User talk:Alexiulian25/Archive 2

Flags

You have made a big mistake by posting your question at WT:MOSICON. The fanatics who developed that guideline will demand that ALL flags should be removed from the table, and we will be left with a plain list of names. Number 5 7 17:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't suggest removing the flag. The problem is that you have posted it on a noticeboard where people will demand that you remove the flags. Number 5 7 17:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian First Football League

Please remain calm and civil. It is unfortunate that you have deleted my previous post. All information in Wikipedia should have direct citations, especially when challenged. It is not a case of just using 'logic' or what you think is righ, WP is supposed to be following sourcest. What makes you think I don't know anything about football? There's also the issue of WP:NOR, there should be evidence that the sub-set of information you are showing is encyclopaedic. No source is showing a list of 2nd and 3rd place winners, nor sub-dividing winners by city. Any information placed on WP can be edited by anyone, although of course it should be adhering to policies. Eldumpo (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why those 9 points are appearing below my post. Eldumpo (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rules and guidance are to be followed, WP is not a free for all where you write what you want. I appreciate there may be other articles that show honours in a different way, maybe they have appropriate sources for those facts, or maybe they should be changed as well. I don't know what relevance your 'not paid to edit' means, you cannot expect your work at WP to not be edited or challenged. You're the one who edited my changes, so you're free to revert the changes. Eldumpo (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this violate WP:V - please do not add unreferenced content to articles. Giant Snowman 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat again - your edits are WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH i.e. you are not using published reliable sources to verify your content, you are analyzing other material to make your own information. That is not allowed. Your edits at this article and others are becoming increasingly concerning, and you are displaying WP:OWNERSHIP tendencies. If you do not slow down and start working co-operatively then you might end up being reported and blocked from editing. I suggest you raise the matter on the article talk page and make your case there. Giant Snowman 12:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is original research and there is clear opposition to the content (from both myself and @Eldumpo: - therefore your continual addition of it is disruptive (as are your uncivil behaviour). Giant Snowman 12:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I suggest you actually familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before editing again, and also review your behaviour before you get blocked. Giant Snowman 12:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisian Ligue Professionnelle 1

In Tunisia, being a runner-up doesn't mean anything, except qualifying to the Champions' League. This is why it makes no sense to add a "runner-up" column, but thank you very much :))
Alexsd27 (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. The second team in Tunisia started qualifying for the Champions League in 2003, so it is not relevant for all the seasons before 2002–03. Moreover, whosoever wants to see which teams qualified to each edition of the Champions League will need to visit the articles about each season of Tunisian League or CAF Ch. League.
2. In Tunisia, if 2 teams have the same number of titles, the one that reached that number before is on top, for example Stade Tunisien reached 4 titles in 1965 and CA Bizertin 4 titles in 1984, this is why Stade Tunisien has a better standing.
3. That doesn't mean we need a runner-up column in Tunisia, because here, if you are 2nd or last, you did NOT win.
4. Expanding the article by adding an information that is not important? If you want to see who finished 2nd in a specific season, please click on the link to its article.

You're welcome my dear friend, I appreciate your concern and help to improve the page about the Tunisian League.
Alexsd27 (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I do watch the results in Tunisian football, I am interested in, and I also want to improve a bit Tunisian Cup. To add a column for Runners-up here also.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a performance for small teams, but still NOT a title ;)
I still think a runner-up column is not needed. Thank you for your friendly attitude.
Alexsd27 (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Premier League

Thanks for your message. I will try to do as much as time permits. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tunisian Ligue Professionnelle 1

I will try to improve the page as soon as possible. And i can make tables but thanks anyway. Jallouljalloul (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Performance by City??

Can you tell me what is the use of this table?? in Tunis there are a lot of teams, in Sousse only 1 team won titles. So isn't it unfair and most importantly irrelevant to make tables for performance by city??
Why did you insist on doing it for the pages of Tunisian football even though I told you it's not important?
Why did you put runners-up?? don't you know that there are teams that reached the final, or the 2nd place in the league without winning? That makes it a runner-up that is not in the table! And we can NOT include it in a table made for winners! You see how it doesn't make much sense?
Alexsd27 (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We just think different, all the main articles has the runners up and a table with performance by city. we should exapand all football articles... to be different of other football pages, to have more informaion and we will get more people reading it ! If is correct and you know also that is correct why do you have a problem with it ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a lot of questions, and you don't answer, you only write "we just think different". Sorry to tell you this but you seem like wanting to impose what YOU prefer!
Alexsd27 (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Champions List

On Tunisian_Ligue_Professionnelle_1 page, the "after independence" part, it was a simple list automatically divided to 3 columns everytime we add a champion at the end of each season. It was EASY! now you made 3 different tables, you just made it complicated to edit!
Why? just because YOU prefer to see tables does NOT give you any right to force other wikipedia visitors/users to see tables!
The pages about Football in my country have been there for years and they were clear and easy to edit, and to my knowledge, no one complained!
Whenever I want to propose a big modification, I ask people on the article Talk page :))
You just did what you wanted to do without asking many people, and that is not friendly!
Alexsd27 (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere are tables, soon we will add the runners up too, to be more informations there. It is easy to add a row in the table: Just add this: (what is with bold)

Season	Champion
2014–15	Club Africain (13)

"By city"

Referencing is not the problem, at least not in the manner you've addressed. Listing winners of a competition "by city" is not a practice that is normally done in any authoritative source. You may have a source for every club's location, but you don't have a source that ranks wins by city. It's especially pointless in countries like Macedonia, since half the teams are from Skopje anyway! – Pee Jay 14:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did this because other football articles are like this with "by city". And I want all the articles to have some amount of information. In time will get more cities there. Why do delete it ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Giant Snowman 14:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Copa del Rey does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Australia

Hey man, sure, anything specific you want me to edit? Right now I have finals so I might be a little slow till late next week but I will do I can. Also, hope you don't mind, but I looked at your user page and I love the detail and your vision... it is something I had when I first came here for Indian football but now I don't feel that anymore, I wish I can get that back. Also, I better be put into that friends list :p Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I add you now, at least I am not the only one, I want to create something like Wikipedia but with more details, something like this : [1] but with all the leagues in the World, and everyone to can contribute, also Wikipedia is good, but they are a bit weird, I was not allowed to publish this : User:Alexiulian25/Copa del Rey Topscorers and User:Alexiulian25/Copa del Rey Topscorers by Season because was not notable, and on some articles they are very strict and restore what they want and others are stubs. I am not good in computers and creating another "Wikipedia", where we can use advertising and make profit and after to employ people to work for us to improve the quality. It should be something big to have a chat also, a search engine, a video tube, and in time a websites for football sales, and betting maybe, will be like 6 in 1 (facebook, google, youtube, wikipedia, sales and bet). We need to cooperate with FIFA, UEFA and each country football asociation to can be official in results. Something like this ...--Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Your recent editing history at Macedonian First Football League shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Qed237 (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

As a number of people have told you recently, if information is not directly cited and its notability not demonstrated, it is liable to be deleted. Eldumpo (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how long something has been on WP or who wrote it, but without references it is liable for deletion. I would suggest you concentrate on adding directly cited information, and not original research, and then you should not get into disputes. Eldumpo (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership issues

Hello, please stop referring to articles you edit as you owning them, per WP:OWN "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". If you keep being disruptive you will inevitably be blocked to stop you damaging Wikipedia. JMHamo (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

Hi, you have been told many times not to clogg up edit history with all your small edits, instead make one edit with all updates. It seems like you are only trying to get a high edit count. Also please use edit summary and stop with personal attacks. You are currently disrupting wikipedia and you may be blocked and have your edits reverted. Qed237 (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do short edits because, when I have 5 minutes break, I do it, save it and continue later, that is why I do, I lost many times my work without saving !

I do left edit summaries, not for every minor edit. That user Eldumpo is following me, and all the time delete things, even it was there before, all the articles almost have problems, but deletes on pages I did edit, thats why is a narrow minded.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sup, sorry to come in to this, but when replying do add a ":" at the beginning of your posts so you can indent and thus make the comment chain. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Katie^talk 15:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Katie^talk 16:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you restore things with references? Why no ones does something with QED237 ? WIKIPEDIA IS CORRUPT ! --Alexiulian25 (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame what people are here, I am disgusting of you.

Tunisian Super Cup - vandalism attacked by User:Qed237 reverted after I add references ! why no ones does something ?Alexiulian25 (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:KrakatoaKatie. You better unblock me because there is now lots of vandalism attacks happening, and you do nothing ! How you can block me? the google translate is not good ! Let me translate it to you. UNBLOCK ME

How you can vote him to be an administrator ? WIKIPEDIA = CORUPTION !

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).

Alexiulian25 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

to much 60 hours - I already calm down

Decline reason:

"I already calm down" is not sufficient. We would need a convincing explanation that you understand why what you did was not acceptable, and a believable commitment to not approach disagreement by edit warring and making personal attacks again. Also, I would recommend you sleep on it and do not make your next unblock request until you have been away for 24 hours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2015 (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.

Delete everything here - I am disgusting of WIkipedia, I will leave this community. And I am not the only one.

@Alexiulian25: Come on now, I've helped you in the past so take a second and listen - 60 hours isn't too bad, I'd suggest taking the time to chill out, read about Wikipedia policy and decide how to calmly take your next steps. I'm still willing to talk and help you, but if you come back after your block and continue this behaviour, you will be re-blocked for a much longer time. Please take the advice here seriously and I look forward to speaking and working with you very soon

-- samtar ^whisper 17:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samtar: OK. Can you exaplin to me : Tunisian Super Cup - why did he revert here ???? (he did not let a reason) and why no ones does something ?? (it was referenced). No one reverts his edits.

No one is replying to me, we are turning into a dictatorial Wikipedia, with @Qed237: being propose to be admin, without being voted, and he also can revert and change without giving an explanation (see:Tunisian Super Cup), congrats guys, you are bringing back to life the comunist or nazy!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexiulian25, relax and take some time out to think about how your behaviour is a problem here. JMHamo (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing until Tue, 08 Dec 2015 04:22:19 GMT for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of your block, as you are continuing to make personal attacks on people here - calling people Communists and Nazis is utterly unacceptable (even if you do misspell them). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and when you come back, you need to stop this "Qed237 being propose to be admin, without being voted" nonsense. Nobody gets to become an admin without a successful Request for adminship, which is then decided by community consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to make a final answer before leaving this matter. First of all I have kept quiet because whatever I say, you refused to listened and tried to attack so it was not worth it. Secondly I have explained many times why I revert some of your edits. In the case of Tunisian Super Cup I reverted because the performance section was completely unsourced. Thirdly, there is one editor that has nominated me for adminship and I have not even accepted the nomination yet. If I accept, there will be voting and community consensus so I am still far away from being an administrator. Finally, please try and understand why you are blocked, your personal attacks and battleground behaviour is not acceptable, so please take some time of, relax, and come back as the good editor you can be. Qed237 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The indefinite block is because of this. Given the escalation in the block, I have re-enabled your talk page access so you can appeal it if you wish, but if you make one more attack on anyone here or post an appeal that does not address your own behaviour then that privilege will be revoked again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now trying to evade your block with User talk:2607:F358:101:45D:6DD5:CB53:60F5:E722. The more you do this, the less likely it is you will be unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Draft:ARO Câmpulung concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:ARO Câmpulung, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.