User talk:God Football

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, God Football! Thank you for your contributions. I am Mdann52 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Mdann52 (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fifa Club world cup

You added much info to the page. Would you please take part in the discussion at Talk:FIFA_Club_World_Cup#Recent_flood_info_about_previous_FCWC_tournaments? Maybe there is a better place for those additions. -Koppapa (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your additions. They should be copied from article history to improve the other tournaments articles. -Koppapa (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Hello, I'm James086. I noticed that you recently removed some content from FIFA Club World Cup without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, James086 ^Talk 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to FIFA Club World Cup with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. James086 ^Talk 20:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James086

Hi God Football,

User:James086 is an experienced long-time admin here, not a vandal, and he is not using IP addresses to sockpuppet. This is the second time I've removed a report about him at WP:AIV, please don't report him there anymore. I think you'll have much more success using the talk page of the article; right now, I doubt either one of you knows why the other editor is doing what he's doing. I certainly don't. Talk to each other, and you might find that you're both trying to improve the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. Please study WP:VAND for what constitutes vandalism. Please also be aware that reports of sockpuppetry are a serious matter and should be formally reported here. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Tonywalton ^Talk 01:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re-instating prods

If you haven't read the documentation and attendant instructions, don't use the template. Kevin McE (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are claiming that you have read the instructions, I can only worry for either your literacy level, your willingness to follow wikipedia laws, or the veracity of your claim. If anybody objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag - see full instructions below), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed. and If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. Kevin McE (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Historical Table of the FIFA Club World Cup, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages South Melbourne Football Club, Sydney Football Club and Al-Ittihad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup

I would like to point to you that I agree with you that:

1- the "world status" of the Intercontinental Cup is absolutely questionable

2- that joint IC-FCWC statistical article should be deleted

All my argumentation is put in the FCWC talkpage, it is with the IP 177.192.10.223, because I forgot to log in before writting.

As for Dantetheperuvian, he is just a supporter of Juventus who insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC. Just like Gremio and São Paulo supportes do in Brazil due to envy of the legitimate world titles of Corinthians and Internacional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer historian (talk • contribs) 05:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/God Football for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments:
- Don't copy/paste other people's comments. We don't do that here.
- You're causing quite a splash here, with lots of conflict and lots of accusations and lots of rapid significant edits. If people are disputing your edits, slow down and gain consensus for them first.
- Have you edited here previously with another account?

--Floquenbeam (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DUCKISJAMMMY

Are you going to inform them about the RFCU?! I notice you've already told your mate about it, but not the actual subject - extremely poor form. Giant Snowman 13:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again...another lame attempt to intimidate a newbie. Because I can say the same thing about you and DUCKISJAMMY. How quick you were to tell he/she about this in the first place. God Football (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again...you're throwing around unfounded accusations because your claims are baseless. I've notified them. Giant Snowman 13:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now deleted the RFCU as it was not certified by two editors "within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page." Please do not attempt anything like that again. Giant Snowman 13:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of FIFA Club World Cup sponsors for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of FIFA Club World Cup sponsors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of FIFA Club World Cup sponsors until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Pee Jay 11:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with List of FIFA Club World Cup sponsors. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Giant Snowman 12:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really need

to look at the definitions of vandalism, consensus and page ownership. Kevin McE (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:BRDl, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL as well. Kevin McE (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you need to withdraw and apologise for your accusations at WT:FOOTY immediately. If you have no respect for consensus, there is no place for you at Wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you continue to pile ignorant assumption upon generalised falsehood. You pile up evidence to use against you at the ANI that your attitude is rapidly becoming inevitable. Kevin McE (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR at FIFA Club World Cup

Your recent editing history at FIFA Club World Cup shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Giant Snowman 16:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Giant Snowman 17:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA world cup

You must discuss your edits at Talk:FIFA Club World Cup. Wikipedia operates on consensus and currently there is no such consensus to include the information that you keep adding. Labeling other user's edits vandalism is not only a lie, but it is rude. Do not accuse others of vandalism when you are engaged in a content dispute with them. If or when you gain consensus to re-add the information you may but until that time it will be edit warring which is not permitted and you will attract longer blocks or even a topic ban. James086 ^Talk 13:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing never worked because logic seems to take a backseat to BS concensus, stupid games and Tag teaming. I have started a wikia page on it and, hopefully, expand to include more tournaments from there. As I have mentioned, this entire process has been disgusting; nothing gets accomplished when personal vendettas and certain views obstruct for the sake of degradation. God Football (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a total misrepresentation. You are repeating your unfounded and malicious false accusations against me and other users, and nothing on Wikipedia is more important than consensus, not even your own perception of logic. If the inclusion of the material is such a logical imperative, then I'm sure you will be able to persuade people on the talk page of the irresistibility of your case. Kevin McE (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia has ZERO relevance to Wikipedia, and you have again re-introduced edits to this article against consensus. You have jad plenty of warnings and failed to discuss it properly. If you repeat it one more time I will block you indefinitely. Giant Snowman 13:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of indefinite for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Giant Snowman 13:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:FIFA Club World Cup badge.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:FIFA Club World Cup badge.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo corinthians.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo corinthians.png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:FIFA Club World Championship Cup and Club World Cup trophies.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FIFA Club World Championship Cup and Club World Cup trophies.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Haruth (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]