User talk:Barr Theo

Welcome!

Hello, Barr Theo, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Giant Snowman 06:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Career stats tables

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]

Vivian Woodward

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]

Tovar 2011

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]

Archiving Sources

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]

Henry W. Brown

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]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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]

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

Blocked as a sockpuppet

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]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Today, exactly six months had passed since I was blocked as a sockpuppet, and therefore I would like to use the Wikipedia:Standard offer. I have made no edits, using any account or anonymously, on the English Wikipedia, during these six months (sept here, on my user talk page). The reason that led me to use multiple accounts was purely aesthetic and never ill-intended. I 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. Regardless, I understand why I was blocked, and will never 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 have learned from my mistake and believe I deserve a second chance. I will keep making productive contributions with my one and only account. Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'm unblocking your account subject to a one-account restriction. Specifically, you may not operate any account except for this one, and may not intentionally edit while logged out. If you accidentally edit while you are logged out, you may correct that by immediately claiming credit for the edit using this account. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser data shows no evidence of recent sockpuppetry or block evasion. --Yamla (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Barr Theo. Thank you for your work on Louis Østrup. User:BeanieFan11, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|BeanieFan11}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Language codes

Hey, Barr Theo. I found two articles (Kent Carlsson and Johan Sjögren) you contributed to recently where you gave the wrong language code for the references. While the top-level domain for Swedish websites is .se, the code for the Swedish language is actually sv. The code se refers to the Northern Sámi language. I encourage you to excercise some more caution when it comes to language codes in the future (I personally just write out the full name of the language so stuff like this doesn't happen). Thanks. ArcticSeeress (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serena

Don't do too much on Serena Williams as I have it in my sandbox for a complete re-write. I've already removed all the refs from the lead section as they are never supposed to have refs to begin with. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

as they are never supposed to have refs to begin with Not exactly true. See MOS:LEADCITE. Robby.is.on (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do our best to avoid them would be better. But we also have to make sure it is covered with sourcing in the main body. And there are also circumstances where it can't be avoided. If there is a source in the lead it's no biggie and might be needed... if there are five we didn't do a good job. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of hat-tricks

Perhaps you would be thinking to create an article for List of footballers who achieved headed goal records, instead of trying to include so many at the hat-tricks list. A listicle for headers would also open the scope of achievements you could include. Kingsif (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Barr Theo. Thank you for your work on Alfonso Almasqué. Bastun, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi Barr Theo, nice work on your new article. I would suggest adding it to appropriate Wikiprojects.

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

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Barr Theo. Thank you for your work on Julius Müller (footballer). BeanieFan11, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

An excellent article. Thank you for your contributions!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|BeanieFan11}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Charles Hereford

The article Charles Hereford has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The only substantial source is a (rather speculative) blog, not a reliable source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hello, can you help me create a template with all editions of Campeonato Regional Centro, and after I will make a page whith every edition. Thank you!

Thank you for the reply and advices! I read your Wipedia news articles and that`s why I asked you to create the Campeonato Regional Centro. Thank you for helping! I have to wait for a few days before I create my first article. But by then you might help to add colors to Campeonato Regional Centro List of winners.

You can also help to create Iberia FC and Internacional FC to complete the teams from the competition.

Kind regards, Help.Football.History (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass creation of articles

You have been creating articles massively, sometimes several in less than one minute. Is there an explanation for that? Please disclose if you are using a bot or another automated or semi-automated program to create these articles for you. Thanks. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 02:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply, are you using a bot or something to create these articles? The editing time (often several per minutes, and always at :59 or :00) seems a bit unnatural. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 1927–28 Spanish Football League

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 1927–28 Spanish Football League, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, 1927–28 Spanish Football League, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it has been moved to where you can continue to work on it. Please consider using the Article Wizard or the Articles for Creation procedure. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read "Your first article". You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Not ready for mainspace, entire sections not written in English, 20+ citation errors, 23 Template:Confirmado?? errors, 17 link=|20px errors, needs work. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for running unapproved bot scripts.

Under the bot policy, all automated scripts must be approved by the Bot Approvals Group to ensure that they perform safe and useful functions without stressing system resources.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I am Barr Theo. I am currently unlogged because I do not want to break my "insane streak of creations", which is also the reason why I did not answer Chaotic Enby. (The last time I used an IP address was in 2022 by the way, and this occasion is an exception that I do not want to repeat).

Regarding these wild accusations of bot usage, I must say that I am very disappointed with your conclusions... No, I do not use "unauthorized bots", I simply create the articles on my schedule and then wait for :59 to click on publish. Why do I do it? Because I am obsessed with symmetry (I always edit in pairs, and very often two or four pages per day) and because I am a perhaps slightly stupid and crazy. But one thing that I am not is a criminal and I have never used "unauthorized bots"; in fact, I do not even know how to do that.

Perhaps my insane consistency and tiredness lead some of you to believe that I am being added by machines, or that I am machine myself, but I ain't. I am just a human being, a very relentless and determined one. Sorry, Chaotic Enby, but there are no shortcuts for greatness.

Now that this miserdustanding has been clarified, I need to be unblocked as soon as possible because I have SIX new pages to create (two of which are already done since 21 March, but that I will only publish at :59 of today).

Sorry again for using an IP address. Kind regards.2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:244B:5EB6:FD6F:A419 (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2024 (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.

Please log in so we can confirm you made the above request. I don't see where someone said you were a "criminal"; Wikipedia is not a government with legal authority over you. You won't be unblocked just to accommodate your need to be particular with when you click Publish. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that it wasn't just the page creations and timing, which absolutely made it look automated. The lack of responsiveness is also a major factor that would need to change. Chaotic Enby asked you two weeks ago about the unnatural patterns of these edits. You chose to ignore the questions, and instead continue your "insane streak of creations", as you put it. That gave even more of an impression that this account was being run by a bot rather than a human. Creating lots of pages isn't necessarily a problem (though creating tons of articles that nobody is watching/maintaining can be a magnet for vandalism, especially articles about living people). I haven't evaluated these articles for issues and I'll accept on good faith that they're okay, but when a reasonable question about your editing is raised there's an expectation that you explain what you're doing. How are you choosing the articles and where is the content coming from? I can see they're alphabetical, and presumably translated from something but there's no indication of what this project is about. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know that I should have answered, but I really didn't wanna break my streak nor use IP addresses due to my previous problems with multi-accounts.

Regarding your question, well... most of my articles ("my project") are about individuals who are somehow involved with the Spanish football at the turn of the century (1890–1930), such as players (Manuel del Castillo), presidents (Manuel de la Sota), patrons (Manuel Rodríguez Arzuaga), and even stadium architects (Manuel María Smith). Then I organize them through alphabetics or names, make up a schedule, and follow through it no matter what. I always try to use as many references as I can find and look up for their pages in foreign wikis as a blueprint.

My current schedule ends on 1 April and I am looking forward for a particularly grand finale in March with a couple of José Marías (Abalo and Tallada for example), some of which are already created and ready to go.

Now that I have been forced to end my "insane streak of creations", I hope that you could at least allow me to finish up the month of March in style and unblock me before 23:58. It would mean a lot to me. Keeping up with this schedule required a lot of determintion, perseverance and sacrifices, and I do not want to miss it when I am THIS close to complete it (“Man Plans, and God Laughs”). Thank you for your consideration.

You guys are probably wondering why I put myself through such stress, but this is just how I work. All you need to worry about is the quality of my pages and I can assure that they are sourced, neutral, and very complete.

Sorry again for using an IP address. Kind regards.Barr Theo (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can respect that people have patterns they like to stick to, everybody gets a sense of satisfaction editing Wikipedia in their own way. I don't really have a problem with it, now that we've had an explanation. Before I agree to unblocking, I just have one more question: where is the text for these articles coming from? Are you writing original text, pulling it from the sources, or translating it from other language Wikipedias? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of it. I pull a line from here, other from there, put my own touch to it, mixed it all together and boom... We have a paragraph (like a nice cook); and then I repeat the same recipe until I'm done. So no, I am not copywriting if that's your worry.

Once again, thank you for your consideration. Truly! And yes, I am very satisfied and proud of what I have done in March thus far.

Coincinde or not, this miserdustanding forced me to make two "non-creation" edits, so I guess that's a pair. I will publish six José Marías at :59s of today, and you are welcome to review them if you want.

Kind regards (waiting for 18:59). Barr Theo (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(passing-by user) If you are including translated content from other Wikis, then you are required to identify where you translated it from: WP:TFOLWP.

– 2804:F14:8093:5F01:91C5:7125:1875:DAC1 (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you created this article – Draft:1927–28 Spanish Football League – I moved it to draft because portions of it were not written in English and it was riddled with citation errors. It appears though it was basically copied from es.wikipedia.org, and is this article – es:Liga Española de Foot-ball – according to the translation app I use. You changed the title, and is almost word for word copied from that es article, is that correct? Are any of your other articles copied from es.wikipedia.org? If so, you must give attribution to where you copied it from, per the IP comment above. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might also like to ask whether, when I unblocked you the last time, you understood your unblock conditions, in particular this one: Specifically, you may not operate any account except for this one, and may not intentionally edit while logged out. (emphasis added) That doesn't mean "don't intentionally edit while logged out unless it breaks some pattern", it means don't do it at all. It appears above that you violated that condition while posting an unblock request. Do you understand that, going forward, you cannot do that, period? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understood my unblock conditions, that's why I said and I quote "this occasion is an exception that I do not want to repeat" and "Sorry again for using an IP address".

I was desperate because I really didn't wanna break my "insane streak of creations" which dates back to 29 February. Now that I am cool-headed I understant that it was stupid.

Kind regards (waiting for 11:59). Barr Theo (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. 1927–28 Spanish Football League was a particular super long article, so if I had built that page like I usually do them – original writing, understading the product, attention to mistakes – it would have taken me over 10+ hours. Unfortunately, I was running out of time ("23:59"), and I decided to just copy-translante-past (but still reading the material) and then I made the stupidity of literally copying without event translanting. I am glad you moved it to draft instead of deleting it right away. I was intending to fix it after my streak ended.

And no, none of my other articles are copied from es.wikipedia.org because none of my other articles were as "super long" as 1927–28 Spanish Football League, so I had the time to make them accordingly. Furthermore, some of my pages do not even have a article in es.wikipedia.org, such as Manuel Rodríguez Arzuaga (28 March), Manuel Ansoleaga (27 March), Luis Saura del Pan (26 March), and Luis Belaunde (25 March), Et cetera, and in fact, these four do not have a page in any other language.

I would love to "give attribution", but I do not even know how to do that. Perhaps you can help me.

Kind regards (waiting for 11:59). Barr Theo (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please read WP:TFOLWP. In your next edit to the draft, write this in the edit summary -

Content in this article is translated from the existing Spanish Wikipedia article at [[:es:Liga Española de Foot-ball]]; see its history for attribution.

Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I will do that when I get unblocked.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Just doing my daily check up.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well with your "daily check up", I'm going to say that I oppose unblocking you at all. You repeatedly violated your unblock conditions and evaded the block altogether (and if it weren't wheel warring, if you were unblocked, I'd just reblock you for that. Unblock conditions are a last chance to adhere to, not a nicety). So, I think for you, it's the standard offer at this point. Wait six months with no evasion or editing under any account or anonymously, come back then, and see if we'll give you another chance then. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for "running a bot script without approval". I have already clarified and explained that I am not. In fact, I do not even know how to do that. I have answered all questions that were asked with honesty and transparency. Isn't that enough? I mean, what else do I have to do? Can I get unblocked now? Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 2:59 pm, 30 March 2024, last Saturday (4 days ago) (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

I'm satisfied that there is no unauthorized bot running on this account, based on the explanations given. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator, but I've witnessed a lot of unusual situations with blocked editors and the steps editors need to take to get their privileges back. You have to understand that at this point, you're asking an admin to take a leap of faith and trust you, but on multiple occasions, you've put your personal need to fulfill your oddly regimented self-imposed posting rules over the actual rules. Even within the conversation in which people are discussing how to get your block lifted, you are enforcing this :59 rule and prioritizing it over a collegial discussion. If you really want to be unblocked, I would urge you to voluntarily agree, as a condition of being unblocked (and remaining unblocked), that you will not time your posts in accordance with any regimental pattern. Admins typically look for every reason to turn blocked editors back into contributing ones, but you have to give them a *reason* to do so. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly local translator here

I happened to notice the above, and wondered if anyone had introduced you to Template:Translated page. The short version is that in addition to what they told you about the edit summary, any article that contains translated text needs to have on its talk page at a minimum {{translated|es|}} -- assuming the translation is from Spanish -- or somebody else who is unamused will come and talk to you about *that*. Just a word to the wise. I am not, mind you, any kind of wikipolice, just a sympathetic fellow editor offering friendly advice.

Since you like projects, I also wondered, and this part is completely optional, whether your projects need to be about football. I know of a bunch of badly written articles that probably should be rewritten from scratch by someone who can easily read Spanish sources. If you just like football, that is a fine and admirable thing to work on; I am however not able to make topic suggestions in that area. Mine batch varies but is mainly business, history or economics. Mostly Central America, maybe some Hapsburg or Bourbon Spain. Oh, and the Philippines! Totally your call.

You don't need to answer me unless you are looking for something to do ;) I don't want to clutter up your time slot if you are sticking to your pattern. But I do strongly recommend using the translated template. It's for copyright compliance so they really consider it pretty important ;) Elinruby (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't need to be about football. They need, however, to be about stuff that I find interesting and that does not bore me.

My next "insane streak of creations" will only take place in May, so I will have a lot of time to do other things in April.

Just send me all you got prior to 1950 and I will most likely do it. And thank you for the template advice, I will use it.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

prior to 1950? Is 1643 ok? And do I understand correctly that Spanish sources are not a problem for you? I can cope with them but it's work. Any other language abilities? It will take a little compiling since the list I use isn't sorted by topic date. But maybe @Mathglot: will help. If you are serious about this I can start on this in a few days. Some may be existing articles that perhaps should be rewritten. Any preference among the topics I mentioned? Elinruby (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey zi just noticed your Babel box. Portuguese might actually be better for me, unless you are out to practice your Spanish Elinruby (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have been looking at stuff that needs to be done (not necessarily by you) and would like to increase the usefulness of my suggestions to you. Am I right in thinking that you want to create articles, not edit bad ones?

Right now I have a batch that center on late 19th and early 20th century Central America, mostly politicians and oligarchs. If that is not of interest I can try for something more cultural or historical. I saw the part about before 1950, but how far back is still of interest? Precolonial history for example? I also have a few about Marimba composers.

Also, I am concentrating on Spanish but Portuguese needs help even more. If now is not the right time to talk, you can reach me through the email link on my user page. And if this doesn't happen or doesn't happen until June, really, no pressure. Elinruby (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Barr Theo. Thank you for your work on Andrés Calero. Another editor, Ingratis, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for this article

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ingratis}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ingratis (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Barr Theo. Thank you for your work on Albert Almasqué. Another editor, Broc, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please do not use sources with user-generated content. Family Search is considered unreliable per WP:RSP.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Broc}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Broc (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Barr Theo. Thank you for your work on José María Castellanos. Another editor, Broc, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice page!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Broc}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Broc (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Barr Theo. Thank you for your work on José María Mateos. Another editor, SafariScribe, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Kudos!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SafariScribe}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all you do!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for all your articles about historic Spanish footballers! It's amazing how prolific you have been in just two years. Also, your page of contribs has the most unique timestamp column I've ever seen. Your edits are appreciated (regardless of what time you made them)! Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah, thank you.

I can't believe that I received my first-ever star right at the end of my "insane streak of creations of May". What a journey! It seems a fitting way to end it.

Two years? Call it one, because I spent the first-half of 2023 blocked and the second-half of 2023 obsessed with tennis.

The timestamp column is the true reason behind my productiveness and consistency. Rain or shine, I must have a page ready to go at 23:59. No time to procastinate.s

By the way, what am I suppose to do with this star? There is a specific place to put it or something? I have no idea...

Once again, thank you for the recognition. Barr Theo (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you do with it is up to you. You can just let archive with the rest of the talk page, or some people put them on their user page. Your callElinruby (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Duparc

I don't think I left a message for this at the time, but the way you created the René Ressejac-Duparc article, by copying over content from a previously-deleted article to a new name - and then adding the more recent claims to notability as an addendum rather than integrating the biographical details - is something that just shouldn't have happened. Copy-and-paste moves shouldn't happen in general. Recreating a deleted article out of process shouldn't happen in general either. While in this case I'm confident it was just haste that led to the article being published this way, combining the two is a huge red flag and generally a trademark of trying to disguise problem editing. And then the poor content structure, which I've edited since, and is a writing matter rather than an issue with article creation.

Still, I notice that you seem to have re/created articles in this way before - based on the message here #Josep Soler i Sardà - so please don't do it again, for real now. Kingsif (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if you realized, but I am the same guy who created Club Femení i d'Esports de Barcelona, Enriqueta Sèculi, Edelmira Calvetó, Lolita Ortiz, and Maria Antònia Mínguez. So, if I have any trademark, it surely ain't problem editing.

.

And yes, I'm aware that I'm not the greatest writer ever, but that is why there are people like you to improve my hundreds creations and initiatives, which was exactly what you did on Spanish Girl's Club, for instance. I am looking forward to make many more similar collaborations with you.

.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theo, I don't think you even understood what I was telling you is a problem, which is another problem. I told you that an article on the subject had previously been created, and deleted at AfD. You then re-created it 1. without holding a discussion, 2. at a new location without linking back (which appears like deliberately discrete recreation of a deleted page), and 3. without linking back to the original in any way (see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for why you should have done that, here and elsewhere FTR). All in all, it was a very bad way to go about it, that suggests you do not have a good handle on how creating articles should go.

By the way, listing your half-finished, possibly-not-notable article creations does not support your case at all. While I was glad that you pinged me when you created Spanish Girl's Club, it was so that I could clean it up, not because you made it. You should not be expecting me and others to make your "initiatives" acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia. That's not "collaboration". Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add more specific categories to you sportsbiographies

Thanks for you work on creating biographies! However, it would be really helpful if you applied more specific categories than Spanish sportspeople. Mason (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Maria Antònia Mínguez for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maria Antònia Mínguez 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/Maria Antònia Mínguez until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-attributed translations

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from fr:Coupe Manier 1900 to another page. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. Sample wording for this is given here. If you forgot, or were not aware of this requirement, attribution must be given retroactively, for example:

NOTE: Content in the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023 was translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.

Retroactive attribution may be added using a dummy edit; see Repairing insufficient attribution. It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, you must add attribution retrospectively, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Demt1298 (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]