User talk:Houndground

Welcome!

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

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! User:HopsonRoad 10:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Premier League attendances for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Premier League attendances is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premier League attendances until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - Mr X 15:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Hello, I'm Hayman30. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Hoàng Anh Gia Lai F.C.— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Hayman30 (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transfermarkt

Since most of its content is user-generated, Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. Please do not cite the website in articles, as you did with 2013–14 Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 and 2013–14 Tunisian Ligue Professionnelle 1. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice, re Facebook followers added to multiple articles

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding Facebook trivia to football club articles; it is not required there. Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that, can you slow down on your editing point blank. Other than adding Facebook follower numbers, many of your edits are questionable, e.g. updating stadium figures without sources. Or adding or updating attendance or other figures again either without sources or with very poor sources. It's true many of the details you are changing aren't sourced in the first place, but in that case you should consider removing them if you believe they are wrong but can't find a source for the figures you think are correct. It seems like you're trying to help, but you really need to better understand what we expect on wikipedia articles before you make so many changes. Nil Einne (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also clarify whether you are the same editor as User:Fussbolfan? If you are, take a read of WP:SOCK and I strongly suggest you disclose this connection on both your userpages as you've edited very similar areas and have received multiple warnings on the other account and are starting to receive them here. Even if you were never blocked on the other account, it could easily be seen as evading scrutiny if you don't disclose the connection. (Actually using a new account is fine if you have an acceptable reason e.g. if you lost the password of your old account.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you said "I only use this account now". Does this mean you did use Fussbolfan? As I said before changing to a new account and sticking to it isn't a problem provided you have an acceptable reason. Acceptable reason here means any reason that isn't forbidden, for example you can't change account to avoid scrutiny. However considering you had a fairly long and contentious history with the old account you really should declare the connection on both accounts.

A simple message like "I used to edit using the account [[User:Fussbolfan]]" on this accoount's user page would be fine.

And on your old account's user page "I now edit using the account "[[User:Houndground]]" preferably using the old account to make the edit. If you no longer edit using the old account it isn't quite so important but it does help people who may wish to leave a message to the old account to find you. Alternatively you could redirect the old user page to your new account's userpage, and probably the user talk page as well.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to mention. If you're not sure how to do the above, simply disclose the connection to Fussbolfan here on your talk page and ask someone to edit your userpage for you. Nil Einne (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your declaration of your previous account is fine. Thanks for cooperating. Nil Einne (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the text "I used to edit using the account User:Fussbolfan" from your user page? That text should stay there permanently. --FredTC (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to CRB Aïn Fakroun. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SQGibbon (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Hello! Houndground, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

About your other comment "I'm sorry, I just want to help, but it's hard finding 100% reliable sources." I do agree you appear to be trying to help. Unfortunately your understanding of what we require and expect in articles at the moment seems to be quite far our actual expectations and requirements. It's for this reason you should slow down and not edit so much. You're right it can be difficult to find WP:reliable sources that are acceptable from wikipedia context but it is important. It would be better to spend more time finding better sources than in making so many edits, this will be more beneficial to both our readers and to other editors. It also reduces the chance your edits will be reverted. Finally when someone asks you to stop doing something specific, you should of course stop doing what they told you to stop since your inexperience suggests they're probably in the right. It looks to me like you at least generally refrain from continuing with that specific edit but without good understanding of the problems with you edit, you may do the same thing elsewhere. For that reason, it may be wise to ask what was wrong with your edit when you don't quite understand. If they are unable to help, you can seek help elsewhere like the WP:Teahouse. . Nil Einne (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you create an inappropriate page, as you did at 2016-17 Linafoot. Qed237 (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Apator Toruń. Qed237 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mike van de Meulenhof

The article Mike van de Meulenhof has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable footballer that fails WP:NFOOTBALL as a fooballer that has not yet played in any WP:FPL, and also fails WP:GNG.

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. Qed237 (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Michal Sadílek. Qed237 (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance

Could you please stop adding attendance figures that are not notable everywhere? Qed237 (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Those attendance figures might not be interesting for you, but for a lot of people it is interesting. Wikipedia is not only about what's interesting for you. Most Wikipedia club and league pages already had the attendance figures included, they're very common as said by other people in the reactions before. I've only added the missing figures of major sports leagues and I only have to add around 4 or 5 more leagues and then I'm done.[reply]

July 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2016-17 Bundesliga. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.

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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I apologize, I haven't heard of edit warring before. I thought the Bundesliga figures were removed because the tables I used were too low quality. I never added the higher quality table I added this time earlier. I am wondering, why are there no attendance figures allowed at the Bundesliga page? All other major sports leagues pages have attendance figures included. Is there a page where they can be added, or do I need to use other tables? Or is it just not allowed to add the Bundesliga attendance figures? I'm sorry, I just wanted to add the missing figures. For a lot of people, those figures are interesting and useful. There are a lot of forum topics and Wikipedia pages about sports attendances. It's okay if my block won't be removed earlier, but can you please tell me what was wrong with (the way I added?) the attendance figures? Kind regards and thank you already, Houndground

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you, but when others revert your changes on multiple articles, discussing them instead of trying to reinstate them is the way to go. A central location such as WT:WikiProject Football or even WT:WikiProject Sports is a good place for such a discussion affecting multiple articles. Once a consensus has been reached on whether (and how) to have these attendance figures, that consensus can be implementend. Huon (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Huon accepted your unblock request but then forgot to unblock! I have now unblocked, and I hope we will see a new version of Houndground who is prepared to discuss and collaborate with other editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry about that oversight. Huon (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bundesliga attendances

Thank you MSGJ. Can you please explain what was wrong with the attendance figures I added to the Bundesliga page? No one told me the reason why it was removed. Kind regards, Houndground.

Multiple editors have tried to discuss this with you, e.g. here and more recently here, but you kept on trying to add those figures. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MSGJ, in the message reactions you can see a lot of people said the contributions were useful and common, but better quality tables had to be used. So I changed the tables, the new ones I added were according the standards as asked. All Wikipedia's major sports leagues pages have attendance figures included. But what I don't understand, why is it allowed for all other sports leagues, but not for the Bundesliga? Just some random examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer_attendance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Hockey_League_attendance_figures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Thai_League_T1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016%E2%80%9317_Ekstraklasa

Kind regards, Houndground.

Linking

Hi, please be careful not to link dates, years, and common terms. Tony (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Heinz Field. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

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).

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

Request reason:

Can anyone please explain why this account and IP address is blocked? What did I do wrong?

Decline reason:

You are strongly believed to be Staafros1 (talk · contribs), evading a block on that account. Yamla (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Yes, that account was blocked then, because I didn't know I wasn't allowed to have more than one account. I was allowed to have a new account, and I only use this one now. I wanted a new user name, and as far as I knew, there were no options to change the username. So am I going to be blocked for ever for a thing I didn't know long ago? That's no justice in my humble opinion. I only use this account now, I'm not a criminal because I didn't know long ago that I wasn't allowed to use more than one account. Being blocked for ever for such a small thing I didn't know long ago is not right in my eyes. People gave me permission then to use one account, you can see that in older messages. I was allowed to keep one account then, the other was closed. Kind regards, Houndground

Decline reason:

No, if your account is blocked, you are NOT allowed to create a new account to circumvent the block. You would need to request an unblock on your original account. Additionally, there are more accounts than this one, so this claim is invalid. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Yes, I used more accounts then because I didn't know it was a problem, and I was allowed to keep one of those accounts because I didn't know. The others were closed. You can see it in the older messages, were they gave me permission to keep one account. It's okay if you keep my account blocked, I'm done with editing Wikipedia anyway, because if you make a small mistake about a thing you didn't know, people want to block you forever. But can you please unblock my IP address? My children and wife also want to use Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

See below. You're not ready to be unblocked. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:29, 17 August 2017 (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.

I have revoked talk page access. You've already been told this account is not eligible for unblock consideration. Additionally, I see on User talk:Staafros1 that you were informed on 22 July 2014 about WP:SOCK, so your claim that you didn't know about the policy is simply preposterous. Another admin will be along shortly to review your open unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of National Football League attendance figures for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of National Football League attendance figures is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Football League attendance figures (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Pee Jay 13:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]