User talk:Davefelmer

Welcome!

Hello, Davefelmer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Balkans Cup

Can you improve also Balkans Cup seasons, there are not many games in one edition, just QF, SF and Final. Thanks.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Sporting page

Hey!

I saw your edits on Sporting Clube de Portugal page. The way it was written may be biased (something I will rectify), but I must not agree with you when you say the article is only about the football team. Yes, I will not hide, its my club, but it says "its a multiple sports-club based in Portugal". And indeed, everything it says it's true, in Portugal, counting all sports, no club has won more than Sporting, and yes, Sporting have won European Cups on 22 occasions. I know things about my club, and I have edited the page in a neutral point of view as much as possible (check the rivalries and the history sections, as it shows the high and low points of the club). I will get more references, and if I do not put them until Monday you may reverse what it's written. Also, when I edit I usually describe any change as "Work in Progress", as such, the "History" part is going to have further information's about the club as a all, not only regarding the football team. The page was very incomplete before my edits, something I want to change. Regards! an— Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingCP1906 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, the thing is though, the article may say that its a multi sports club, but thats only because you or someone else put it in. The article is solely about the football club, so unless you want to merge the articles of all the sports teams with the football club page, then you can't have that in because it doesnt have anything to do with any of those sports apart from football. It would be like adding stuff about the achievements of the Bayern handball team and basketball club to the Bayern football page intro, it makes no sense. Furthermore, the statement about the 14,000 titles sounds ridiculous. A throwaway line without any evidence on a biased website isnt reason enough to include it; for such big claims, you need good sources that go into details and are neutral. Looking through some of the sports clubs in SL and their trophies, it sounds absolutely absurd they could have 1,400 trophies let alone 14,000! I appreciate the work you've done on the page overall with historical detail etc, I am only interested in the intro where the questionable information is. So you can keep the rest. But there is no reason and no credible source to persist with the stuff at the top of the intro.Davefelmer (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Confusion

Hi there DAVE, from Portugal,

I assume in your summary in Gabriel Heinze you mean me and this (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabriel_Heinze&diff=701972580&oldid=699678025). Could not be farther from the true. The person I called an idiot vandal (exactly what they are, nothing less, nothing more) was not you, but the "user" that inserted (deliberately) a wrong wikilink in his Man United section. About you, I only wrote "Intro: reinstated", so I did not call you anything nor did I accuse you, OK?

I always thought that major honours would be all the major domestic cups and the leagues (domestic, Champions L and Europa L), I would not call the Football League Trophy a major trophy, is it? Whatever the case may be, I won't be bothered anymore nor will I bother any fellow user, it stays your way, was only trying to help as you, I imagine.

Attentively, apologies for the misunderstanding --Be Quiet AL (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi mate, thanks for clarifying. Its best not to think of any trophy as 'major' as there is no specific official depiction of any as such. thus we deal in national trophies. All the best, Davefelmer (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Nolito: in Spain it's like this, or Portugal. Even though I'm working in other articles as we speak, I'm browsing the web like crazy to send you a source, don't know how's your Spanish to read through it tough. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I getting fed up with browsing and I want to work in other articles. I am going to ask a reliable Spanish user because it's very possible you won't trust me just based on the statement above (I am not a RS), I'll tip you as soon as I get a reply. If you remove anything - even though I don't think anyone has ever removed that stuff in Nolito in YEARS) - whatever, I'll leave it be. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it that much. It's a minor issue and I am only trying to make the encyclopaedia as reliable and informative as possible. If we can't find a source on that matter, it is fine. I am more than happy to leave it as is. Davefelmer (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Here is one my kind fellow user (please see here http://resultados.as.com/resultados/ficha/deportista/nolito/19080/, note how they say "1 LIGA BBVA (sponsor of La Liga)" in his Barcelona honours, "palmarés" in Spanish). You can browse for more in my talkpage, the Spanish user was quick as can be to respond to my message :) --Be Quiet AL (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Very well mate, I've looked at the source and it's good. One thing though, can you please note it by the liga title win in his honours section? Thanks, Davefelmer (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I went with SOCCERWAY.com instead, pretty reliable per WP standards. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense as it's an English source so easier to understand. Good stuff! Davefelmer (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

English clubs competitive honours

Hi there, I just reverted your edit to remove an honour from Liverpool, they won the 1906 Sheriff of London Charity Shield which was an FA ratified tournament and official precursor to the FA Community/Charity Shield. They qualified for the trophy as league champions that year.

I also reverted the opening text, I'm happy for it to be reworded but the assertion of 'four domestic trophies' just doesn't make sense as there is a list below of 6-8 trophies (depending on whether you count previous incarnations as being the same trophy). Happy to discuss further. Mountain^cirque 09:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Although technically it did evolve into the Charity - and later Community - Shield, the Sheriff of London Shield is not a recognised competitive fixture in the same way the Charity Shield is. Nor by the FA nor by the clubs themselves. As shown by Liverpool's official site only listing 15 shields , and other frequently used reliable sources doing the same. Our job is to deal in what the sources show, and they do not confer with its inclusion in the table.

I agree about your assertion with the phrasing of the intro. Davefelmer (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I have only just seen this response. The RSSSF link you post surely disagrees with your point as it explicitly lists the Sheriff trophy as the precursor to the Charity Shield? Again, as I noted elsewhere, the honours listed by Liverpool are of no consequence to this list of competitive honours which can be sourced from many different places and Liverpool's website manager's opinion on the matter doesn't affect history. I would like you to explain how the Sheriff trophy in 1907 was any less 'competitive' than the FA Charity Shield trophy in 1908? Corinthian F.C. in fact amended their constitution in order to compete in the trophy as they made a special exception to play competitively for charity matches. That closes the matter of 'not competitive' for me as there are multiple newspaper and published sources backing that up - all on the Sheriff of London Charity Shield page if you care to look. Just because a trophy was over 100 years ago doesn't make it any less competitive or notable, at the time it was one of the biggest fixtures of the year with tens of thousands of fans watching matches at Crystal Palace (the FA Cup final venue of the time). Please post for consensus on the talk page before you make any sweeping changes in future, I see that you have been blocked for edit warring in the past and this approach seems similar to what got you in trouble last time Mountain^cirque 11:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, waste of time. The RSSF source lists the Sheriff trophy and then doesnt count it for clubs in their total hauls for all the incarnations of the Shield at the end of the article, where Liverpool have 15. thus, it disagrees with your assertion. furthermore, club sourcing from Liverpool shows they dont count or list it either. we deal with sources on here, not opinions and what you want to be the case. now stop adding unsourced information and removing sourced information. Davefelmer (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the source for the Sheriff of London Charity Shield being a competitive match which Corinthian F.C. had to change their written constitution to play in, taken from the page I referred you too. I understand that you couldn't be expected to read the 344 page book but think it quite dismissive of you to say you have checked every reference: It's on page 233 [1]

This is the match that Liverpool played, details from the same book [2], page 176. The result is also listed in , there is also an original newspaper report, noting that 25,000 people attended the match and that the FA President was on hand to give the trophy: [3].

If I add it with these cast iron, published and linked references will that be OK? Mountain^cirque 10:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Reading the sources it still feels more like what I said it would be on the competitive honours talk page. The Liverpool source simply gives a match report, not saying whether it is competitive or not. Just because 25,000 people showed up doesnt mean it was a big tournament. Man Utd and Real Madrid had 108,000 show up to watch them play in 2014 but that doesnt mean the game was anything other than a friendly. The other source for Corinthians gives a bit more, but it says they had to change their rules to compete for "prizes of any description whatever". That can mean absolutely anything. You can contest a technical prize at the end of a friendly tournament, like with the ICC Cup that top Premier League teams do every summer. There has to be something more cast-iron than this. The best most clear cut sources we have are the individual clubs, and as you can see using three clubs that have won it that you have recently brought up (Villa, Arsenal, Liverpool), none of them recognise it as an honour, so to source additional awards to anything detailing their club honours is inaccurate. Davefelmer (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, my take is that you cannot prove a negative. If the game was a friendly wouldn't one of the references note that? You could say exactly the same about the FA Charity Shield, can you show me a reference proving that the 1908 FA Charity Shield was not a friendly? No, because it is reported in exactly the same way as the SLCS from 1898-1907, through newspaper reports and books of the era. Corinthian F.C. played only friendly matches for their entire existence, they had to change their constitution to enter an actual competitive match for charity, if the match was a friendly they would not have needed to change their constitution. This is a Guardian article noting that Corinthian played in the SLCS "competition" as an exception from playing friendlies:

"The Corinthians, as they christened themselves, fought a rearguard action on amateurism's behalf. Violently opposed to pot-hunting - that is, winning competitions - they made an exception only for the Sheriff of London's Charity Shield."[4]

In my opinion this closes the case that it was a non-friendly tournament, there are at least three sources showing the same, which is impressive considering it is over 100 years ago. Mountain^cirque 15:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The references wouldnt necessarily note a friendly as such. Take for example the BBC and their covering of Man United's 2014 ICC Champions Cup win. Obviously it was a friendly tournament, but they did not mention that in their reports and reading it, you'd think it was an actual competition. . As for the Charity Shield, I wont bother looking for match reports of the 1908 Charity Shield since several easily accessible sources describe it as a competitive fixture directly and as the first trophy of the season .

Reading the Guardian link though, I agree thats a reliable source that gives credibility to the case for the Sheriff of London Shield as a competitive tournament in the same vain as the Charity Shield. Although personally I still have my doubts due to all the clubs that have won it not recognising it in their official hauls, while they do the Charity Shield, I dont think its a big enough issue to argue over and won't object to its inclusion. In regards to the page for the list of competitive trophies for English clubs though, there's no way the Centenary tournament counts based on the evidence myself and the other editor outlined in the talk page discussion. Davefelmer (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm not 100% behind the centenary trophy either but lean slightly towards including it, it's an odd one, obviously as it will likely only be played every 100 years. It comes down to having concise criteria for inclusion on the page really. Mountain^cirque 10:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It didnt have any qualifying criteria, did not even have full games and again isnt recognised by the clubs at hand. Realistically there is no way it can be on there. There is no basis at all. It was played (four games for the winners) over two days and the semi final and final were on the same day right after each other, with unlimited subs and 30 minute halfs! Davefelmer (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You're getting confused between the Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy, played with normal rules and the Football League Centenary Tournament, played the same season with the rules your describe, they were different tournaments. The 'Trophy' was based on league position in the previous year, was competitive and played by only elite sides. Mountain^cirque 14:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes sorry I did appear to confuse them, but the same issues remain with it. The winning club, Arsenal, dont recognise it, the FA dont list it and I cannot seem to see a source confirming an official status. Do you have a source like the Corinthians one for it? Elite teams playing in it doesnt mean anything, look at the ICC tournament I mentioned earlier for example. Davefelmer (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Fan made awards

Cascadia Cup is recognized by the league. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Even if the league takes note of it, it still doesnt classify as an honour. A bust given to the team for winning a derby game, which includes friendly games in its count, does not constitute a professional club trophy. Davefelmer (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on you to show that it's not considered an honour. All three teams consider it one and the league recognizes it. The correct place for the discussion is the team's article, not here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually the onus would be on you to prove it, as the statements you have given me themselves have no proof. Furthermore, it is consistent with the other similar sections of football club articles that these types of games are not included. As the article for the game itself says, it was created by supporters with the supporters groups themselves at times deciding which games to count for the trophy. This in no way constitutes a professional honour. Furthermore, as Portland dont have an honour page, here is a frequently used source's honours list for the club. http://us.soccerway.com/teams/united-states/portland-timbers-mls/17501/trophies/. As you can see, the game is excluded. All the sources that you listed show is that the game took place, it does not prove it is an honour, which this source shows it is not. Davefelmer (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

So by public, a discussion either on the Timber's page, the Cascadia Cup page or on the talk on WP:FOOTY. Other editors will likely not come here to see your comments. I'm tired of reverting you and Footy seems to agree with you so keep it off the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Cenk Tosun, Spor Toto Cup

Hello Mr Felmer,

You are right that the English Wikipedia states that the Spor Toto Cup was abolished in the 1970s, however this article itself is wrong. I have found an article on the Turkish Wikipedia about the 2011-12 season which confirms Tosun scored twice in the final as Gaziantepspor won it. [5] I have also found a reliable third party reference from beIN Sports [6] which includes a video of the match. I fully understand why you removed the Spor Toto Cup from Tosun's honours and I have put a hidden note so that other users don't in good faith try to remove it.

Harambe Walks (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for letting me know. Looking at your sources, it is clear that I didnt know an extra addition of the competition did take place. However, it appears to have been a form of consolation tournament for the 9th-18th placed teams in the Turkish league. Looking at those entry requirements, do you still think we should list it as an official honour? Again, thanks for showing me and there is no doubt that it took place, but I am just wondering about its relative merits.

All the best, Davefelmer (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We would have to ask an expert in Turkish football about that because I had never heard of this cup before reading the page. My assumption? To me it resembles the EFL Trophy, a competition that is handicapped to give smaller teams a chance to win (Turkish football is almost completely dominated by three teams). In that case, it's still notable, just like winning the EFL Trophy or the Championship or any other second division. All the best Harambe Walks (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I agree with that and I agree with your assessment of the tournament. I have made a note of its status next to the link on the page, perhaps that is a fair compromise. Best, Davefelmer (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I am glad we reached a peaceful compromise. Far too often I have seen on this website that people do not discuss for common ground or the other person's view on the matter. I'm glad we could do this. Harambe Walks (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

MLS (Again)

Your removal of regional cups at Seattle Sounders FC and other MLS articles goes against long-established layout rules for MLS articles. Open up an RFC instead of trying to barge in without consensus. SounderBruce 21:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Look above on my talk page and you'll see there was already a prior dispute about this with another editor. It was taken to wiki project football and the consensus favoured this side. Fact is there is no such thing as "an established MLS layout", and that literally means nothing. The official MLS site I linked you as well as several other reliable sources and ones frequently used for trophies on here all show them not to count, on top of the consensus established on wiki football. This is a sourced based encyclopedia, we stick to what the sources say and the sources say fan made awards for derby wins and such dont count. I accept you might not like it and may personally disagree, but we can only do what the most reliable sources show. Davefelmer (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The "official MLS site" you reference is part of the quasi-independent MLS Digital content that the league spits out, and is by no means an official record. It is also very out of date (with the last entries from 2015) and should not be used in place of up-to-date sources and reliable secondary sources like The Seattle Times (among others).

The Cascadia Cup is an actual competition that is covered by routinely covered by national sources (e.g. The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times) and is given in-depth coverage that is equal to the U.S. Open Cup by local sources (going as far as to cover its annual rules changes). It's useful and among the pieces of information that readers of MLS articles would want to know, so there's no reason to remove it. SounderBruce 06:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

While digital content, it isnt independant at all and is produced by the league. Regardless of how up to date it is, you can take from it the obvious reference of what counts and doesnt for a trophy. Once again, the fact that it gets coverage is meaningless. Friendlies get coverage all the time, that doesnt make them official matches. The Washington Post, as you reference in one of its links, freely discusses it being a FAN MADE AWARD. In any scenario, surely you arent peddling that to be a serious honour. ESPN and Soccerway, a source used all across this site for ages, all disagree as well. The discussion has also been had on wiki football where consensus went against it. If you revert it again, I'll have to report you siting the wiki football consensus from before and the sources. You are editing with no evidence at all beyond its mention in newspapers, which proves nothing. Davefelmer (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Consensus on Charlie's Angels 2019 talk page

There's a discussion on the Charlie's Angels 2019 film talk page regarding whether we should the flop/bomb label in the lead. Your two cents would be greatly appreciated. Armegon (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Just replied! Davefelmer (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Olive branch

    An olive branch for you.
    In all honesty, I have no personal issue with you. If you'd like to extend the RfC related to Birds of Prey (2020 film) in order to obtain more responses to possibly arrive at a consensus one way or the other, I would be more than happy to help you with that. I also hope we can continue collegially discussing Charlie's Angels (2019 film). KyleJoan^talk 06:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright mate. I don't have an issue with you either and agree that it's far better to work together productively than throwing petty snaps at one another. I've extended the Birds of Prey RfC and would be more than happy to continue working together to effectively discuss and reach the fairest and best resolution on Charlie's Angels. Cheers and all the best, Davefelmer (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus?

Hey there. I saw that you revised the lede of Charlie's Angels (2019 film) based on your belief that there's a consensus out of the RfC to include option one. I happen to disagree. Should we ask an administrator to take a look and examine whether such a consensus has been generated? KyleJoan^talk 17:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If we can't resolve it ourselves, I'd be happy for an admin to have a look. Why do you feel there hasn't been consensus? 4/6 editors to give categorical opinions for one option over the other have supported option 1, which is all but 70% in it's favour. If votes were coming in hot and one side had JUST taken a firm lead over the other and someone decided to call it quits and stop more votes coming in, I'd totally get it, but the page has been inactive for fresh responses in a week now and has just gone cold. Davefelmer (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

For starters, the RfC has generated seven responses, not six. Whether a !vote is categorical or not, it can't be discounted based on whether its caster made additional suggestions. You're also talking about multiple things that have nothing to do with each other; how long an RfC has gone without receiving a response has nothing to do with whether said RfC has generated a consensus. It doesn't make sense to say that we now have a consensus that we didn't have four days ago if the number of responses has been the same; doing so makes it seem like we're trying to hastily force a consensus to get the discussion over with. All of that said, it really comes down to whether you believe there has been a consensus for option one. If you do, I believe it would be beneficial to ask an uninvolved administrator to corroborate or refute that belief. KyleJoan^talk 17:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say the RfC generated six responses, I said six had given categorical opinions on one option versus the other. The 7th respondent wanted a caveat on option 2 which he repeatedly specified his desire for including. However, changing the option in the RfC from it's original form would see it lose consensus with those that had previously sided with it in the way that it was. As for my other point, I think you are just interpreting it wrong. I did not say we didnt have a consensus before. 4/6 is a consensus and was had four days ago, however I merely expressed a desire to wait through another weekend and the start of the next week to see if more responses would come in because, as you had said, what's the rush? At the time it had been half a week since the last fresh response and I presumed more would come in but it's clear since then that the page has gone cold and the activity surrounding it has all but come to a standstill. I was just waiting to ensure that, as I warn against above, we were not coming to a conclusion a day or two after it appeared a consensus had been reached and giving time for more imminent responses to come in, but that concern now looks to have been alleviated. Davefelmer (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't believe that four out of seven users categorically preferring option one only qualifies said option as one that's narrowly preferred? KyleJoan^talk 18:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I think 4/6 editors to give categorical responses on one option vs the other going in favour of option 1 is a consensus for it. Perhaps we would be best served asking NoMagicSpells^talk to categorically clarify his/her stance on the RfC, and where his/her vote would lie based purely on one option or the other in their current formats without any amendments. If he/she sides with option 1 or neither option as they are, it will either confirm a 4/6 or yield a 5/7 result in favour of option 1, which is a consensus. If he/she sides with option 2, it will become 4-3 and that is not consensus and so we will carry on with discussions and the RfC. Agreed? Davefelmer (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You never answered my question. I understand you believe that 4/6 editors to give categorical responses . . . going in favour of option 1 means we have a consensus; I'm now asking whether you believe that four out of seven users categorically preferring option one means that said option is only narrowly preferred. KyleJoan^talk 18:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I am answering it by saying that I believe it's the wrong way to look at it. If you hand people a piece of paper saying "do you prefer option A or B?" with the option to check one or the other in boxes provided on the sheet and someone goes "I dont know" or "neither" and throws the paper in the bin or puts it down without checking either, then that vote simply doesnt count towards the final result. Davefelmer (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:!VOTE, the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes. I also don't see how it is wrong to regard every response in determining whether a consensus has been reached. After all, per WP:WHATISCONSENSUS, consensus is not a majority vote. KyleJoan^talk 19:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is obviously not what WP:!VOTE is referring to or counselling against. It states, "it is not the vote that matters, but the reasoning behind the vote that is important...a vote that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration...it is important therefore to also explain why you are voting the way you are." It's basically to guard against utter nonsense being agreed to like someone going "hey, let's add 'Brad Pitt is a cyclops' to his page, vote here to include it hahaha" and a bunch of trolls file in 'yes' votes which is then pretended to be 'consensus' to include it in the lead. The discussion in question that we are participating in has been the product of weeks of thorough and detailed discussion, and a resulting RfC that not only gave an initial opportunity to register a multitude of responses for the final debate but also asks that you explain your vote with your rationale for it, which everyone has done. It's been as by-the-book as can be. As for your second sentence, see my previous example for why it simply doesnt work here. We gave all users the option to submit their own proposed versions at the beginning of the RfC, once all versions were finalised it was no longer a matter of proposing changes to versions already submitted, let alone well into the time period where votes had started coming in. Davefelmer (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. Would you like to start an ANI discussion or should I? I honestly would prefer that you do it because I would hate to misrepresent your views. KyleJoan^talk 19:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Why don't we just wait for NoMagicSpells' response to clarify his stance? If he sides with option 1, there will obviously be no need for any further discussion. We could also have clarity based on a multitude of other responses by him/her, such as him/her withdrawing from the discussion due to having no opinion as they are etc we don't know and there are plenty of possibilities for closure or continuation so let's see what the response is. Furthermore, this wouldn't go on the ANI board anyways, it would go on one of those Admin Noticeboard Request for Closure pages wouldn't it? From where it would be decided whether the discussion is worthy of being closed as of yet or not. But let's wait for NMS' response first. Davefelmer (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You do realize that a request for closure is a final measure? A closer does not assess whether they should close or not; they assess how they should close with the notion that a discussion has concluded given that a participant requested to close. Moreover, if the closer finds that there isn't a consensus for either option, then neither gets included in the article, so wouldn't you rather just have patience and let the discussion naturally conclude? That aside, I don't understand why you would want to wait for NoMagicSpells to clarify anything if you believe there's already a consensus. You're already boldly editing the article based on your belief, so why wouldn't you want to have an administrator endorse it? KyleJoan^talk 20:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Fine, if it'll finally resolve this, I will start an ANI discussion. Davefelmer (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Great. Be sure to link this discussion as well for additional context. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 20:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve left a comment on the Charlie's Angels (2019 film) talk page. --NoMagicSpells^talk 20:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@NoMagicSpells: Thanks for the reply! Please look back on the Charlie's Angels talkpage and answer the final question I pose. Based on this it'll be made clear whether we continue on with waiting for more votes on the present RfC, need an ANI discussion or have reached a conclusion and can thus open up a new discussion regarding your proposed additions. Cheers, Davefelmer (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

KyleJoan^talk, just wanted to update that it's obviously quite clear now after NoMagicSpells' definitive response and a further response from another user that there's no need to start the ANI discussion as a consensus is clearly reflected with 6/8 users supporting and explaining rationales for option 1. Best, Davefelmer (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I see that. I concede that as of this time, there is a consensus to include option one. As the proposal is already in the article, I believe we're done here. All the best to you as well! KyleJoan^talk 09:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

My Reversion at Merrick Garland

Sorry about reverting your edit at Merrick Garland, I misread the note, my bad. Volteer1 (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for clarifying and checking in! Davefelmer (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Abraham Accords

I've been wanting to find a way to start filling this section. Finally, yesterday, I came across Pompeo's statement and was on my way. I especially like the quote, which retroactively comes across as prescient. Now if there are articles with some behind-the-scenes information... UClaudius (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No yeah for sure, what you added is great and hopefully we can get some more in! I'll definitely be on the lookout for more information whether it's behind the scenes stuff or more general things about the Accords. I feel like it was always gonna be hard to get exact details at first since it was so soon after the ink had literally been dried on the deals themselves and the Trump admin was still in power whereas now they're out of power and it's been a little while so you get high up people from the different admins talking more about it like Pompeo did and that's what we gotta pick up on! Davefelmer (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Templates For Discussion - AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates

A new discussion has begun regarding the AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates. Please add your thoughts there. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

1RR

You have violated the 1RR at United States support for Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, please self-revert your latest revert. nableezy - 16:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Didn’t see the 1RR, but you’ll have to get consensus on talk anyways per the summary. Davefelmer (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

July 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I reverted you once and you're notifying me of an edit war warning like it didn't come from a discussion with yourself? Lol, in any case the line is still confusing, and it obviously cherry picks from the relevant section of the article body by including the production budget but not the sourced break-even point which is much more relevant. But if you're so keen on the structure, hopefully a moderate compromise on the outline settles the issue. Davefelmer (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Removing sourced, relevant information from the lead because you don't like it is not really constructive, especially when reverting twice to retain your preferred changes. This notice was more of a preemptive measure. How is the line confusing? It says it was a disappointment and then explains the gross vs. budget and break-even. We should not have to explain these concepts in the lead itself, and adding "when all expenses are factored in" is just unnecessary as that is what break-even is about. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The only person trying to retain their preferred changes is you lol what sourced info was removed? And the line is still confusing because it says it grossed 476M against a 325M budget, making it one of the only MCU films not to break even. That doesn't really make sense to the average reader who may not know these concepts and just see it made more than the budget, and the link doesn't really clarify. The box office section that you've pulled the production budget from references a 600M break even point in literally the exact same sentence, so at the very least that should be included as well per WP:DUE to add some context. Otherwise you are literally the one WP:CHERRYPICKING. Davefelmer (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead is to summarize the article while leaving more of the specifics to the dedicated sections. The 600m break-even point is one of those points not typically mentioned in the lead as that would be UNDUEWEIGHT. It is not our job to explain what a break-even point is in this article, so if that is confusing, please familiarize yourself with that concept. The lead is adequately explaining the relevant information of the box office with further details covered in the "Box office" section. Just because a film made slightly more money than its budget does not mean it actually made a profit, which is what the break-even point is all about, hence why it was a disappointment. This is explained in the sources and the article for break-even. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring on JD Vance

Hi Davefelmers, please consider self-reverting your most recent edit on JD Vance; there is no consensus for the version you're continuing to restore which is exhibiting WP:OWN-like behavior. The next step is to report this to the WP:ANEW board, per WP:3RR, where administrators can determine whether or not your behavior is disruptive. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• == 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. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at JD Vance. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)