User talk:Bmf 051

<No header>

have you checked the edit’s comment at all before arbitrarily removing it? petrosian was armenian, not russian. the article lists his russified patronym, which is a) factually wrong and b) culturally ignorant.

if you need a reliable source that he was armenian, just check the article and the references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigran_Petrosian#cite_note-1973CLR-1 https://hy.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D5%8F%D5%AB%D5%A3%D6%80%D5%A1%D5%B6_%D5%8A%D5%A5%D5%BF%D6%80%D5%B8%D5%BD%D5%B5%D5%A1%D5%B6#cite_note-_f3139c01441189e7-1

tired of these ownership moves under the guise of »reliable sources«.

I'm not asking for a source that he was Armenian. You need to provide a source that that was his patronym. Bmf 051 (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm confused of how you can accuse me of WP:OWN when I've only edited the article once. Bmf 051 (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Comfy Couch

Lmfaooo loss of editing privileges... I’m an IP address. I can do this all day every day. Remember the months long attack on this page back in 2017? Multiple times a day from multiple accounts every single day for weeks and weeks. I’m back 😊. You can’t block an anonymous user. I just refresh my IP and keep going. Good luck, my friend.

I doubt that you've done, or will do, any of that. Bmf 051 (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

check the page's edit history... it's all there. I changed Loonette to Loonetta and couch to sofa over and over and over,among other things. ok well let's do this... i will let everyone thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.177.195 (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whatever. Thanks for letting me know this page is persistently vandalized. There's plenty that can be done to stop it. Bmf 051 (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment re 1924 palace law of succession

not sure what source you would like me to provide as this is a matter of definition - the thai constitution articles referring to princess succeeding is translated from Thai as "princess" - but in that พระราชธิดา specifically means "daughter of monarch" if you look at the thai wikipedia pages, you will see that chulabhorn is พระราชธิดา as she was daughter of rama ix, her daughter is referred to as พระธิดา i.e. princess (not higher princess, daughter of monarch) so chulabhorn's daughters should not be in the line of succession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.115.195.112 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All information of Wikipedia needs to be sourced (and no, other versions of Wikipedia do not count as sources). It is your job to find an appropriate source as the person adding or removing content. It's not just a matter of what's correct, but what's reliably sourced. Bmf 051 (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that your edit summary says that this information is "likely" true is a dead giveaway that this is WP:OR. Bmf 051 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of revision history

hello, can you help me to delete the revision history on the page "Dion Chen". It's the one that has ip address on it. I accidentally changed the content since I thought it is inappriopriate, however it was denied right after, exposing my ip address. Can you help me to delete the Revision history thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortimerch19 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, so I couldn't do this if I wanted to. Also, I don't think an admin will help you do this either. They can delete the revision itself, but it will still show your IP address. Bmf 051 (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<No header>

I keep getting blocked despite the fact that I have made good edits. For example on the topic of the President of South Korea it stated that they were the head of state and head of government of the Korean Armed Forces when in fact it should say he was the head of state and government of South Korea. Please be more respectful to me to if you wish for me to be respectful. I have faced a lot of hate from DrKay for no reason. If I make contributions you should please at least be kind and not quick to judge.

Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.162.122 (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to delete entire sourced paragraphs from an article, you need to explain why in you edit summary. It's as simple as that. Bmf 051 (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of noticeboards

Do not slander edits as vandalism when they are not. 51.7.229.251 (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are clearly disruptive, and your initial explanation was vague. The problem isn't that you didn't provide an explanation, it's that it wasn't a sufficient reason to remove sourced content. If you think the content should be removed, you need to discuss in on the talk page. Regardless, your personal attacks are more than enough to get you blocked. It is perfectly reasonable for me to use the noticeboards to report your behavior. Bmf 051 (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures on the Wikipedia page of Jahannam

Dear Bmf 051, I see that you have removed the edit I made on the page, perhaps I did not explain myself correctly. Let me start by saying that I greatly appreciate and respect the commitment to keep Wikipedia neutral and censor-free. That being said, Wikipedia itself states that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." There are a million pictures that depict Jahannam in an informative and neutral way, yet the two pictures on the page involve the Prophet Muhammed and other characters which when depicted in art is seen as offensive to Muslims. These characters have no reason of being in picture as they are not directly related to the picture describing Jahannam. I would be more understanding if those pictures were the only options but as I stated before, there are many pictures that depict "Jahannam" in an informative and neutral way without the addition of offending the viewers of the page. Thank you so much for reaching out and I truly hope that you are understanding in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noshirkallowed (talk • contribs) 17:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Noshirkallowed: WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is an invalid argument for removing images. You may also want to read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. And I disagree that these pictures are not directly related to Jahannam, as the section in which they appear discusses depictions of Jahannam in Hadith literature. And again, the fact that some will find the images offensive for religious reasons is irrelevant due to WP:NOTCENSORED. "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." Removing content because it may offend some is the exact opposite of neutral. Keeping the content and allowing the user themselves to choose whether to hide or show images (e.g. by following Help:Options to hide an image) is impartial. In short: if you don't like the images, don't look at them. Bmf 051 (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shaddap You Face

Hi Bmf 051. You have removed my revisions due to my not citing sources. I am the creator and performer of this song and my source is myself. There is inaccurate information on this website that I have corrected. Please restore the corrections. Thank you, Joe Dolce, Dolceamore Music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.59.40 (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it were true that you are this person (which it isn't) then you'd be violating WP:COI and WP:OR. So please consider that. Bmf 051 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am guilty of violating WP:OR then because I am indeed the artist and creator of the song and I paid for it myself so the information is incorrect and misleading. (Here is my website: joedolce.net and my email: dolcej@yahoo.com for further corresponence.) eg. In the very first paragraph you cite Mike Brady as having financed the recording which is totally wrong. Mike is my good friend by the way and the completed recording was assigned to him, by me, after it was recorded and paid for only for him to market.

   I did not know that there was a conflict of interest for me to be editing my own wiki pages as  have been doing it for the past decade without any problem. In fact, most of the information on the Shaddap You Face site and my own personal wiki site has been put there by me so I guess you might as well take the whole thing down if you have a problem with this. My only intention is to keep my pages up to date and accurate so any help you can give me on how to do this within the parameters of what is acceptable would be appreciated. Joe Dolce  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.59.40 (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who you are, you need to cite sources for adding information. But if you are who you say you are, you need to report it. Bmf 051 (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That is helpful and I will familiarize myself a little more with the WP:COI and WP:OR better before effecting any further changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.59.40 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lance 'n' Masque

Sorry for your troublesome. Some of the citation seem to be replaced better source, so I erased one of them. However, with your request, it is not suitable for any change of source without further notice towards other users. Honestly speaking, this would be one of my mistaken article change. 211.237.125.110 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Bmf 051 (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the standard for inclusion in embedded lists

You've recently made several edits that remove material from lists embedded in articles with edit summaries saying "...If this person was notable enough to be included here, he'd be list in <related list article> and also have his own article." This is a friendly reminder that notability only applies for the subject of an article; it does not apply to the contents of an article. WP:LISTBIO is the guideline for embedded lists and it was rewritten a few years to make it clear that notability is not the standard applied for inclusion in embedded lists. (However, your other point of "we can't include everyone in this article" is a valid one so your edits are still fine.) ElKevbo (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are not a just simple embedded lists. These are specifically sections containing lists of notable people (hence the word "notable" in the section titles). That is to say the list Alabama A&M#Notable people is less like List of Alabama A&M people and more like List of notable Wikipedians. The former may include people who aren't notable enough to be the subject of an article, but the latter is implicitly people who are notable by the standard set by WP:NOTABILITY (hence the word "notable" in the title). If the list on Alabama A&M simply said "Famous Alumni", I would agree with you. But it says "Notable people". If a page had a list called "List of Wikipedia articles with one-letter titles", would it make sense to have either red links or articles with more than one-letter titles? No, because a stricter standard for inclusion is set by the section title. Bmf 051 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, "embedded lists" are simply those lists that are in articles; they're distinguished only from "list articles." And we most certainly do not mean "notable in the Wikipedia sense" every time we use the word "notable" in an article. If you think that readers or editors might be confused about this, you're welcome to propose alternatives or make changes (I've seen and used "noteworthy" in Talk page discussions to avoid this confusion). ElKevbo (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. If you're saying I broke a rule but still improved the encyclopedia in the process, then you're welcome. I'll continue to do it this way then. Bmf 051 (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like clarity. What can be done, where can I add his information? I would like to add him as a notable alumnus as he is a president of a university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbell322 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These "Notable people" sections are essentially summaries of the articles List of Alabama A&M people and List of Howard University people. These sections are kind of like Mount Rushmore and the articles are like all 45 U.S. presidents. That is, the sections contain some of the more notable (but not necessarily the most notable) people, and are generally limited in size. You can't put every U.S. President on Mount Rushmore. You have to draw the line somewhere, in terms of who is included and how many people are included in total.

My reason for saying that this person should not be added is that:

These sections are already big enough, and maybe even too big.
The people already listed in these sections seemed (to me) to be more notable than the person you want to add.

I suspect that even if I had not removed him from these lists, someone else would have for the same reasons that I did. If you would like to add this person to either page, I would recommend starting a conversation on Talk:Alabama A&M University and Talk:Howard University. I am personally not that familiar with the alumni of either university, so you may get a different answer from someone who is. But just keep in mind, it is not just a question of notability, but also a question of list size. That is, don't just ask "is this person notable enough to include in this section?", but rather "is this person notable enough to make this list (which is already too big) even bigger?" or "is this person notable enough to replace this other person who is currently listed?" Bmf 051 (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may benefit from using RedWarn

Hello, Bmf 051! I'm Ed6767, a developer for RedWarn. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to try RedWarn, a new modern and user friendly tool specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over two hundred other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on RedWarn's talk page at WT:RW. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed talk! 19:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The New Mutants

Your comment: "Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to The New Mutants (film). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia."

It is not "my own point of view". This is what Bob McLeod said: "I was disappointed when they didn’t give Dani braids, although I like Blu Hunt. I was disappointed when Rahne wasn’t a redhead with spiky hair, although I adore Maisie Williams. I was disappointed that Sam isn’t tall and gawky, although I do like Charlie Heaton. But mainly I was very disappointed that Roberto isn’t short and dark-skinned." And I provided a link to it. 92.220.125.90 (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You presented it as a statement of fact rather than as a direct quotation. That is what makes it non-neutral. If you want to quote someone, then quote them properly. If you want to paraphrase them, then don't copy their quote word-for-word without using quotations. Paraphrase it properly. You've done some amalgamation of quoting and paraphrasing which comes off as a statement of fact. Regardless, Metro is not a reliable source. See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You will need to find another source if you want to add this to the article. Bmf 051 (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

League tables

I'm not sure where your getting your league standings from, but please look at these and away goals do not get ranked before total goals scored.

--Skyblueshaun (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyblueshaun: See here:

I'm not saying away goals are ranked before total goals (and I don't know where you are getting that from). The ranking procedure is: 1) Points; 2) Goal difference; 3) Number of goals scored; 4) Head-to-head results; 5) Wins; 6) Away goals; 7) Penalty points; 8) 12-point sending off offences.

The references you cite are generally accurate. However, they only seem to break ties down to #3 from the ranking procedure (i.e. Number of goals scored), then after that they just list tied teams alphabetically. On the other hand, the sources I gave break ties down to #6 (i.e. Away goals). So early in the season (when tiebreakers beyond #3 actually come in to play), sources like the ones I've given are more accurate than the EFL, BBC, and Sky Sports. This is demonstrably true. Take Reading and QPR for example:

Both have 3 points.
Both have a goal difference of +2.
Both scored 2 goals.
Both have 0 points head-to-head.
Both have 1 win.
Reading have 2 away goals, while QPR have 0.

So Reading should be ahead of QPR. But the EFL, Sky Sports, and BBC all have QPR in first, since QPR comes before Reading alphabetically. Google, Goal, and Soccerway correctly have Reading first and QPR 2nd. Those three sources also have the teams who won 1–0 in the correct order (i.e. the teams that scored an away goal [Luton, Norwich, Rotherham, and Swansea] are listed first [ahead of Birmingham and Watford]), whereas the sources you gave just list them alphabetically (Birmingham, Luton, Norwich, Rotherham, Swansea, Watford). Bmf 051 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stage Hypnosis

Hi. Just checking on something. Where is the policy that one has to gather consensus on the talk page to remove content that is *not* sourced except to impossible to verify self-published sources? You've twice said that it's "sourced" content - it's not, except to sources that for all intents and purposes do not exist. 87.228.210.13 (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRESERVE for why you shouldn't blank content that you think needs improvement (including improving sources). Also see WP:CAUTIOUS for why you should discuss major changes to an article on the talk page. The WP:ONUS is on you to show that these sources don't exist. Even then, you should search for other sources that may say the same thing rather than deleting the content altogether. Bmf 051 (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your last revert [1] removed the template you added. I was re-adding it, so not sure why you reverted it. Bmf 051 (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content I removed only contained the sceptical opinions of a (very) minor stage hypnotist, almost certainly added by the person himself given the fact that the books are so rare only one of them even shows up on Amazon. The informational content already exists in the article in other paragraphs and is well sourced. I think you've misunderstood WP:ONUS: it states that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" (my italics).87.228.210.13 (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC) In short, I have removed no factual information (and thus respect WP:PRESERVE), and the onus is on you to justify restoring self-published and self-promotional content. Rather than wikilawyering, why not just explain which elements in the removed sections you see as meaningful contributions to the article? 87.228.210.13 (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content you are removing is sourced and has WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS (as it's been on the page largely unchanged since 2016). I think the prudent thing to do is to discuss it on the talk page and establish a new consensus, which is what you've started to do. Allow that to play out (maybe even ping other frequent editors of the article or bring it up with WT:SKEPTICISM or WT:THEATRE, so that it is a more fruitful discussion). If you think a statement or source is dubious, there are ways to fix it without blindly blanking the content. See WP:DISPUTED for example. From me, this isn't a value judgment on the content you are trying remove or on your reasons for removing it, but rather a deference towards establishing consensus: the content is sourced (poorly or otherwise) and has consensus, so the onus (and no, not WP:ONUS exactly) is on you to establish a new consensus before removing it. Bmf 051 (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I should point out, since you're accusing me of wiki-lawyering, you asked me to cite the relevant policies . If you didn't want to hear about policy, you shouldn't have asked for it. Bmf 051 (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS only applies if there is a dispute. You do not appear to have any dispute with the actual content of the edit (your silence on the talk page is notable), only with the idea of removing text. I have given an expanation, now repeatedly, for the removal of the particular material. You can see the publisher's page at [2]: it's clearly a one-man vanity press. You can see the Home Office document that Tsander (or whoever edited his name into this page) claimed to have been reference in here [3]: his name appears nowhere in it. Unless you or another editor actually have a substantial and reasoned objection to the actual edit rather than the action of editing (which is the only time that WP:DISPUTED would apply), then I'm afraid that WP:BOLD is the only policy that applies here. I will re-delete the section and expect either that you will give a reason for blocking my edit based on Tsander's career and notability (in which case I'm happy to hear your reasons), or that you will let it stand.87.228.210.13 (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WT:SKEPTICISM#Cleaning up Stage hypnosis#Skepticism]. Remember, WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. There is no harm in keeping the content up until an amicable solution can be found. Cheers. Bmf 051 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go Bucks!

Go Bucks! :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your message

Dear BMf051. I am new to Wiki and I am a Geology professor at Uppsala University in Sweden. I have only cited scientific articles by myself but also by other workers. These are not Spam in any form but substantiate or provide more detail to the statements I have edited. From your page I see that you are specialised in sports, not in geology. Please comment on the scientific merits of my edits as I do not see that they are unwarranted. ValTroll (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ValTroll: Hi. Repeatedly adding references to your own work is considered WP:REFSPAM and WP:PROMOTION. The prudent thing to do before WP:SELFCITEing is to propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. I do not need to be an expert in geology to know Wikipedia policy, as I am an experienced Wikipedia editor. I'll have you know that in addition to my interest in sports, I am also a mathematician. Don't you dare talk down to me again about what articles I choose to edit. Bmf 051 (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bmf051: Thank you for your kind support of new users.ValTroll (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ValTroll: You're welcome! Bmf 051 (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. (This is a third-party notification.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indic Script

Thanks for the revert here. Note that there is a policy WP:NOINDICSCRIPT as per which the lede and the infobox should not contain Indian scripts in Indian articles, except articles on languages and scripts. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H.J. Heinz

Heinz, in Kitt Green, is not the largest food production factory in Greater Manchester, never mind Europe. Unless, of course, cereal is not classed as food (which I'm sure it is). Kellogs, Trafford Park, is bigger and is the biggest. Everybody knows that. Wikipedias is full of shit.

Jemmy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.94.142 (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Everybody know that" then provide a source. Bmf 051 (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t expect Jemmy to back any of his insane ramblings with sources. He’s spent years on various media platforms and newspaper sites trying to claim the town of Leigh doesn’t exist. He’s an absolute nutcase. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated photo of Washington Nationals outfielder Juan Soto reverted to previous 2019 image

My apologies if I did not set the CC license correctly, as you probably guessed, I'm new to this. Can you please let me know why you reverted the image?

Image uploaded was

Thanks, DCSportsContributor (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)DCSportsContributor[reply]

@DCSportsContributor: I think I misread the license, so I reverted my edit. I thought it was a non-free license, which would have made the original picture WP:FREER. Please place talk page messages at the bottom of the page. Cheers. Bmf 051 (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I was going to report User:Anon407 to AIV, but you did so accordingly. For that, I thank you! ;-) JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020–21 FA Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newport.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hello, you may be interested in a sockpuppet investigation I just filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SaintMary1971, since you've reverted many of their edits. Graham87 17:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<No header>

Jared Goff recently Confirmed his trade to Detroit earlier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B1BB:8569:34EA:5B0D:76BB:457B (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The trade isn't official until March. Goff is still under contract for the Rams until then. Please place new comments at the bottom of the talk page you are posting on, not the top. Also, please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of your post. Bmf 051 (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"2009–10 Cheltenham Town F.C. season" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2009–10 Cheltenham Town F.C. season. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 11#2009–10 Cheltenham Town F.C. season until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:4TeamBracket-2legsExceptFinalwith3rd

Template:4TeamBracket-2legsExceptFinalwith3rd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible pots in UEFA club competitions

So you're telling me that also the 'Group stage' sections in the other 2 require citations when it comes to grouping club for pots? Look at 2021–22 UEFA Champions League#Group_stage and 2021–22 UEFA Europa League#Group_stage. Both are an simple uncited analysis of the clubs' CCs, the same as the table in the UECL article. The only difference is the form of the presentation due to number of involved pairings. SandoLorris (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandoLorris: "So you're telling me that also the 'Group stage' sections in the other 2 require citations when it comes to grouping club for pots?" Absolutely! If the other tournaments' seedings are unsourced, they should be marked as such as well. But since I am not in the business of finding every single instance where information is unsourced on Wikipedia, I did not go looking other examples in the articles you mentioned. Feel free to add the tag yourself.

A "citation needed" tag is a request for another editor to verify a statement. It is a mechanism for improving an article. Not a way of calling out the editor for adding unsourced content. So don't take it personally. Bmf 051 (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League Group A

Template:2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League Group A has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League Group B

Template:2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League Group B has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League Group C

Template:2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League Group C has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League Group D

Template:2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League Group D has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League Group E

Template:2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League Group E has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League Group F

Template:2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League Group F has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League Group G

Template:2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League Group G has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League Group H

Template:2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League Group H has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League Group A

Template:2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League Group A has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League Group B

Template:2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League Group B has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League Group C

Template:2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League Group C has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League Group D

Template:2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League Group D has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League Group E

Template:2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League Group E has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League Group F

Template:2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League Group F has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League Group G

Template:2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League Group G has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League Group H

Template:2016–17 CONCACAF Champions League Group H has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedians interested in Premiership Rugby

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians interested in Premiership Rugby indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Guayama-FC.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Guayama-FC.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 3 July 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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2015 MLS Cup Playoff Bracket

Template:2015 MLS Cup Playoff Bracket has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2016 MLS Cup Playoff Bracket

Template:2016 MLS Cup Playoff Bracket has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UNCAF countries location map

Hello Bmf 051, could you please make a map like this but for the UNCAF zone? Thiago89 (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of AFC Academy

The article AFC Academy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources

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. AusLondonder (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 FIFA Club World Cup

I have made a detailed comment at WikiProject Football, and consider that is a better forum to discuss this issue than at the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup talk page. If you go through the talk page you will see there are a lot of junior (likely south american) editors, discussing there. They are passionate, junior, and often off topic (e.g. WP:NOTFORUM) and confuse the debate about does it fall under WP:CALC or is it WP:OR, with mathematical mechanics and conspiracy theories. But to say I'm not trying to stifle the discussion, but . . . . . , and referring to pissing contests with links to the definitions, is disrespectful. I would like you to be mindful of your editing responses. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will call a spade a spade. No more no less. Bmf 051 (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have my own opinions about GiantSnowman. However, I see your explanation about neutrality, so I assume WP:GOODFAITH with your selection of them to provide an informal view, and that WP:APPNOTE applies, and that it is not the cherry-picking that I initially believed it to be. I am sorry that offended, and also sorry about you misconstruing my 'prediction' of a future edit-war (if the table was removed during the active matchday period) with any prior edits that you had earlier made. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the apology. I wasn't offended, just a bit confused as I was being very cautious about not canvassing. That is the reason I didn't ping every person from the 2023 discussion on this topic, as those editors seemed to mostly have my point-of-view. Bmf 051 (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadnt seen your spade comment before now. I think that by its very definition, you cannot call a spade a spade by using a metaphor. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your last edit at 2025 FIFA Club World Cup was verging on WP:POINTY, given you didn't get the consensus you were seeking at WP:FOOTY. Are you going to now give it another crack? I would have preferred the Footy Rankings reference as a secondary source. However, The Footy Rankings page for the Club World Cup qualification has now disappeared, which is disappointing. I contacted the guys at Footy Rankings, and their rationale for removing it was that FIFA are now publishing it and keeping it up-to-date, so they no longer needed to bother to do so. Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how it is disruptive. It is fairly normal to tag such information. If you feel you can verify it, then please add an additional source.

And again, as before, if you think I'm doing anything against the rules, please feel free to report it through the proper channels. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flags flags flags

I note from your user page you have been to a very similar group of countries to myself, apart from the African places that I have to go to for work. I display mine by duration, which template I picked up from the great User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao's compilation. Cheers. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Grenades FC.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Grenades FC.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]