Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greece national football team results (1980–1999), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Hill. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Josep Samitier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antonio Bonet.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for adding the career statistics table at Herbert Potts. Going forward, please use the standard table layout as outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. It is the result of past discussions of the community of football editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football.

I've fixed the issues at Herbert Potts in this change. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I read his article about the international goals and saw the notes explaining the 73 goals instead of 75, but I think the article with the most international goals should, for now, mention 75 for consistency reasons with the sources, including the general source.

In addition, that WP article has a secondary ranking (always had), which is why he is the first one mentioned from the players of the 12th position, which secondary ranking is that the player who achieved the number earlier (i.e. in fewer matches) is mentioned before in case of a tie.

Kind regards,

Lorry Gundersen (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jan van den Berg (footballer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Car Crash.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eugen Schmidt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skating.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1923 Copa del Rey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Juan Artola.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited City gate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Absolutism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Barr Theo. Thank you for creating David Mauchan. User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the articles!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joan Gamper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Otto Maier.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Barr Theo. Thank you for creating Hippodrome of Can Tunis. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jaime Vila, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honorary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 1894 Taça D. Carlos I, there's a reference to Tovar 2011, but the full citation is never specified. Could you provide it? Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was Clenixon's doing, not me. But thanks for the warning, I will remove it immediately since there are other references who cover that information. Thanks! Barr Theo (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oporto Cricket and Lawn Tennis Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Campo Alegre.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! View history which is located right above the article --> Fix dead links. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the bot doing these archives isn't working right now. A bug report has been made. I will wait for that to be fixed... Barr Theo (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Locomotoras Albacete, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cartagena.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited English Colony of Barcelona Football Team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Cochran.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the subject of your article is not the primary subject. Most likely, there is no primary subject. So once you create your article, a hatnote on both pages would suffice. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see... So I should ada said hatnote in Henry William Brown the ace and Henry W. Brown the footballer and that's it?

I want to stress the fact that EVERY link to Henry W. Brown is related to the footballer. There is not a single link to Henry W. Brown that is related to the ace. I made sure of that.

Thank you for trying to find a way.

PS: Do you know know how to archive sources/references? Barr Theo (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1902 USFSA Football Championship

added a link pointing to Normandie

English Colony of Barcelona Football Team

added a link pointing to Spring

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Clenixon per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Clenixon. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its true. Barr Theo and Clenixon are in fact the same person... The reason that led me to use multiple accounts was purely aesthetic. Basically, my main account (Clenixon) was for the big edits (usually over 5,000 bytes) while this one was for the smaller ones. I have never used multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. With this said, I have logged out multiple times to make edits as an IP address, and for that there is no excuse.

If my actions are deemed excusable and if you judge me whorthy of a second chance, I shall renounce all my claims on Clenixon (leave it blocked) and never again use IP addresses, and take upon Barr Theo as my only account. If necessary, I can also list in each page the existence of the other account with an explanation of their purpose.

On the other hand, if my actions are deemed too serious and vile, and if my accounts remain forever blocked, I will also understand.

Since this is the first time I am going through this, I am unware of the proceedings. So I am deeply scared about what might happen to my contributions. Everything I have done, I did it in good faith, I promise. I always searched and cited reliable sources in every article and I have always done it with my own words in order to respect copyright rules, sept for two or three occasional "fevers of laziness". My work surely does not deserve complete extermination and anihilation. That is what I fear the most...

What should my next move be? I hope you can guide me through this. Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. I had noticed your block a few days back, but I'm only writing now. Honestly I'm not surprised. I don't think that your reasoning above is a legitimate reason to use two different accounts, especially considering that you didn't disclose it. However, I do believe that it's sad; apart from a few isolated copyvio issues, your contributions have been really good when it comes to Spanish football. Really, those were super interesting and well written in many cases—I patrolled quite a few of them, you know. I'm not sure what Bbb23 thinks for it, but I do think that you deserve a second chance, with a one-account restriction that is. If you wish, you can follow the instructions on the template and request an unblock with {{unblock|reason=}}. Oh and, the archive tool is back since a few days, the pages you mentioned in November on my talk have been archived. ~Styyx^Talk? 14:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello Styyx. Do you know how much time does it take for an unblock request to be reviewed? Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Varies a lot, usually within a few days, but it may take longer. ~Styyx^Talk? 11:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Barr Theo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block is no longer necessary because I understand why I was blocked, and I will not do it again. I shall renounce all my claims on Clenixon (or you can simply leave Clenixon blocked), never again use IP addresses, and take upon Barr Theo as my only account (give me a one-account restriction if you need to). I will keep making productive contributions with my one and only account. Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per WP:ILLEGIT, editing same page with different accounts without disclosing the connection, is not allowed. You also admit that you were using IP socking multiple times. Your only way to get unblocked is the WP:STANDARD OFFER. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would like to echo the sentiment of the comments made by User:Styyx above; generally the edits have been constructive, well-intentioned and legitimate and the interactions have been courteous, nothing that would come close to incurring a ban in those respects. I really can't think of a reason for you to muck about with multiple accounts in that way, maybe you didn't realise how much that is frowned upon, but why do it anyway? I would like to reassure you that your contributions will not be erased - for one thing, you don't own them, they are now the property of Wikipedia. The disadvantage you will have, besides not being able to contribute more at present, is that if any of your additions get challenged and nominated for deletion in the coming months (which is possible, some of this is pretty niche stuff within the "amateur semi-organised gentlemen's era" of Spanish football - it's interesting to me and a few others, but not everyone will consider the teams and players independently notable even with all the time that people, mainly yourself, have taken on creating the articles), you won't be able to challenge it personally, nor make improvements which could prevent its deletion. And editors may take a harsher judgement on borderline stuff because it it came from a banned user (or an IP liked to them). But there will be no blanket 'banned user=all content deleted' operation. Hope to see you back some time if it still interests you. Crowsus (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]