User talk:Football.Fútbol.Soccer

Feel free to leave a message for me here, and I will respond as soon as I can. Thanks! – Football.Fútbol.Soccer 18:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move Request for Estadio Olimpico Metropolitano

I have setup the move request for Estadio Olimpico Metropolitano, which you can see here. You setup the move request on the talk page of the article that you are putting the move request, not on the actual move request page. If you can any further questions don't be afraid to ask. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^{¤ • ¢} 21:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya the RFCBot is setup to locate all the move requests & add them to the move request page. The RFCBot will also remove the move requests if it can't find a move request on the talk page of the article. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^{¤ • ¢} 22:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange

So I did some digging, since in your response you mentioned that the row coloring was done last year and I discovered that this feature was added in this edit by User:Grant.Alpaugh. Looking at your edit history, it appears that you've only been editing since early September. If I connect these dots I can come to one of three conclusions:

You are one of the IP editors I saw in the edit history of 2008 Major League Soccer season and you've only recently created an account
For some reason you've abandoned an old account that were were using previously which also appears in the edit history of that article
You are Grant.Alpaugh

If it's one of the first two, then you have nothing to worry about. If it's the third, then consider this your one and only "cease and desist" notification from me. The way you're debating on the talk page with "I want it this way because this is how we did it last year" arguments is markedly the debate style of Grant. Last time he surfaced as User:AfterMayAndIntoAugust I played along for a few days before others noticed what was going on and he was quickly banned. I will not play the fool again this time. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be 100% clear on what I mean by "cease and desist". If you are Grant, then you have too much history in the MLS related articles such that it taints your ability to collaborate with other editors. I see that you've contributed productively to a number of non-MLS articles over the last month. If you can stay clear of MLS articles, then I'm willing to "live and let live". However, if you continue, I'll be forced to get others involved, do a check user most likely, and have a debate about whether you are who you say you are. If it's determined that you are not Grant.Alpaugh, I will owe you an apology. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

Following Skotywa's comments, and some research on my own, I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grant.Alpaugh. Feel free to follow the steps on that page. Grsz¹¹ 14:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jayron32 04:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Look, the reason for my original notification (and "cease and desist" offer) was not because I disagreed with the edits you were trying to make. If you read my comments carefully, you'll see that I was trying to work with you. I admit I was frustrated with your unwillingness to consider any other options I proposed but that's not a big deal. It was when I started to recognize who you really were that the notification came. You're attempting to circumvent the rulings of Wikipedia admins. Any organization, club, supporter group, or whatever has rules and violators of those rules are subject to penalties. Whether you choose to accept this or not is irrelevant, the rules will be applied regardless. The reason this matters to me is because I don't want to work with you while your simultaniously trying to put on a charade about who you are, your past, and your motivations. Personally, I think that the way things are done everywhere else in the encyclopedia and the way things were done in previous versions of an article are relevant talking points, but not the "end all" of the discussion. We can't have that honest conversation though while you persist in putting on a charade to circumvent your block. I'd love to have a civil discussion with the real Grant.Alpaugh about the merits of doing something the way it's done everywhere else or doing something new. While you've been out, Bobblehead and I worked together to create {{footballbox collapsible}} and it's now being used in nearly 100 articles. Arguments about how it's done everywhere else or how it was done previously would have preserved the status quo with {{footballbox}} rather than allowing for innovation. Now you can accuse me of ownership issues, or just trying to get my own way, or whatever else you can think up and throw them all at me. This is a one time comment and one time suggestion. My suggestion is this... next time you feel the urge to circumvent the system again, don't. Just put in another unblock request for your original account. This comment looks promising. In the end, it's a pretty credible argument that your strong desires to contribute to the encyclopedia got the better of you and caused you to make poor decisions. There are probably a number of admins who would be willing to give you a chance again in a month or two. If you keep pulling these shenanigans though, the cycle will likely continue. Okay, that's all I have to say. Go ahead and accuse me of anything you like now. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/69.135.191.49 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Kevin McE (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]