Jump to content

User talk:Qed237/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Hello .

I just noticed something has been happening for sometimes,it is a dispute at these pages . Carles Puyol,Sergio Busquets,Jordi Alba , Gerard Piqué ,and Marc Bartra ..I really don't know if it is Catalan or Spanish...but it seems ridiculous how many times people keep changing it to both...seems like edit war right ? I don't know how it should be dealt with so thought about letting you know about it. thank you Adnan (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Adnan n2: Thanks for letting me know. This is not my area of expertice, but I know there are some people that would like Catalonia to be an own country, but they belong to Spain and the people are Spanish. However it is possible that the names could be "catalan", I am jsut not sure. We could monitor the situation and if it gets worse, notify admins at WP:ANI or something. Qed237 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you :) It is sad people bring their political differences to wikipedia Adnan (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a comment here. The template isn't about the origin of the names, but the structure. Catalans, like their president Artur Mas i Gavarró, can choose to put "i" (and) between their two surnames. In Spain, they can choose "y" (and), but this is largely archaic. If somebody chooses the "i", I would call it a Catalan name (how else do you explain that Catalan word in the middle), but if there is no "i", it doesn't matter whether he's from Catalonia, Basque, Galicia – it's just Spanish '''tAD''' (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me select a photo?

After adding the Commons gallery link to Matheus Leite Nascimento (who is in fine health), I noticed that there are only two photographs of him. Both have advantages and disadvantages to be the lead image. Can you help me select?

  • This is the current one. There is no problem of quality, and it has been edited to make him stand out against the background. However, his face is obscured because he is looking down, and it shows his whole body when a smaller section would suffice. Also, even though he is clearly an athlete who takes good care of himself, few people would want their encyclopedia image to be without a shirt on
    This is the current one. There is no problem of quality, and it has been edited to make him stand out against the background. However, his face is obscured because he is looking down, and it shows his whole body when a smaller section would suffice. Also, even though he is clearly an athlete who takes good care of himself, few people would want their encyclopedia image to be without a shirt on
  • This is the other option. The good thing is we can see his face and it is centred on it rather than his whole body. However, there is a level of blur to the whole image, and the array of figures in the background is disruptive
    This is the other option. The good thing is we can see his face and it is centred on it rather than his whole body. However, there is a level of blur to the whole image, and the array of figures in the background is disruptive

There's a similar problem with Memphis Depay's lead image. One example from 2011 is too "busy" with other faces in the background, the other from 2012 is too "busy" with an electronic advertisement behind him.

Looking forward to your opinion '''tAD''' (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@The Almightey Drill: Just like you say, there are positive and negative sides with both images and it is not an easy choice. If I was forced to make a choice it would be the current image (on the left) because I dont think it is good to show that much detail of workers in the background, maybe that person dont want to be on wikipedia. When there are just things in the background, or other footballers, I dont care very much but we should leave the worker out of this. But as I said it is not the easiest choice and there are disadvantages with both pictures. Qed237 (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. For some reason, we have lots of quality images for players in Ukraine and Russia (most images of of world-class players are from when they have been playing in those countries in the European competitions – notice the CSKA Moscow sleeve right next to Sergio Agüero), so it shouldn't be a long time until we get a better image. Again, thank you '''tAD''' (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

About "Betis" or "Real Betis"

Hi, Qed. I think this is a thing to be talked. "Real Betis" only appears as so at LFP.es, when in the four main Spanish sport newspapers (Marca, Sport, Mundo Deportivo, As) appears more commonly as simply "El Betis", rarely "El Real Betis". Secondly, searching by Google, e.g., the term "Betis promoted" it has nearly 5M results while "Real Betis promoted" only 123k.

Also at Wiki, all the season articles of La Liga and Segunda appear without the "Real", like all Spanish teams except the three traditionals: Real Madrid, Real Sociedad and Real Unión. I suggest it is better to use only "Betis", without Real. If we add the Royal term, so nearly all Spanish fans will want the "Real" in their team (Real Oviedo, Real Valladolid, Real Zaragoza, Real Sporting, Real Avilés…). I hope you consider this arguments. Asturkian (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Asturkian: I guess I can see your point, but I really dont see why some teams can have "Real" and some dont, it is their name. Why wont we write only "Madrid" and "Sociedad" If I google I am sure I will get more hits for Sociedad than Real Sociedad just because it is shorter. I am for listing Real for all the teams as it actually is their name and that is what many sources use, such as soccerway. Perhaps this should be disussed in front of a wider audience. Qed237 (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: As I told you in the second paragraph, really in the league tables at newspapers and websites, the term "Real" only appear for Real Madrid, Real Sociedad and Real Unión. If we get the "common" criteria, we should continue as we did until the 2012–13 season, using this criteria. If we follow this, so Barcelona wouldn't be FC Barcelona? And this was discussed in other time. Asturkian (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Asturkian: I can not agree that only those three teams are shown with "Real" can you provide links to some of those tables? I googled on "segunda table" now and found the most common sites Soccerway, ESPN, soccerstats, liverscore.com all of which use Real Betis as well as lfp.es as you said earlier. I really need some proof with links if you say only Betis is most common and if you have a link to that earlier discussion that would be appreciated. Qed237 (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: I can provide you the Spanish newspapers:

I don't want to extend this discuss too much time as we are talking about teams really I don't care more than others. Asturkian (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much!

For this edit. I totally forgot it would link. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: No problem, I never edit others comments (I know we are not supposed to), but I thought this was okay. It is an easy mistake to make. Qed237 (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing or Vandalism?

If I was to put something like frewadvmj or this article, haha huhuh would it be vandalism or disruptive editing?

Regards TeaLover1996 (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: I would call that inserting obvious nonsense into a page which is vandalism per WP:VANDALISM. Qed237 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

拼音错误 pinyin wrong

山西and陕西all shanxi读音，查清楚google translation有读音，英语一开始就是错的，不要以错的为标准了

请帮助监视，谢谢，我不懂怎么监视，很多人一直在犯错李建兴 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

What? English please. Qed237 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I suppose it could be complimenatary... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop tell me disruptive editing. If you continue , you may be blocked，I see the wrong so to do，about AFC 4.5 or 4 I see Chinese wiki is 4 so I do It is not disruptive editing！！！！ok？！I fogive you last time！！李建兴 (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

the mean is（防止你误会，我把中文意思打出来）请不要在说我破坏编辑了，我是看到错误才改的，冤枉啊，真的冤枉，包括上次亚洲是否取消第四轮，我也是看中文维基是四个名额，没有第四轮才改的，不信你去看看李建兴 (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You are writing in characters that dont make any sense in wikipedia and your refusal to write in English is bad. Qed237 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop tell me disruptive editing.I see the wrong so to do， — Preceding unsigned comment added by 李建兴 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Then start writing in English. This is not the first time we have this issue with you, when will you learn? Qed237 (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems like they've been indef blocked for "Disruptively posting non-english on talk pages despite demonstrating an ability to talk english, ignoring warnings." Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Good work everyone Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Question please .

there is a pending change at pique's page...I tried to check how I accept this pending changes without doing them manually , can you tell me how can I do this please ? :)

thank you bud Adnan (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Adnan n2: You can not accept them unless you have the "pending changes-right", which I do. I will take a look at that page. Qed237 (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
ok thank you bud, how can i get the bending review right ?

Adnan (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Adnan n2: First I suggest you read through Wikipedia:Pending changes and make sure you understand the meaning and reason for pending changes and how it works (as well as the other different levels of protection). After that you can read Wikipedia:Reviewing how to review articles, and then finally go through the steps at Wikipedia:Reviewing#Becoming a reviewer and ask for the pendinng-changes right if you feel you fullfill the criteria. Qed237 (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you also! Adnan (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Vermalaen page:

Should I add the trophies back ? or you want us to wait more mate ? Adnan (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

this is the video for the league also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVeAFf2pHtM thank you Adnan (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, add them if you want. I am considering WT:FOOTY, but busy at the moment. Qed237 (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
done, made a post at WT:FOOTY. and man you are a hardworking editor , thank you for this :) Adnan (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Qed237 (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Puffery

Is puffery making something seem more important than it is or am I wrong in this case? TeaLover1996 (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: No idea, never heard that word before. You are probably better than me in English. Qed237 (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe take a look at Puffery on Wikipedia when you have the time, it may help you understand what I am talking about. TeaLover1996 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@TeaLover1996: I guess you are right, but if you really need answer you should probably ask someone else. Qed237 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@TeaLover1996: Basically yes it is, it's adding text that has questionable encyclopedia value, and implies someone/something is important. For instance saying "Player X is a fantastic/skilled player", when these adjectives could be applied to most players, or Universities frequently call themselves "prestigious", which doesn't really mean anything. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

League Goals

Something else, why are only league goals counted on articles of footballers is it the general consensus or something else? TeaLover1996 (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Long lasting standard/consensus. I am not sure but somewhere line must be drawn what to include or not and if we start adding tournaments soon people will add pre-season torunaments and such. League only is very simple (and it states league only at bottom of infobox). Qed237 (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Bots

Do you think it is a shame bots cannot be thanked for their work? TeaLover1996 (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Yes, wouldn't it be nice to be able to reward them with a nice byte to eat, perhaps... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@TeaLover1996: One last time (I think I have said this enough)! Take care of your editing, why would you need MY opinion of this. You are always asking about things that does not matter, why thank a bot? Honestly I dont care. Qed237 (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Alexis Sanchez Awards

Hi,

The Alexis Sanchez page is locked so I was hoping you could add something for me. He recently won Player of the Year at the inaugural Facebook Football Awards, in conjunction with BT Sports.

Source - http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/arsenals-alexis-sanchez-wins-player-5766579

Also, under individual honours, it should say 'Kids' Choice Awards UK Favourite Footballer'.

Thanks,

Naughty-Dalmatians (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Naughty-Dalmatians: Hi, and welcome to wikipedia. I am not sure this honour is notable enough to be included. We can not add everytime a media thinks a player is best. Why is facebook a notable honour? Qed237 (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you start a discussion at the article talkpage to see what other editors think about it. Qed237 (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

List

I'm thinking of putting a list of users who I trust on Wikipedia, I'd like to add your name to the list, but I'll need your personal permission first. Thanks TeaLover1996 (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Thats okay, I can be on that list. Qed237 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Padlocks

Will the {{pp-semi}} template only display a padlock if the article is semi protected? as well as other protection templates, will they only display a padlock if the article has the specific protection TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: I have no idea, I dont know. Qed237 (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@TeaLover1996: I think anyone can add padlocks to any page, but there's a bot that removes them from unprotected articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for all your hard work TeaLover1996 (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Templates

I believe you have seen show and hide on some pages, if so can you direct me to the page that has these templates on? TeaLover1996 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Not sure what you mean. Qed237 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Something like This
Click the show button

This is an example

TeaLover1996 (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Wow, these templates exists on so many pages, you just have to look on your own I am afraid. Qed237 (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance in this matter TeaLover1996 (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Danny Welbeck

You have no right to keep edit warring like this, and I know you've deliberately tried to push me over 3RR here. You should self-revert; there is an ongoing discussion on WT:FOOTBALL on this topic (which you've ignored despite me already pointing to it, and you still reverted anyway), and the existing consensus, which has been this way for years and is standard practise, is that you have to appear in the final to be listed under the honours, unless there is a specific official source saying otherwise. I couldn't point you to a specific discussion, I just know that it is standard practise, and you should do as well. You're also edit-warring in unsourced content to a BLP, by the way... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And you have the right to editwar? Dont put your editing on me. You have still failed to link me to that consensus were it has been discussed and decide before. Qed237 (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • As I already stated (and, surprise surprise, you've deliberately ignored), there doesn't need to be an obvious prior discussion when it is a general standard practise that I was following, and one that is a de facto consensus. And you STILL reverted three times to insert TOTALLY unsourced information into a BLP - which you should be ashamed of as an experienced editor. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
You should be ashamed of not assuming good faith claiming that I deliberately tried to push you over 3RR (a direct lie) and saying that I made dumb edits. Be civil please. Qed237 (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Improve as a matter of principle

Hello Qed237,

I didn't think I could get anything more on Barney Brown, but a librarian found a thesis which had been done in 1970 on BB's wife, Harriette Ann Grey, and Texas Women's U. sent a digital copy. I found dates given by Pas.Playhouse didn't match, and other indications of activities, so have corrected as mentioned in the thesis. It is about as reliable as one could ever find but is about Harriette, not Barney. Not much on him.

I still don't think what I've done will be enought for Wikipedia, but wanted you to read my revised bio anyway. Didn't want to leave it as was.

I still think others may be able to get some stuff such as program covers from the Pas. Playhouse in the future. Kamitra1 (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. If you think it is ready to be submitted, click on the blue button "Resubmit" in the pink box on top of the article. Qed237 (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Can you take a look at this ? I tried to talk directly with the other editor, and posted on his page here but he simply ignore it ah well thank you :) Adnan (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Adnan n2: Maybe I can look at it if I have the time, but there are so much disputes regarding honours at the moment so I try and stay out of it. But if the problem is moving sections I can probably take a look at it later if I can remember it. Qed237 (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Friendly game

Huntelaar scored for Holland today, are goals in friendly matches counted for international statistics? TeaLover1996 (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Some are and some are not, depends on if they are official matches listed by FIFA or not. Qed237 (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

My Signature

Hi, I realise you may not be interested, but do you have any suggestions on how I could change my signature, its just I believe it looks similar to yours and I don't want to be accused of impersonation. Thanks TeaLover1996 (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: No I dont have a good idea for your signature. What I can tell you is that you probably do best in not changing your signature to often, you should have your signature a long period so that other editors can recognie it. But how it should look that it up to you. Qed237 (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your help TeaLover1996 (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots and Archiving

Do all bots archive talk page messages or just some? TeaLover1996 (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Just some. Bots have special tasks, some archives, some does other things. Qed237 (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Does the bot I put to archive my talk page messages a bot that does that?, also I left a message there for you if you want to look when you have time TeaLover1996 (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you remove the wikibreak text from my commons.js I cannot login. TeaLover1996 (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I dont know how to do that. Qed237 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
It needed an admin to do it, but looks like it's been fixed now. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Qed237 (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Champion league seeds

i don't understand why you don't want to add the seeds, last year when i was editing it came out great, let me do it again, why u block the freedom of Wikipedia edits??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arni777 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It is easy, there is consensus not to add seedings until last team is decided, just like last season when I added the seeding. Polish and Greece leagues are not yet finished. The current seeding can be seen at User:Qed237/sandbox#Seeding Champions League and it will be added as soon as all teams has been decided, just like discussed at the article talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


so you want to tell me that you will add the champion league group stage seeds only at the end of August?( while almost half the teams have already a place in one of the pots) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arni777 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It will be added when all leagues has finished and what teams that will participate has been decided, which is late on Sunday. Qed237 (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

which seed will change when the 2 leagues will end on sunday? NONE. so why not do it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arni777 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Arni777: Depending on what team will be champion in Poland we know what team will be seeded in third round. If Lech Poznan wins, Maribor will be seeded. If Legia Warsaw wins they will be seeded and Maribor unseeded. See User:Qed237/sandbox#Seeding Champions League. Qed237 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am talking about the group stage if you didn't understand that yet... and if u already mention the qualifying rounds, then the first and the second round of the champions route, as well as the third round of the not-champions route has a final seeds list, and that can be added as well.Arni777 (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Arni777: Sure, you may be talking about Group stage but there is WP:CONSENSUS not to add until ALL teams has been decided. What is so hard to understand? Qed237 (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

В темах UEFA Champions League 2015-16 и UEFA Europe League 2015-16 напротив клубов, и до их коэффициента была надпись CC (Club Coef.) или Club Coeff. в предыдущих сезонах так же было, шас кто-то убрал, верните! не понимаю зачем изобретать что-то своё новое непонятное, зачем ИСПОЛЬЗОВАТЬ СВОИ ПОЛНОМОЧИЯ КАК ЛИЧНЫЕ АМБИЦИИ? не знаю кто это делает...., но пишу сюда, догадываюсь что кто-то из вас если не вернете одну из этих двух надписей, буду специально исправлять, даже если меня забанят — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramirez2387 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ramirez2387: English please, this is english wikipedia. Qed237 (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


What if the person doesn't know English? what should he do about this? no say his opinion? again you are taking the freedom of speech. Anyways what the man is saying is that - He is agreeing with me, he says you cant invent the wheel from the start while all the seasons it was in a specific style(the seeds were written if they are known) . He says that he doesn't understand why you are using your forces irrationally, and he will start to change pages as a strike unless you will stop, even if he will be banned.Arni777 (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Arni777: Time for you to start listening now and stop questioning my editing, I am a longterm editor who knows what he is doing. WP:SPEAKENGLISH exists for a reason, this is English wikipedia so here we communicate in English, I dont speak russian and if he wants to speak russian there is an Russian Wikipedia. Also he does not talk about the seeding he talks about that we used to display "CC" ahead of coefficients, but some editors did not understand what "CC" meant so we changed to "Coeff." which an other editor removed yesterday and he did not like that. Stop twisting everything your way as no editor is agreeing with you. As I said there is WP:CONSENSUS which involves several editors not only me and it is not only me that has removed seeding from the article. Why cant it wait until we know all teams just like we did last year? Now I have better things to do than deal with your rant. Try and read what has been written. Qed237 (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

First thing, you could have told it to the Russian speaking user in the first place, and not leave a heart-cold comment. Second thing, I think that you are the one that don't listen and questioning other's editing, i understand that there are people in the world that like things to be as they want, but it doesn't mean you can constantly do it here. 2 years ago the system was just fine, seeded were put before the leagues have finished and none did complain, you have decided to change it from no reason. Third thing, you have said "Why cant it wait until we know all teams" so my question is, why does the Pot 1 exists in the page now? why won't we wait till all the teams are known? if you will answer this as i think you will, then the answer on the same question on Pot 2 should be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arni777 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, read WP:CONSENSUS, and stop blaiming me it is decided amongst several editors in a consensus and not me, you dont seem do understand that. Why do you think an other editor, User:The Replicator, reverted you (diff) if it was only my decision. Pot 1 is put due to the regulations and that they are separated due to the rules. Pot 2 is based on calcultations on the coefficients which pot 1 is not. Qed237 (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sanction

I thought that Wikipedias blocking policy stated that blocks are preventative? however on this page it says sanctions can be blocks of up to a year, a sanction is a punishment yet the policy states Blocks are preventative, not punitive It appears that something needs changing. TeaLover1996 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: I would say a block is mostly a sanction to avoid further disruption, but I dont think you should care that much about the wording. Qed237 (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Would you stop removing my edits??

I am just updating some players status, but you keep on removing them, this is getting quite annoying. I do not support vandalizing here in wikipedia, I just like updating player's status. I would like you to stop removing other people's edits unless they are vandalizing. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSoccerBoy (talk • contribs)

@TheSoccerBoy: If your edits are correct and sourced they will stay. For example on the Lampard article, the text in article clearly stated On 10 January 2015, Lampard signed a pre-contract to play for New York City FC in Major League Soccer, beginning on 1 July which is when transfer window opens so current team for Lampard should not be changed. Qed237 (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237 oh ok, sorry dude — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSoccerBoy (talk • contribs) 03:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@TheSoccerBoy: No problem, you are not the first editor to make that mistake (and probably not the last). It is an easy mistake to make, just keep it in mind in the future. Qed237 (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Great work!

First great work on Champions league seeding , Thank you, but i have a question please , The New Saints F.C. and Skënderbeu Korçë have exactly the same Coef, so how did we know who was seeded from unseeded between of them ? and you used cc instead of coef because it is shorter as shortcut right ? thats what you meant by (because text got to wide) right bud? thank you again for the hard work :) Adnan (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Adnan n2: Thank you. When teams have the same amount of points the team with most points last season should be first and Skënderbeu Korçë had 1.175 for 2014-15 season, while The New Saints only had 1.025 (both had 5.575 in total). For that reason Skënderbeu Korçë is ahead on The New Saints. And yes I used CC as it is shorter, when I looked at my laptop I got several linebreak with coeff that I dont have with cc, for example "winners of match involving Team X Coeff." and then the numbers ended up on the next row. CC has also been used in the past so with the added note on what CC is I thought it would be okay. Qed237 (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
It is perfect man :) you did a great job :) !
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thank you for your hard work on champions league 2015-16 article, really well done :) Adnan (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Qed237 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 UEFA Champions League Final

It's from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League . There's a full list of how many times each team has won and lost the final. I'm a little surprised that you didn't think of looking there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Ridges (talk • contribs) 21:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pete Ridges: I should not have to investigate and look up if it is true or not. It is the person that add the content that is supposed to source the content. Also wikipedia is not a reliable source and can not be used. Qed237 (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Admins and Blocks

Administrators can block users here, can bureaucrats do the same or do they do different things here TeaLover1996 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: What has that got to do with your editing? I have told och you so many times to care about edit instead. Qed237 (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
He has been adding block notices [1] although he is clearly not an admin. Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
That is slightly bizarre behaviour. @TeaLover1996:, please, listen to Qed237, he gives good advice. In fact, it's great advice. I'm sure you're acting in good faith, but honestly, Admins can place their own notices if they want to! It's not for us so soil our hands with anything so sordid ...and they probably wouldn't like it. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@Theroadislong and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Well that might not have been a good idea but User:TeaLover1996 is really trying and I know he is acting in good faith. I know myself how over-entusiastic I was my first months trying to get every right possible (except the big ones like adminship) and it is a process to learn and be better. That process is different from person to person, but I really think he can be a great editor with time. Qed237 (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Questions

What questions about editing will you answer if I ask them? TeaLover1996 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Many. It could be about content in articles, questions about editors, help with different things, and much more. For example help with the archive, that I have tried looking in to as the bot seems to have stopped working on user talkpages. It is just that I dont think you have to know how bureaucrats work and I dont know much more than what is written in WP:BUREAUCRAT, much of the answers I give can be read in the guidelines. I hope I did not upset you with my answer above, I try and help and a part of that is helping you become more independent (finding answers in guidelines) and focus on editing. Of course I will still answer questions. Qed237 (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Sadly you are being trolled. Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You really think so? I dont. Qed237 (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A.F.C Bournemouth

What was the discussion about Bournemouth not being placed above Arsenal as the AFC is not counted? TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: read the Premier League talkpage, it is a long discussion but usually we omit AFC, FC and such. We pipe to Arsenal and not Arsenal F.C. Qed237 (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I suppose an example would be [[ACF Fiorentina|Fiorentina]] they would be placed under F in the table and not under A I'm guessing. TeaLover1996 (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: yes exactly. However AFC is used often for Bournemouth so it might be used if pl will use it. Qed237 (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Anfield

Hi Qed,

I'm a little confused, you removed my edit of Anfield saying it was not neutral. I simply updated the intro to reflect that there would 2 stages of expansion at Anfield. 1. to the main stand 2. to the anfield road stand. I provided a source already in the article and referenced it correctly. The intro only includes 1 stage of the expansion which is misleading. I'm a little confused on why my change was incorrect. Can you explain?

Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The Word 'iconic' seems very pov. Qed237 (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I would hardly think it's controversial to call a famous stadium iconic. But okay if you think it's bad. Okay can you at least revert the changes made to the stadium expansion; right now it's incorrect to list part of the expansion and leave out another part, and remove the iconic word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreerajtheauthor (talk • contribs) 19:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I will look at it tomorrow. Qed237 (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)'Iconic' = cruft. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 09:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Admins

Does move=sysops mean only administrators can move the page? TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 04:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: I think so. Qed237 (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@TeaLover1996: Yes it does. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Attack

Is this message a personal attack? TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 15:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Yes... and he appears to have been reported for it (amongst other things). Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@TeaLover1996: In one way it depends on you, if you feel attacked or not. In my opinion it is not the clearest of attacks, but I would probably consider it as a personal attack. Qed237 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, well it did feel a bit like one, especially with me being called selfish, I suppose it was like when you were seemingly attacked, as a user called you dumb not very nice when your being insulted by another editor. TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 20:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Mistake or not?

Hi, Im answering about yesterday changes, sorry but I completely forgot to make up a good summary. I really guess won't happen any more in future, btw I think that was not a mistake because my changes were made due to players contract expiration, so I actually don't manage the reason of your restoring . Just question, thanks a lot for your time and politeness — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emalas (talk • contribs) 17:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Emalas: I should probably inform you that contracts dont expire until 30 June. Qed237 (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


Ok but you know I think no one get offended if we change it now. dont you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emalas (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Emalas: Maybe not, but it should not be changed anyway. Qed237 (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker If their contracts run out on 30 June, then they haven't changed clubs yet. Until it actually happens, Wikipedia shouldn't change, per WP:CRYSTAL. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


Ok got it.thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emalas (talk • contribs) 21:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, If you have more questions feel free to ask. Qed237 (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Defeating?

Defeating the object means to get the opposite of what you intended. What does it mean on Wikipedia? TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 22:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, your english is better than mine. Qed237 (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Bot on my talk page

When you have the time please could you see why the bot I set to archive talk page messages isn't working? Thank You TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 06:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: There is something wrong with the bot I have tried asking what. It has not archived my talkpage either since 5 June. Qed237 (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello

look at ( [2] ) it is a pure vandalism from a random IP , do I need to leave him any message or action about it? or it is one time incidence so doesn't matter ? thank you .Adnan (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Adnan n2: It is up to you if you want to warn the editor or not. If it is only a one time thing, you may "let him go", your choice. Qed237 (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok thank you, you are right :) .Adnan (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Good Editor

Can I become a good editor and admin with time? TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 19:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Dont see why you couldn't. Qed237 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you think you are close to the requirements? TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 21:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Dont care. I focus on editing and so should you. Qed237 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Lukas Podolski

Thanks for your correction. I mistakenly included 'Polish' in reference to his joint nationality, which is obviously given in the Personal life section. I only amended it in the first place as someone had previously referred to Lukas as a Chinese footballer! Melthamman (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Melthamman: No problem, I saw that one editor changed to Chinese which was completely wrong so I just restored what was written before that. Qed237 (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round

Hello.

I do not understand why you undid my edits.

First, the rankings in my edits were correct according to the tie-breaking rules.

Then, the reason you mentioned for undoing my first edit ("not head-to-head until both matches played") is completely made up as it is stated nowhere in the 2018 FIFA World Cup regulations.

And the reason you mentioned for undoing my second edit ("not according to source") is very questionable. FIFA have the tie-breaking rules stated in their official regulations document yet they don't respect them when ranking the teams. Why should we blindly publish the same, wrong rankings although we perfectly know they are? This happened a lot in the past and not only with FIFA competitions. You probably remember when you did apologize to me for undoing a correct edit of me as you mistakenly thought UEFA published a correct ranking. This is a similar case here, yet you've changed your mind since then. Why so?

FIFA provides the tie-breaking rules in their regulations, and these are a perfectly trustworthy source used by Wikipedia. FIFA somehow don't always respect them when publishing the group rankings, they often make mistakes we all are aware of. Why cannot we assume they are mistakes and publish the correct rankings on Wikipedia, especially since the tie-breaking rules are published in the articles and below each group ranking? When a source keeps publishing wrong facts, Wikipedia editors consider this source to be unreliable, which groups rankings published on FIFA website regularly are, and stop using it.

It frustrates me that Wikipedia publish such incorrect information, and a lot more when my edits to publish correct data based on indisputable source get undone.

Schnapper (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Schnapper: Hi, I had totally forgotten the previous discussion we had and my basic thought is thatwe should always try and follow source as much as possible. Why would we otherwise link to a source that say something else? Also in many league tables that I have updated during the winter it says in rulebook that h2h is only counted if all meetings between the teams has been played. But in this case I have to admit that I am probably wrong, and that we should follow the rules. Sorry. Qed237 (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

CL matches

games playing during qualifying should not be take into account, look for 2014 and 2015 edition, it's the rule. you should be coherent, i yes, we should not take into account goals too, but i didn't have time to isolate goals scored during qualifying rounds. In UEFA CL, statistics start always since Group phase (goalscorers, assists, attendances,...) Brio-En (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

WC

Hey, your revert because of logos was not needed. Why not just remove them? Reverting the WHOLE edit which was a bit of work was too much. I know the rules but did not look at the kits... Kante4 (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kante4: The revert was because I have fixed them 5 or 6 times last couple of days without anyone noticing, so I reverted you and then self-reverted immediately and removed it. Now you are aware of it. Qed237 (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I WAS aware of that but like i said, just copied the kits wihtout looking. A fix would have been the better way as i'm an established editor and not someone doing that on purpose. Kante4 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Kante4: Since you have added it more than once, you should be looking and it did not look like you were aware of it since you kept on adding them. Qed237 (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Padlock Templates

Do you have to be an admin to add a protection padlock to the top of the page? TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 09:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to advise, WP:CANVAS probably applies Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 09:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@TeaLover1996 and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Yes, CANVAS probably applies. In these situations it would be good if background information is also given and perhaps it should be asked in a different place. About the question I dont see why you would have to be admin to add a simple padlock to show it is protected. It is different from block notices, because they handle other editors and is not really anyone elses concern. However the best idea would probably be to actually ask an admin (and give them the background and reaason for asking). Qed237 (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for you help these past few weeks TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 11:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Edin Dzeko

You reverted an edit to Edin Dzeko's wiki where I added the goal he scored against Israel last Friday under "International Goals". Any reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:110E:8022:9BEF:465C:F89B:B5A (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

My revert was because the timestamp above Edin Džeko#International said "as of matches played 28 March 2015" which was incorrect since matches after that was added. Timestamps should be updated so that other editors and readers know it has been updated and so that the same matches dont get added again and the players get more caps and goals than he should. Qed237 (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

wp:Duck

What is the duck test used for? TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 12:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Like it says in guideline, spot obvious sockpuppets. Qed237 (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@TeaLover1996: forgot to ping. Qed237 (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Does it mean if editing habits of once account match or are similar too another users edits then it is most likely a sock puppet account? TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 12:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@TeaLover1996: Not sure, it i more real obvious sockpuppeting when someone appears on same page with pracitcally same name or same edits after being blocked. If you feel that is happening contact an admin (I usually contact the admin that blocked the editor) and let them check it out. I dont care much about these essays. Qed237 (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Theroadislong (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Couple of Questions

Hi, just a couple of questions I'd like to ask (you don't need to reply or answer any of them).

  • A: I have read the policy on Attack Pages but I don't know what it means if an article is an attack page, can you help?
  • B: Although indefinitely doesn't mean forever, as per WP:INDEF like you told me, if an account is a sock puppet and has been blocked indefinitely does that mean forever because it is a sock?

Thanks TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 18:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Attack pages is a page of attack of a certain person or company. Like "X is a murderer" or "Company Y likes blood" or whatever can be considered an attack (not that sure though). And no just because it is a sockpuppet does not mean it has to be forever, if a sockpuppet did not know it was wrong to create a new account and would come back regretful after a couple of years (?) the block may be lifted. Qed237 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

England finishing 4th

Can you kindly tell me the results which leave England in 4th place? Surely the winner of EST-LIT must also defeat Slovenia to pass England and England cannot be below Slovenia in a tie. Zirath (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zirath: First I was thinking that England can be 4th (below Slovenia) if it is a 4-way tie, but it seems that I have made a calculation error. I have self reverted. Qed237 (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I just finished working out all the permutations for next matches and put them here EURO 2016 Next Matchday Permutations if you're interested. That way we know in advance what the situation is and don't need to argue about anything. Unless I've made an error and we can argue anyway. Cheers Zirath (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zirath: Thanks, I have started working on that on my sandbox to User:Qed237/sandbox#UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying. Perhaps I should finish mine first and then we can compare. If both have the same we can say it is true. Qed237 (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

World Cup

Why “Shpould [it] be there until [the] group stage [is] finished”? 76.14.51.178 (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Because when some groups have letters and the other dont it may confuse readers. THat is why we add letters to explain while all grous are in progress and then remove when all groups finished. Qed237 (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. 76.14.51.178 (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Feel free to ask more questions if have any. Qed237 (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Rules

Is it true that if a rule prevents the maintenance or improvement of Wikipedia it should be ignored? TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏ 14:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: I have no idea. Qed237 (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qed237/Archive_13&oldid=1144368267"