User talk:Soprani

Welcome to my talk, please add your message below and remember to be civil at all times. AS Roma I put the section "Colours and badge" back on AS Roma ... ciao --Gaúcho 11:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Hi Soprani... are you Italian? Well, first of all, I have never seen written "Rome, Lazio", all the world knows what is Rome and there is no reason in specifying the region, this is not Rome, Maine, this is just Rome. Then, why have you deleted the numbers of the "runners-up" titles? I think that they are useful... and finally, why the international records? They should stay there... Waiting your answer... bye --Gaúcho 19:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Hi! Perhaps you didn't read this: Template talk:AS Roma... bye --Gaúcho 19:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC) my user page Hi and thanks. I didn't even notice that the page had been vandalised a few days ago — it was again today and I saw your revert. Best wishes, Jack Merridew 07:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Buon giorno! Buon giorno, my new friend Soprani! :) Please, don't mention it, it's my greatest pleasure to see you liked the design, and you so perfectly adapted it yourself, and witha beautiful color scheme to boot. This is a perfect excuse to wish you a very happy week, and to invite you to drop by my talk page any time you need a little help, or if you just feel like talking. Enjoy! :) Love, Phaedriel - 09:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Gibraltar national football team Nice work. -- Chris B • talk 17:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC) A.S. Roma Yes I'll review it when I have some time tomorrow thanks NapHit 18:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Coppa delle Coppe The Ottorino Barassi Cup was a official trophy (in my ticket for the match there is the UEFA Logo); UEFA not organise this Trophy, but patrocined !! The same argumentation for Alpes Cup (I'm sure for first edition) The Armando Picchi Supertrophy was a official competition by FIGC (8 team partecipated in two groups, semifinal and final in Rome). Font: the locandine manifestation are FIGC Logo. Toshiro70 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.220.71.152 (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC) PD-Italy Just to let you know PD-Italy is not valid under US law, so the template you used on Image:HelgeBronee.jpg is actually invalid. You are requested to write a valid fair use rationale for all of the pictures you uploaded under this license, otherwise I might be forced to delete it in compliance with WP:NONFREE. Thanks. --Angelo 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC) But were they on public domain as of 1996? Both things must happen in order for these pictures to be considered as public domain. --Angelo 19:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC) In this case, please explain it into the image description, citing the approximate date when the pictures were taken (I just saw you similarly uploaded a number of other pictures), in order to avoid confusion. Thanks. --Angelo 19:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC) BBC World Service Have you read the article on the BBC World Service --Philip Baird Shearer 00:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC) National Action It is true that Malta Today is a leftist newspaper, but it's not the only newspaper to describe the party as "far-right", as evident by the citations. So mentioning "Malta Today" in the article can be misleading, making it seem that it's the only newspaper to have described them as such. By the way it's best we keep the discussion on the talk page of the article so other people can see what's going on too. Marcus1234 05:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Userpage design Hey, love the userpage design. Mind if I use it for my own? I'd be sure to give credit to yourself and the original designer! Thanks. Sicilianmandolin 08:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Reverting edits If you revert another user's edits, as you have done at Libero and Four-wheel drive in Formula One it is advisable to always give an edit summary to explain why you are doing this. If not, there is a chance your edits may be seen as vandalism. Thanks --Pak21 18:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Exactly which edit are you referring to? Both this one and this one have edit summaries. You should also read MOS:DAB about the style to be used in disambiguation pages; your recent edits do not make it clear from the link title, as is desired, what the first link refers to. --Pak21 18:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Libero I honestly don't understand what the issue you're making here is. You're replacing it with a piped link when that's not necessary. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. As for "football" vs "soccer", the libero page will be read by a worldwide audience, so what harm is there in using a form of words which will be recognised by everybody? --Pak21 18:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC) On a technical note, the load on the system due to a redirect is completely insignificant; even the load caused by going through a redirect a large number of times is much less than that caused by an edit, so that isn't a reason for using one form or another. On the content issue, another editor has now reverted your change, so I consider this one closed unless you want to bring it up elsewhere. Thanks for adding the Italian meaning, as that was an important point not mentioned on the page. --Pak21 18:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC) I would like to draw your attention to WP:MOSDAB#Piping, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. The reason Libero (soccer) exists is to circumvent the necessity of pipelinking on the disambiguation page, while clarifying which version of "football" is being linked to. --DeLarge 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Cut and paste moves Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move from Partenope to Partenope (opera). Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. In case you want an idea of the amount of work needed to repair such a move: 13:33, 22 October 2007 Lucasbfr restored "Partenope (opera)" ‎ (15 revision(s) restored: cut and paste) 13:33, 22 October 2007 Lucasbfr deleted "Partenope (opera)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 13:33, 22 October 2007 Lucasbfr moved Partenope (opera) to Partenope over redirect ‎ (cut and paste) 13:32, 22 October 2007 Lucasbfr restored "Partenope (opera)" ‎ (11 revision(s) restored: cut and paste) 13:32, 22 October 2007 Lucasbfr deleted "Partenope (opera)" ‎ (CSD G6: Housekeeping) 13:31, 22 October 2007 Lucasbfr moved Partenope to Partenope (opera) ‎ (cut and paste repair) 13:31, 22 October 2007 Lucasbfr deleted "Partenope (opera)" ‎ (deleted to make way for move) -- lucasbfr talk 13:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Blocked You are clearly the abusive vandal and sockpuppeteer, Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs), and have been blocked indefinitely. You know better. --Yamla 15:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 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). Soprani (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: What is this?? I am not a sockpuppet of anybody, show some proofs of you claim. where is any evidence of this lie? - Soprani 15:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Decline reason: reason — The editing patterns exhibited by both you and Daddy Kindsoul, combined with your shared areas of editing, is more than enough evidence. Creating another account to evade this block simply compounds the problem. -- Merope 15:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 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. Show evidence, shared areas of editing? After going on his page it shows he was blocked for going on and USA bands page. I have not, 99% of my edits are on Italian football, if you cannot show evidence from a sock check between them, then you have no evidence. - Soprani 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC) remain calm Remain calm. I'll watch this page. Tell me what has happened in a clear and unbiased way. If you did something that wasn't permitted or wasn't in the best judgement, being upfront is better. I can always be contacted by e-mail if you don't spam me. My specialty is understanding and reducing anger. Anger is ok. Uncontrolled anger isn't. Uetz 18:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC) It is being seen to on the admin board now and it seems other users have a problem with the reversion of all my work... I'm clam, I am just busy compling my own sockpuppet case against Yamla at the moment. :) - Soprani 18:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Retaliation can eat up your soul. Focus on yourself. How did someone accuse you of sockpuppetry? Any truth to the accusation? If you didn't do it, what caused them to attack you? Just a random attack on you is possible but not a common occurance. Since Yamla is an admin, any sockpuppetry case you bring will likely be unsuccessful and just build up anger within yourself. Uetz 19:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC) The clown claims that i was another user, based only on the fact that i go to italian football articles (like many others on Wikipedia). infact he is using that shallow basis in his claims against me on this[1] and calling it "evidence" in an attempt to twist the arbitrator... what he neglects to mention in his "evidence" is that i have never been on the article which that other user was banned for editing (about a USA band), showing that i do not edit as that user. You can check this in the article history.[2] Yamla has a history of "block first, think later" tactics on Wikipedia, so here you see him banning me without even doing a check user first. Did you know that this same clown once banned the entire country of Qatar from editing Wikipedia?[3][4] that is over 840,000 people who he has a history of banning wrongly, infamous. Yet somehow, the powers of be let this..... person, retain sysop controls, which he is using wrongly in a reckless way to this day? Shocking. - Soprani 03:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC) It should also be of note that the clown has tagged many of the anti-vandaler sockpuppets I created yesterday, to combat Yamla's trollish edits which the community had deemed harmful or destructive to the project[5][6] as "sockpuppets of Daddy Kindsouls" but infact, the ones yesterday are only openly admitted[7] sockpuppets of me (Soprani).... he seems to be very confused and still cannot prove that I am that user. In some senses I can pity him, because he does not know what he has done. But its about time that this stupid block be removed. - Soprani 10:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC) A sockpuppetry case against me will be unsuccessful because I have no sockpuppets (abusive or otherwise), not because I am an admin. If you have firm evidence that I do run abusive sockpuppets, I encourage you to post the evidence and would be willing to unblock this account on the condition that you use the unblock solely to present the case. Almost certainly, other admins would be willing to unblock you on the same conditions so you are certainly not relying on me here. Just to be clear here, if any admin, including myself, is using abusive sockpuppet accounts, they should be reported. I state categorically for the record that I have no other accounts on the Wikipedia but of course if you have reason to believe I am lying, you should state your case. --Yamla 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Checkuser came back as very likely. This user is using an ISP which regularly hands out new IP addresses and thus it was all but impossible to be certain. We know this because this vandal has been able to continue setting up more abusive sockpuppet accounts to continue violating the ban. Anyway, this puts the matter to rest. --Yamla 22:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC) "Likely" is not good enough , it can't be proven or "Confirmed" because I don't have the same IP as that person, because Im not them. It would be 'put to rest' if it was confirmed, but this isn't. A test was done, and the facts of the event is: you could not come back with infaliable proof of a connection. so your block is invalid, lacks proof and so i am in my right to continue contributing infos. When considering the typed out 'evidence' [lies, attacks and propaganda] by you over there to try and twist the arm of the arbitrator[8] and the consideration that my counter-evidence was covered up[9] it can be easy to see how, lacking any proof of same IPs (which is how to confirm these situations), that is how based on opinion of your propaganda not actual proof that this conculsion has been made. Currently you will see that I am compling a strong evidence for your trolling and misuse/wrecklessness of your actions (such as page protection, article deletion, creation protection, image deletion, blockings without confirmation, more) This is to do with the fact that still, days after your orginal mass deletion of 100s of articles, something that the community deemed as "troll like", "distructive", "counter-productive", "deletion of valuable content" and many other adjective to describe your insect like actions,[10][11] you still continue to delete articles which are used in high importance places like A.S. Roma article (Stadio del Partito Nazionale Fascista, A.S. Roma statistics, Serie A scandal), you continue to pathetically remove valid content. You also claim that I am a 'vandal', despite the fact that as my contributions show Soprani (talk · contribs) only months of work and valid article creations, not what is described in 'vandalism', so you will stop this slur. So all we see here is, you tried to go out of your way to f**k with a writer, you deleted hundreds of valuable articles, the community involved in them derided you for it, despite that you continued your actions days later when some were restored, you went to seek proof to back up your block (which everything for you hung on).. and when it came back, the results were not confirmed or proven. So we see, you were wrong and you will not get to push away somebody from here who is just interested in making articles better on football and others (something the community has agreed is valuable).[12][13] Into extra time and its Soprani, he scores! 1-0, Yamla is left on his ass with no proof and no conviction to back up or try to trollishly "defeat" or "invalidate" Soprani. - Soprani Post-check user unblock 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). Soprani (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: As you can see above, a check user was taken and the results came back as not proven and not confirmed, meaning that as have said, I am not the sockpuppet of anybody, the lack of proof of a link is evidence in that it could not be confirmed. As we can see from my contributions all my writings and documentations have only been valuable contribution, no sights of vandalism just lots of "good work" (as agreed on by the community)[16][17] I request that I be unblocked to continue that in peace, the block is invalid and lacking in basis. I refuse to be push away from my interest here just because of one guy who was unable to prove any false claims made against me. If not unblocked, like the last few days I will continue to do this documents on lots of different accounts, so it is pointless and counter-productive to the value of the articles here (especially Italian football) if Im not allowed to go about my contributions under this account in peace. - Soprani 23:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Decline reason: As explained by Yamla above, and Mr.Z-man below. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 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. This user was determined to be "very likely" a sockpuppet of Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs). If you are unsure why this would be "very likely" instead of "confirmed", please contact me. Note also that this user has set up over thirty sockpuppet accounts and here is threatening to continue ("I will continue to do this documents[sic] on lots of different accounts"). --Yamla 23:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC) So you saying, I was not confirmed as that user, I was not proven as that user Daddy Kindsoul? Thats the facts. If I was him, I would have been confirmed or proven; yet this evidence does not exist because I'm not. Over the last few days I created sock puppets, this is true... they were put on to reinstate articles, templates, free images and other stuff which the community viewed as valuable,[14][15] that you went on an abusive campaign to erase from Wikipedia.[16] We are talking hundreds of articles, images, templates built up over months, and lots of valuable content edits, which were just in a flick of a switch, purged by you, even though you had no basis and enitrely everybody involved in projects relating to them viewed your deletions as trollish.[17][18] In addition to your lack of consensus to remove all of those hundreds of things, you also were removing stuff by a writer who you had not (and still are unable to) proven by fact to be somebody else. I think I was right to make those ones, to try and stop what you were doing to our football articles, its called damage control and benifited the articles (see;Wikipedia:Ignore all rules). But what does this have to do with me going on, as I do for the months I've come here contributing valuable information with this account to Italian football? There is no evidence in my contributions to show any vandalism or such acts (ask other people on the Football Project). All I am saying is, regardless of if you unjustly keep me blocked (without any proof) or if you just let me go on in peace, I'm here to stay... Im not been pushed away because of you. What is good for the project is if I'm allowed to go on building documents with the other users in that field, as I have before in peace.. where is the harm in all of this? My desires for the project are not negative. - Soprani 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Your creation of other sockpuppets to revert articles and Talk pages back to your versions after your block is blockable, in and of itself. Corvus cornix 23:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC) It is not the case that a "confirm" is guaranteed in the case of sockpuppets. If so, the checkuser results would always be "confirm" or "unrelated". Many ISPs issue revolving IP addresses and we already knew this was the case for you because you have been able to set up numerous abusive sockpuppets while blocked. In this case, there was essentially no way for a "confirm" result given that we know you have used about 30 different IP addresses, give or take. What we do know is that you are using the same ISP in the same geographic location. That after we found sufficient evidence without this to indicate that you were Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs). --Yamla 23:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC) I don't know about ISPs, IPs, all of this garbage. All i know is that i am not that person, so i know my IP is not his one. It is not impossible to prove one way or another, you can either prove something or you can't: simple. In this case, we see that it was unable to confirm so when you put a stupid tag on my page thats says "Soprani is a sockpuppet of Diddy Kindsoul" then you are doing so without infalible proof, if "Soprani" was a document in Wikipedia, a claim like that would get removed, because its unproven. So as it stands this is a block, when there is no confirmation of your accusation. As for Mr. Z-man's comment on "uncivil comments" on this page, all i said is true: this is why i put links of them to prove so, follow them up and they will attest. If you had been f****ed with like i have here this week for no reason at all, when out of my 3,000 or so contributions non of which are vandalism all of them are geniune edits to improve this thing (that is even the consensus of the people who work with me, see the talk of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, and all this was purged and you were blocked with no proof, then you would be extremely agitated too. How do you expect me to reply, when ive been mistreated like THIS! ridiculous! As i said anyway, when certain wreckless people are not trying to f**k with me. I enjoy contributing and building documents here to make Wikipedia the best source for football on the net. Regardless of if i'm unblocked (as i rightly should be) or not, i will not go so what is your point? You will rather trollishly continue to remove contributions that are perfectly reasonable, valuable, while i will re-add with sockpuppets that are actually me??? (note this is not considered vandalism by Wikipedia:Vandalism) you would prefer a continuation of the last few days of inantey (a complete waste of effort and time by you) rather than just leaving me alone, after your test was unproven and let me go on with my edits like the months before you blocked me for no good reason? Seems like a strange choice to me, but if you want battle lines, then that is your perogative: certainly of your making not mine. - Soprani 00:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC) I'll give it till tomorrow evening to see if you have changed your mind and realised A) the block has shown to be invalid as it was on unfounded claims (when put to the test, it couldn't be proven) B) Your actions in regards to all the deletions, and your on-going deletions detailed in the sections above is inane and unacceptable (and deemed as destructive by the community), anytime you click "edit this page".. the prime objective is to improve, what you did (and continued to do today) was the exact oposite of that! Anyway, i have now spoken my position... ball is now to you to decide which directions it goes next (neither of which involve me going anywhere, for the reasons stated above, but one route is an incredible waste of both our times and effort). - Soprani 02:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC) In case a reviewing admin would like to see the checkuser case: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Soprani. Mr.Z-man 23:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 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). Soprani (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: As you can see above, a check user was taken and the results came back as not proven and not confirmed, meaning that as have said, I am not the sockpuppet of anybody, the lack of proof of a link is evidence in that it could not be confirmed. As we can see from my contributions all my writings and documentations have only been valuable contribution, no sights of vandalism just lots of "good work" (as agreed on by the community)[16][17] I request that I be unblocked to continue that in peace, the block is invalid and lacking in basis. I refuse to be push away from my interest here just because of one guy who was unable to prove any false claims made against me. If not unblocked, like the last few days I will continue to do this documents on lots of different accounts, so it is pointless and counter-productive to the value of the articles here (especially Italian football) if Im not allowed to go about my contributions under this account in peace. - Soprani 23:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Decline reason: The checkuser result was "very likely" (would be impossible to definitely confirm) - this plus the other disruption and the disturbingly uncivil comments above suggest that unblocking would not result in a positive gain for Wikipedia.— Mr.Z-man 23:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 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.