyrics, Elio is mocking the melodramaticity of the lyrics in the other song. However, the similarity that I find between the two songs is only structural. Tanica (or Tanichi as he names himself in the video) does not talk about the structure but about the music.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugo1970 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ugo1970: You're right. That the structure consisting of a girl talking with her father unknowingly is self-evident. I've restored the information. --Tanonero (msg) 12:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Per WP:FOOTY there should be no counts in the "Honours" section of players, at least if the number is five or below. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. I've removed the counts you added at Francesco Totti. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: Hi, I didn't know that, thanks for the heads-up. Tanonero (msg) 16:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't use this sentence This is a list of the hat-tricks scored for the Italy national football team since the best articles about list of hat tricks haven't this sentence. Dr Salvus 11:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus:: Hi and thanks for getting in touch. I don't think that's a valid reason as what makes them the "best" hat-tricks-related articles is not that they don't list a similar introductory sentence. --Tanonero (msg) 11:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Inter Milan chairmen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Champions League.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tanonero, I found out that the page of Professor Filippo Drago is sistematically vandalized by user identified by several IPs. Specifically, vandalism is aimed at attack, defame and heavily slander Prof. Filippo Drago, which was fully readmitted to university of Catania in October 2019, not only as Full Professor of Pharmacology but also as director of Clinical Pharmacology Unit of University hospital of Catania (Policlinico) and of CERD research center. This information is proven by the references included in the wikipedia page. Is it possible to report vandalism by this IPs in the wikipedia page of Prof. Filippo Drago? Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pchemc (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pchemc: Hi Pchemc, for your dispute with anonymysed IPs, I would suggest you to take a read at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution page and follow the steps suggested there. About the full readmission, at a second glance I can see how a reference supporting that specific occurrence is actually missing. Can you suggest a reference we can use for that? --Tanonero (msg) 21:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the best reference is associated to his election as Director of CERD, the research center in pharmacoeconomics. Additionally, I have added other refererences regarding his activity after the full readmission in october 2019 at the university hospital of catania, but those were cancelled. I will check for another reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pchemc (talk • contribs) 08:31, 19 July 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Pchemc: Yeah, it would be preferable to have a reference about the re-admission rather than having to infer this from ongoing activities. --Tanonero (msg) 09:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are a few errors in the Fiorentina hall of fame list. Notably the years Francesco Toldo and Luca Toni were active 👍 Might want to change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.195.121 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Tanonero (msg) 10:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've been social media manager at the "Museo del Grande Torino e della Leggenda Granata" cited in the page from 2011 to 2021 and specifically I'm the one who got the idea to to establish the Hall of Fame back in 2014 (see attached newspaper article in Italian talking about this in the section circled in red). Thanks again for your corrections, I just thought that Mitropa and Serie B were relevant trophies, while the Capocannoniere titles were obviously related to the footballer and added just to show the relevance of the footballer at hand. I'm writing you for info about a major change and if so, how to do it. This "Torino F.C. Hall of Fame" title is misleading as the Hall of Fame real name is "Hall of Fame Granata" (granata = maroon, the color of the club's 1st shirt) because it is not created and run by the club but by the "Museo del Grande Torino e della Leggenda Granata" which is run by the "Associazione Memoria Storica Granata" which is an association of volunteer supporters who helped save the trophies, memories and relics of the club thrown away by the club directors in the past (don't ask why this happened, it's too long a story to be told :D) and the association has no connection with the club e therefore autonomously decides the persons to be inducted every year. A correct title for the page should be "Hall of Fame Granata", this being the name by which everyone knows it. In any case, I will briefly state all of this into the foreword of the page so as the readers will not be misled. Also, I want to create the page in Italian but I will obviously wait for your answer because the title should obviously reflect the English one: if the change isn't possible, I'll name it "Hall of Fame Torino F.C.", otherwise I'll correctly name it "Hall of Fame Granata". I remain waiting for your advices. All the best, Paolo. --Paolo Pupillo 1969 (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hall Of Fame Granata 1 copia.jpg

@Paolo Pupillo 1969: Hi Paolo, and thank you for getting in touch. First, congratulations for having established the award as I believe it's a fantastic initiative to celebrate the legacy of historical Italian football clubs. I've created the article on en.wiki and I used readily available information to fill in the content. If any of it is incorrect, feel free to make any change. However, any information needs to be properly referenced as you already somewhat hinted at.

Feel also free to move the article to its proper name and let me know if you need any assistance in doing it. About it.wiki, the tile over there doesn't necessarily need to reflect the title on en.wiki. Each wiki has its own titling conventions and they may sometimes not coincide. So, make sure not only to take a look at that, but also to understand whether the hall of fame would satisfy the encyclopedic requirements of it.wiki (I noticed that other halls of fame, such as Roma's and Inter's, don't have a featured article on it.wiki

FYI, I've also just created the article for Angelo Cereser as I hate seeing red links for subjects that deserve an article. :) Tanonero (msg) 14:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tanonero, you made a good work for one who's not deeply into Torino :) I just added minor changes and most of all I added the 2021 year inductees. I'm glad that the name of the page can be changed and I will try to understand how to but I'll be back in touch before making stupid things... :D Also, I noticed that no Italian football Hall of Fame has a page in Italian, it's rather strange and I'll have a chat with the guys of the Football project in Italian about their relevance before creating the page. Finally, thanks for creating Cereser's page in English, it would have been my next step before setting the Hall Of Fame page but you've been faster than me... I'll enrich it with a couple of info which should be very interesting and funny to be known worldwide... :) All the best, Paolo --Paolo Pupillo 1969 (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paolo Pupillo 1969: Do you have any reference at hand to support the following statement describing the Associazione Memoria Storica Granata: "a voluntary association that helped save the trophies, memories, and relics of the club thrown away by the club directors in the mid-1990s"? Given how peculiar the fact that all the artefacts were thrown away sounds, we need to cite some reliable source for that. --Tanonero (msg) 16:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tanonero, you're right, I'll immediately cancel the "thrown away by the club directors" part as it's too long now for me to find the evidence, I promise I will as soon as I can, but for the moment I'll leave that part off. All the best, Paolo --Paolo Pupillo 1969 (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[pasted from user talk page] Hi Abdelrhman 1990, regarding your expansion of the article about the City of Scientific Research and Technological Applications, would you be able to provide the sources you used to expand the article? Those are necessary to be included in the article as references. We can't have info that is not supported by inline citations. Thanks! --Tanonero (msg) 12:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tanonero regarding your expansion of the article about the City of Scientific Research and Technological Applications, This information is translated from Arabic Wikipedia. Abdelrhman 1990 (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdelrhman 1990: Thank you for your quick reply. I figured that the article may have been translated. However, another Wiki page in another language can't be treated as a primary source. Therefore, we still to have inline citations in the English article, even in Arabic. Therefore, can you indicate some sources to support the new content that has been now added to the page? . Tanonero (msg) 12:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tanonero, No problem, I will work on adding the sources to the article today or tomorrow at the latest, Bragdes. Abdelrhman 1990 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdelrhman 1990: Thank you!

I'm sorry about everything, I don't want to fight with you, really sorry. GabrielLupin (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GabrielLupin: We aren't fighting and there is no need to be sorry. It's all good. Happy editing! --Tanonero (msg) 11:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks GabrielLupin (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Hello Tannero, please stop helping PeeJay spreding false information. As I have encouraged him & can encourage you. Read the links. What is it, you mean shouold be debated? The fact that UEFA according to thier own official web site knows about their own tournament? Is this not about puttting in the correct informaton? Please read the links/references UEFA themselves state what is the tourament & what i qualifying. What should we debate? that we don´t want to belive that UEFA know themselves? Please read the information on the UEFA web site. Factsbeatsfeelings (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Factsbeatsfeelings: Hi. If there is no consensus (for instance, conflicting official and/or reliable sources), you need to discuss it with other fellow contributors. It's a standard procedure. Open a topic and see where the consensus lies, it's pretty straightforward. I see your point and see their point, too. That's why we need to discuss it. --Tanonero (msg) 14:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for creating Knockrome, I have requested a history merge of the draft, if you're interested the last Jura settlement Leargybreck I could request that Draft:Leargybreck be undeleted for you. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider to amend this file since it was Attilio Ferraris, not Giovanni Ferrari, who played in this match. Borucic (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Tanonero (msg) 23:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In you recent edit summary of a revert of my edits, you ask: why changing the standards? Answer: so as not to repeat by Werner Herzog THREE TIMES (which I had to add after your revert, to be consistent but against my will). Can we please go back to the more elegant version? (subheading titles and no repetition) Thank you. NB- (I am not changing the standards of the See Also sections, if that is what you meant). Best, — MY, OH, MY! 11:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tanonero,

you can easily check that UEFA line-ups of the Italy - USSR match are a simple list of players in their numerical order.

https://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/match/3938--italy-vs-ussr/

For confirmation, please do yourself an easy Wikipedia resarch about Albert Shesternyov (he was a sweeper), or Anatoliy Banishevskiy (he was a striker), or Anatoliy Byshovets (he was a forward), or Angelo Domenghini (he was a winger), etc. etc.

If you look for a web source, please check here (as an example): [1]

If you want to have a look to the full match, please look here: [2]

Regards

@Genland PZ Genland PZ (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]