Madcynic

Hello Madcynic,

Thank you for your interest in the Wikimedia Board Election. The Election Committee regretfully informs you that your previous vote was received in error and will be struck according to the election rules, described below.

The Election Committee regretfully announces today that we will have to remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must have at least 400 edits by June 1 to be eligible to vote.

The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third party election partner) initially were wrong, and one of your account was eventually included to our initial list. There was a bug in the edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits. So large numbers of people were qualified according to the software who shouldn't be. The bug has been fixed and an amended list was sent to SPI already.

Our first (and wrong) list contains 80,458 accounts as qualified. The proper number of qualified voters in the SPI list is now 52,750. As of the morning of July 4 (UTC), there are 2,773 unique voters and 220 people, including you, have voted who are not qualified based upon this identified error.

In accordance with voting regulations the Election Committee will strike those approximately 220 votes due to lack of voting eligibility. The list of struck votes is available at https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/List_of_struck_votes.

We are aware of the possibility that some of the people affected may have other accounts with more than 400 edits, and hence may still be eligible to vote. We encourage you to consider voting again from another account, if you have one. If you have no other account eligible to vote, we hope you reach the criteria in the next Election, and expect to see your participation to the future Elections.

Your comments, questions or messages to the Committee would be appreciated, you can make them at m:Talk:Board elections/2007/en. Other language versions are available at m:Translation requests/Eleccom mail, 07-05.

Again, we would like to deeply apologize for any inconvenience.

Sincerely,
Kizu Naoko
Philippe
Jon Harald Søby
Newyorkbrad
Tim Starling

For Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee

Oops, forgot the part about your alphabetising the order. But you don't see three lines still at the end? - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nein. Hier. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just realised that the problem can be avoided in Mozilla by decreasing the text size in the browser. It seems Mozilla's default font size is just that little bit larger than that of IE and Opera. - Dudesleeper · Talk 00:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have done a temporary edit so that there are no |s at the end of the lines when I view it, but these templates look different depending on the font size used by the person viewing it. So, I have been looking at other templates. Very few seem to use the nowrap editing option, presumably because of the variable font size. However, the German football team names look much better with nowrap. So, I propose using nowrap for all the team names. Also, very few use fixed line breaks, br, presumably for the same reason. Most of them seem to use • or · instead of |. I think they look better, but it would be very good if one could specify that the character used for separating articles in the list should not appear if they are at the end or beginning of a line. Also, I think the German football templates ought to have a common style. Have you had any further thoughts? Coyets 14:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Madcynic,

thanks for your message, I didn't even know about the clubs from Niedersachsen going to Regionalliga West, seems a bit of a wild one to me, they have always been in the Nord and it would isolate Bremen a bit. I will try to clarify the last map straight away, do you know how to align the maps horizontally rather then vertically, I think it would look better? Kind regards, EA210269 (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, thanks for letting me know, down here in Australia we don't get all that much on German football, only from the internet. But even when I used to live in Bavaria, Niedersachsen seemed a long way away, never been there!!! Can't see any of those clubs liking to have to move across to the West. Anyway, I have tried to make the maps a little clearer and I'm still working on the realignment. See you,EA210269 (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I integrated the maps into the relevant parts of the aricle now, rather then having an extra section. I hope it makes the changes in league structure a little more obvious. If you got any reference about the Niedersachsen controversy, could you let me know? Might be worth adding, too. EA210269 (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Thüringen bit is a tricky one, as RW Erfurt and Carl Zeiss Jena both have played in the south for a while. Spfr. Siegen has done so too, being from Westfalen. It would start making the map pretty confusing, unless I color Thüringen altogether differently, maybe. EA210269 (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Madcynic,

I' m not sure which of the two league systems you are talking about but I assume its the 2008-09 one. Its a bit of a dilemma there because in the north, with the Oberliga Nord being abolished, the five Verbandsligas are parallel to the NOFV-Oberligas, below the Regionalliga. But they are still only Verbandsligas and I got a feeling, there will be one or two Oberligas pretty soon again, like there was with Oberliga Niedersachsen/Bremen and Hamburg/Schleswig-Holstein. It would make more sense and would also allow for direct promotion again. Anyway, not my call. Regarding the five Verbandsligas, I think I might just place a footnote and leave them where they are for now, if someone feels its completly wrong they will most certainly change it! Its just a bit of cut and copy. I have actually used those two tables in the German football league system article, have a look for an slightly updated version. In any case, if you wish, you can also write to me in German, I got a basic knowledge of that too, like most Bavarians. Have fun, EA210269 (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Forgot to ask, are you happy with the the new maps in the Regionalliga articles? My computer knowledge is somewhat limited, especially when it comes to the paint-program.EA210269 (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Aggreed, lets wait and see, I placed a footnote for now. I guess, the point could be taken to the discussion page of the article to give more people a say. Personally, it doesn't seem right to put, lets say, Verbandsliga Bremen on an equal level to the future Oberliga Nordrhein-Westfalen, not quite the same playing strength, without wanting to hurt Bremen to much!EA210269 (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Template:Oberliga NOFV-Nord requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing up the articles a bit, it didn't look like anybody had noticed them so far. That dot you removed may be the explanation why I had trouble with some flags in articles lately!!! Caused me a bit of a headache. Oh well, we are all still learning. Regarding the articles themselves, I had the feeling the old DDR leagues deserved a bit more then just being a footnote on the current German leagues. Being from the west however, I havn't got all the inside knowledge, I hope somebody who grew up with the DDR football can add a few more details. It's an interessting part of German sports history! Have fun and all the best,EA210269 (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I created a template, among others, titled Template:East German football and tied it to the East German football articles. If you can see anyway it needs improving, let me know.EA210269 (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're such a goof. CadenS (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I noticed the German wikipedia doesn't believe in telling people where the information came from. I figured we better add a reference to the Regionalliga article to let people know why the 7th placed team qualified for the play-off spot and not number six. Thanks for letting me know, I didn't know about Heeslingen getting knocked back for a licence. Its a long way from Germany, here in Perth! Anyway, have fun, EA210269 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

It said so on the Nigerian Players external link on that page, which seems to have expired. The entire career history was gathered from there. Maybe it was just a trial? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was the following year that that happened, wasn't it? I remember FCM storming to the NOFV-Oberliga title in 2001. By all means remove the references to Magdeburg on his page though - I can't see any Google hits that corroborate him being there, although I don't have a subscription here [1]. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you know this but any competition, when the defending champion is eliminated, either mathematically or by an outright elimination, they lose possession of the trophy.

For example...

When Brazil lost to France in the 2006 FIFA World Cup, Brazil were no longer the World Champions as the trophy slipped away from them. The trophy, thus, became vacant.

When Argentina played the World Cup in 1990, Argentina were still the World Champions until the final whistle of that final. It immediately changed to West Germany after the trophy ceremony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSonicx1986 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. I thought it might be me; it's difficult to discern tone just by reading. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the second teams, I changed the template because I have created redirect pages for most of the second teams now, hoping that the more successful ones will have there own articles one day. Have fun, EA210269 (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Its a bit unfortunate, that Werder Bremen II, a third division side, does not have its own article already, I find. VfB II and Bayern II, the other two reserve sides in the league, do already. EA210269 (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good work on updating all the German league template references. Wiggy! (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've moved a couple of German league pages to new names as their official names seem to have changed. This incidently also solves an earlier discussion we had, whether the northern German leagues, like the Verbandsliga Bremen, should be put on Oberliga level in the 2008-09 league system. Now that they are officially called Oberligas, their position is clear. Have a look and let me know whether you agree with the new league names. For example, Verbandsliga Bremen is now Bremen-Liga, with a redirect from Oberliga Bremen. Have fun, EA210269 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is alot of stuff that currently needs changing due to the considerable changes in the league system, thanks for picking up whatever I missed. Regarding the non-promotion of the Bremen league champion, no club from any of the five northern Verbandsligas was promoted, an unfortunate result of the disbanding of the Oberliga Nord, which, in my opinion, was a grave mistake! Anyway, heaps of work, I'm currently updating all the league templates for the new season.

Regarding the northen Oberliga clubs, I don't think we will be able to create an article for each club anyway, to much work, therefore we don't have to worry about notability all that much anyway. Have fun, EA210269 (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading Image:Fcgwwolfen.gif. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've made up a template on the 21 regional German Cups, there is only 3 articles so far on them. Of those three, two have a German title, Bayerischer Toto-Pokal (created by me) and Sachsenpokal (created by the one we don't speak about) while one is in English, Saxony-Anhalt Cup (created by you). Any thought on what would be the right approach as to a uniform naming convention? The template I made is in English but I'm open either way. Have fun, let me know what you think, EA210269 (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, English suits me fine, too. I havn't put in a request for more articles. There is a lot of work to be done and information is rather limited. I will go and post moving proposals on the two German-titled articles, see if there is any response. If nobody objects, we can move them in a few days. EA210269 (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations, and thank you for your nomination. – RyanCross (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I will expand the section a bit, got to tired last night to continue. The source is a publication by the DSFS (Deutscher Sportclub fuer Fussball Statistik) and it coveres the whole German league football from 1945 from the first to the third tier. Heaps of stuff in there! Anyway, I will expand and add some tables to, if it gets to large it might even have to be its own litle article. Might have to wait till tomorrow, I'm a litle busy today. Have fun, EA210269 (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done some more work on it, hope it looks better now. Should it become its own article to down-size the Bundesliga one, its a bit large? EA210269 (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

My source still provides a bit more information and there is enough at hand from other sources to expand it. Should I find time to do so, I will properbly make it it's own article, till then I will leave it where it is. However, if you or somebody else can add more a new article is properbly in order. EA210269 (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's been something I'd been mneaning to get round to for a while. It's nice to see someone else working on East German football articles. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've had half a mind to create his article for a while, but haven't got round to it - if you beat me to it, that's fine by me. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm improving the article it was very messy before and I will edit the other tables to keep the in lie with my changes to the 1991 table. NapHit (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Gatoclass (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you restrict your Google search to Romanian websites, you'll see some uses of the accented variant: [2]. The other Romanian sites don't use accents not because their authors specifically intended his name not to have them, but because the entire page lacks diacritics -- still a relatively common occurrence on Romanian websites.

I won't vigorously object to an unaccented version, as he is known that way in German and (by extension) in English, but as even the most famous Romanians have diacritics here -- Nadia Comăneci, Constantin Brâncuşi and Nicolae Ceauşescu -- I think the case for diacritics is at least plausible. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the references you recently added to this article. However, so as not to run afoul of Wikipedia's prohibitions on original research and synthesis, we really need sources explicitly referring to those teams as dynasties. In some cases this has come from a league itself (e.g. NHL and Hockey Hall of Fame); in other cases it may come from media covering sport in general (ESPN), a specific sport (The Blood-Horse magazine for thoroughbred horse racing), or sources generally accepted as reputable (The New York Times). Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Otherwise, the question becomes what defines a "dynasty". Do two consecutive championships make a dynasty? What about three? What about three in four years? What about two championships, with a runner-up finish between them? And so on. The only way to settle it is that some other reliable source has to call it a dynasty. cmadler (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Because the result, of having one name in the title and the other in the first line, seems useful. We do this quite often; but I will check to emend the rest of the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re [3]: Thanks, had just figured this out and was about to undo my edit. 87.79.84.18 (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Madcynic. Sorry to bother you like this but I see you are the person to speak to if I have a doubt about DDR players. I´m interested in one in particular: Christian Engelmann. Do you know him? I found out he played in FK Vojvodina somewhere in the 80´s. It´s also mentioned in the german wikipedia here: [4]. Do you know what years? FkpCascais (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanx, I tryied the net too but also didn´t find anything. If you find something about him in the future let me know. Thanx a lot. FkpCascais (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Because I hadn't seen the debate and thought it was consistent with the naming of the German Football Association article and use of English - I'm sorry I should have checked the talk page. Please feel free to undo it. At least I've added a new article on a German football club... Gruß. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Madcynic! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Gustav-Adolf Schur - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Ernst Kümmel - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Siegmund Mewes - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Frank Engel - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have modified the new template and made the old one a redirect, best I can do. The other option would have been a possible edit war over which one to use, not my prefered choice. Have a look at Template:Football in East Germany and see what you think needs modifing. the whole process of creating a new template rather then modifing the old one and possibly moving it to a new name seems rather clumsy, unusual for somebody with a resonable amount of experience, like User:Bogic! Calistemon (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. Thanks for your efforts, I couldn't have done that as I was indisposed due to the holidays... Madcynic (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry! Just trying to standardise the layout of these articles a little as they're a bit of a mess. Feel free to put them back if you think it's better as it was. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article All-Time DDR-Oberliga Table has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, falls afoul of WP:NOTSTATS, and has no indications of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article All-Time DDR-Oberliga Table 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/All-Time DDR-Oberliga Table 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 good 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, can you maybe explain the rationale behind using templates for the tables in the 2012-13 Regionalliga article? To me this just makes editing them more difficult as it requires a lot more searching (I have to look up each template and edit it). The templates seem to embody just the normal table code that was used in the article itself before. What is the advantage, I fail to see it. Madcynic (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

You are right. It is harder to update. I saw that the Regionalliga Bayern was done that way and no one seem to object and just continue with the others. I do not know how to delete the templates though. Raul17 (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Rule 10 states that if two or more are relegated from the 3.Liga and the champion is not promoted, then bottom three (14-16) are relegated. Eventhough the possibility no longer applies, I would like to keep that in the standings because that was the original possibility before the season. If Leipzig had won promotion & Babelsberg was not relegated, I would have kept Cottbus in the relegation zone with a note explaining why they were not relegated. Thank you 19:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Having the "potential relegation" column even though there is no longer the possibility of relegation is confusing to the casual reader who will ever wonder why on Earth there is no (R) next to Auerbach. We should reflect the final result, and not potential results. --Madcynic (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Somehow I knew that would be your answer. No big deal, but I wish WP stop treating its reader as being dumb. Thanks Raul17 (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd suggest you go talk to people at WP:FOOTBALL, maybe they would follow your opinion rather than mine. I don't intend to be the final judge of things. Madcynic (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

It will just be like the 2ªB Group 3 where I said that five teams will be relegated instead of the four & #17 in the qualification playoff and was basicly over-ruled. Thanks Raul17 (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012–13 Fußball-Regionalliga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carl Zeiss Jena (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) 11:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013–14 DFB-Pokal, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Heidenheim, Worms and Red Bull Arena (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) 11:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article is borderline between stub and start class at best. It's well sourced for an article of its length, but in the end it's little more than an infobox and a list of transfers. For a start class article, I would expect to see at least twice as much prose. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey, yeah the bg thing is done for the different days, not every 2nd match. check the articles from previous years. That hidden message can be added again when someone links to the stadium. Kante4 (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SC Magdeburg, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Christian Gaudin and Sigfús Sigurðsson. 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) 10:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Madcynic, I would propose to correct the sorting of the matchday number. Yes it is wrong to say the match against Osnabrück is on matchday 8, but it definitely could make the table in a better and proper format. Exceptions can be made and this is one of them, as it does not have high importance related to the article. MbahGondrong (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. That would mean sacrificing fact for looks. We could add a footnote to the 7, explaining the match was moved and add an appropriate source. Madcynic (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree with that. MbahGondrong (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I did improve the main page : FDGB-Pokal - have a look, now if you can create all the missing seasons, Thanks!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016–17 1. FC Magdeburg season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gerrit Müller and Christian Beck. 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) 09:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016–17 1. FC Magdeburg season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian Beck. 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) 09:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!