User talk:Qed237/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

2015-16 Barclay's Premier League

I don't understand why for the premier league flags aren't allowed. I read MOS:flag it did not say they are not allowed. Also you can not disallow flags for one football league and not all of them. Ligue 1, the Bundesliga, Major League Soccer, English Championship and many others use flags next to the player's names. It doesn't make any sense to me that the premier league should be different from everyone else. Also historically flags have always been used and I think it looks natural to have flags next to the player's names. Why after all these years have you and others decided that flags aren't appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD41:E1A0:29FF:EAF9:1CC7:ED22 (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Basically they represent their clubs and not nation and also WP:OSE, just because it exists on other places does not make it right. Qed237 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah but it exists everywhere else so that means it is right because everybody has been doing it that way for years. Who made this decision you. Also please point out to me where in MOS:flag does it say they shouldn't be used and why did you use them last year then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSportsfan16 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said, please read WP:OSE and it was not my decision. Qed237 (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@AllSportsfan16: And why would you remove the protection icon over and over again?. Highly disruptive behaviour. Qed237 (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually flags are allowed for sports people per consensus at MOS:FLAGS there is even a section on how they should be used. Paul  Bradbury 22:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: Then please bring that information to the current discussion at Talk:2015–16 Premier League. Qed237 (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: Or even better, this should probably be discussed at the football project at WT:FOOTY for better consistency over all articles. Qed237 (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It isn't under the perview of WP:FOOTY and it has been discussed ad nauseum and the consensus exists and is documented. go look at MOS:SPORTFLAGS part of MOS:FLAGS here is a direct quote Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with. For example, if a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used (these can differ from countries' political national flags). If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used. If these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then a reliable source should be used to show who the sportsperson has chosen to represent. If you'd like to discuss it and change consensus feel free to bring it up at WT:MOSICON which is the appropriate forum. Paul  Bradbury 22:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It is all in how you interpret the guidelines. They players does not represent their countries. Qed237 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

They don't have to, as the guidline specifically says If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used Paul  Bradbury 22:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Also a precedent has been set to use flags therefore they should be used — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSportsfan16 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed and this is not an WP:OSE argument since I can cite many many football articles that use this that are featured articles. To become a featured article you have to be compliant with the whole WP:MOS which includes MOS:FLAGS Paul  Bradbury 21:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hi, I have requested help in resolving our dispute about reversion of sourced content here. Hopefully this will help us work together and improve wikipedia. Paul  Bradbury 23:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I have every intention of discussing and I have talked to you before so dont worry I will talk, just not having time right now IRL. Qed237 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Good, I do want to resolve, it is not personal, the reason I removed the date was exactly for the reason you just stated in your summary, the content was accurate as sourced, however grouping it under a date was not. The infobox is a summary of the rest of the article, it may not all be accurate based on a date in the infobox, but the summary will be and was sourced as are the individual stats in the article. But you can't keep reverting everyone because they disagree, protocol works like this: An editor makes an edit, its gets reverted, the editor disputes this by reverting the revert, no further reversions should be made until a consensus is reached via a discussion. You simply don't do this. You just edit war until people give up. Paul  Bradbury 00:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: I tend to try and follow WP:BRD, meaning someone is bold (B), then someone (for example me) do a revert (R) if edit was not good and then the first editor that was bold should open discussion (D). Qed237 (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Except you don't. Quote from WP:BRD BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. You just violated that with this edit the same with the edit I made to the hockey page, you do this constantly and without regard for other editors. Paul  Bradbury 00:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Also the reversion of my edit was in violation of this, as mine was simply a reversion of yours to another editor, with the addition of sources. Paul  Bradbury 00:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: Okay, new day and a fresh start. I have tried to think about how we can reach an agreement on the Premier League article (I still believe that nothing is official for the hockey groups), and I realised that much of the issue comes from the fact that the clean sheets-source is slow to update. In a perfect world all source would be updated when final whistle is blown and then we can update entire article, but the world is not perfect. The other sources used in infobox, espn and soccerstats, are updated pretty quickly so I have tried looking for better source for the best goalkeepers without any luck. Perhaps we can find a source that updates faster at a later date. Anyway, since clean sheets seems to be the big issue I can think of two solutions. One way is to simply remove that parameter during the season and add it after the season, and the other is to comment it out during the infobox update to re-add when sources has updated. This way the infobox can be updated almost immediately (if we dont show clean sheets). What do you think? Do you have any better solution? Qed237 (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: Any response to this? Qed237 (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi yes I'll try and respond tonight, been a busy day only done some vandal reverting. I need to have a think and put something cogent together, thank-you for working through this with me. Paul  Bradbury 19:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, so I have had some time to think, I think this can be broken into three issues to try and resolve

• Firstly the clean sheets issue specifically. The source for this is bad in that it takes a long time to update meanwhile many other sources have reported the stat. The issue is it seems to be the only one that lists all the stats and not just one (for example x keeper has most clean sheets). The challenge here is twofold, one is the information can be reliably sourced (and is in some cases) However the infobox has been designed so that it can only be updated once a day and only after all, the numerous, sources have updated (by the addition of the date parameter). This is prime for conflict. I am not sure about the best way forward here. My ultimate aim would be to have the best information with the least amount of drama.
• Secondly the Ice hockey source. Reliable sources are not official sources, they are two very different things, official sources in fact are often not very reliable (take Frank Lampards "loan" from NYCFC to Man City). An editor uses their judgement which is a key part of the process. The source I used had the head of the Russian federation (who would have this knowledge) saying what the line up is. Then the head of the swedish federation saying he couldn't confirm (note that is not a denial). The source is reliable and the information is not controversial or a potential BLP violation.
• Thirdly editing philosophy (my real issue here). Regardless of your views you cannot revert the way you do (even if you are right), you frequently edit war (its not reverting one editor 3 times, its reverting one piece of info repeatedly). You regularly demonstrate WP:DISRUPTSIGNS such as point 1 and point 4b. You are acting like you WP:OWN the premier league season article. You are driving me away from editing football articles. I'm 41, have 50 staff and have to deal with managing people all day long, I like to edit wikipedia to wind down and hopefully improve the body of knowledge. Not to get into arguments and have debates. Paul  Bradbury 19:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: I am very busy at the moment, so I will take time and read it later so I can read it calmly without missing anything. Qed237 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: Okay I have read it twice now and I am sorry you had to wait for an answer, busy week. Not sure exactly how to respond, but here it goes. On your first point, I dont know the best way to move on either, that is why I gave two alternatives. If I got to choose I would simply remove that parameter during the season as the easiest solution. About the ice hockey source, I am used to waiting for official confirmation like we always do for football transfers. There we wait for club for announcement as many newspapers say "transfer done", when in fact transfer is not done and sometimes player actually goes to an other club (like Willian that was on his way to tottenham and ended in Chelsea). There we always wait for official confirmation and I dont think we can use this "leak" as the full decision has not yet been taken. About your third and final point, I know I revert a lot, but i am not here to have debates either. I am just a quality before quantity kind of person, and everything on wikipedia should be sourced. Qed237 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I think removing the parameter is probably the best solution for point one. For point two can see your concern, however the difference I see is that in football transfers we treat newspapers as unreliable because they are not a party with knowledge and sources are anonymous, in this case the head of a federation said it, he would have knowledge and it has not been refuted (as transfers often are) so it is different you can't apply the same logic, having said that, if you are still uncomfortable with that I'll go with you on that. On the thired issue I think you are misunderstanding sources and process around it, if its not sourced but maybe needs one (not everything does) then you should not revert per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE, you can tag it with a citation needed. Exceptions to this are edits that are in contravention of WP:BLP or edits that constitute WP:VANDALISM which should be removed immediately. I get the quality thing I really do, but you still can't edit war to get things to comply with your way (even when that is the correct way). Paul  Bradbury 21:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

A map for UEFA member countries?

First, thanks (again) for editing the UEFA Champions League and Europa League articles. I just want to ask, is there any thought of making a map for UEFA member countries? Right now the European map used by the articles does not cover cities such as Astana (problem for the 2015–16 UEFA Champions League) and Baku (problem for UEFA Euro 2020, the location of Baku in that article is definitely not correct). There are actually maps for AFC, CONCACAF, and OFC, so I think it may be worth asking. Chanheigeorge (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Chanheigeorge: I am not aware of any plan for that, but I love the idea. I would definately support it, but images is not my strong side and I dont know how to do it. Qed237 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I will raise the issue at the WP:Football talk page. Chanheigeorge (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Proven FA Cup winner despite not playing in final

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2632644/Wojciech-Szczesny-parades-FA-Cup-medal-famous-trophy-despite-failing-play-single-second-en-route-Wembley-triumph.html

Here proves players who didn't play in the FA Cup Final get a medal anyway, so you and the others who keep removing honours from players pages as they didn't play in the final can stop doing that now. In case you say that isn't a reliable source, you can clearly see Szczesny with a winners medal despite not playing in the final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.97.80 (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Take it to WT:FOOTY. Qed237 (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Since you have accused me of edit warring please provide diffs to back it up, so I can look at my behaviour if that is the case. I have tried engaging with you but since you have decided not to listen or discuss and continue your behaviour, ignoring consensus that has been explained. I would like some back up to your claims. Paul  Bradbury 16:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Continously reverting my edits and accusing me of edit warring. Qed237 (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for your contributions

		A beer on me!
		A genuine thanks for all the anti-vandal work you do and all the template and thankless work you do. I am going to leave football editing for now. I hope you can understand where I am coming from and do read and understand what I have asked, it is not personal. Paul  Bradbury 17:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Japan edit

The edit was un-necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whispered11 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Whispered11: I dont agree, it was necessary. Live updates are not allowed and you should wait until the match has ended. Qed237 (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Zamora Trophy at 2015–16 La Liga

Why do you delete it if it works like in previous seasons? Asturkian (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Asturkian: Sorry, I should have given an explanation. The list of players was not according to the source and it said "as of 23 May 2015" which is incorrect. Qed237 (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edition on the 1994 World cup

Hi

Why did you revert this edition? It does clarify things. --Jbaranao (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jbaranao: I did it because of WP:EASTEREGG. When looking at the text there is no way that a reader clicking on "forced interuption" can expect to end up at the qualification article. If you want a link, you would have to reword the sentence somehow, or perhaps link "their qualification game" instead. Qed237 (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Vietnam national football team by User:VEO15 is vandalism

Hi @Qed237: I talk you will be see it for this articles now. Editing have history1 & history2 by user:VEO15 is a vandalism. Can you help me now! Thanks! Boyconga278 (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Boyconga278: In what way is that vandalism? I can not see any vandalism. Qed237 (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying - Summary

Hi @Qed237, Why reverse the "Summary" section for the old one? The edit i made was to facilitate the visualization and all the table would fit in smaller screens with the flags positioning the same way they are in the other tables in the same page. Also it is not necessary to have captions for a table in which each row mean a single thing, you can just add another column for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diogowerner (talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Diogowerner: Basically I did this because we have always had this table in the same way. And if you are concerned about smaller screens, the caption is better than extra column. Qed237 (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Best player in Europe vs. Best player of the Champions League

• Hi there. Just wondering, should the inclusions of Ribery as the best player of the 2012-13 Champions League and Cristiano Ronaldo as the best player of the 2013-14 Champions League also be removed in that case, as they were voted Best Player in Europe that season?

Thanks. Best, Messirulez (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I dont know, I am not sure. Qed237 (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Arsenal FC

Wikipedia has strict rules about club bias ruling editor's actions and this seems to be the case with you. Arsenal honours must reflect reality and the accepted consensus of what trophies are; regional and youth tournaments do not count as such and are not listed as Arsenal honours by Arsenal FC themselves or any mainstream media as well as any football governing body. Continued failure to abide by the rules and edit in information that has no place on the page solely because you want your club to feel bigger will result in a blocking and possible suspension of your account. Davefelmer (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The honours are sourced so do not remove without consensus, especially since they have been there a long time. And you should always sign on bottom of your posts. Qed237 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

that is the problem. They are not sourced RELIABLY by any media or governing body. Not even the club website acknowledges it! Until there is credible sourcing as per wikipedia rules, it cant be added. furthermore, it has not been there a long time. It was added a few weeks ago for the first time!Davefelmer (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If you dont learn how to talk and sign posts, it is not worth responding to your rant. Qed237 (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Shaqiri page

Hi. Can you explain why the section 'international goals' is continually deleted on the Xherdan Shaqiri page? I can find any number of other international players that have this section, and I see no reason why this wouldn't add information that some people would find interesting...Breitenrain (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Breitenrain: There has been several discussions and it is now a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football not to include 'international goals. Per WP:OSE can not other articles be used as argument. More information can be read here and here. Qed237 (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Parma F.C. vs Parma Calcio 1913

I just wanted to make you aware of a discussion currently in progress to merge these two articles. The discussion can be found at the latter's talk page. Italia2006 (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

2016 World Cup of Hockey

Add Group A and B and schedule

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=778411 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.110.3.69 (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Qed237 (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Why you have been delete my edits?

Article Team North America Exict.

The Host Team,The Rest Of Europe,U-23 Players,this one is the same as host,under-23 players,the rest of europe

2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC) UAE's goalscorer

hello

i think there are some incorrect data about UAE goalscorer. According to FIFA report, it said that Ahmed Ali scores hat-trick againt Malaysia so it will make he score 3 goals in total. But when i look at the AFC report it said that Ali Mabkhout is the one who scores. So, i don't know that which source is more accuracy. And when i looked at the highlight and consider about previous record i think the one who score hat-trick againt Malaysia is Ali Mabkhout. So, i want to ask you that what you think about this problem

Thank — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKeZZZ (talk • contribs) 16:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@AKeZZZ: This is an issue when we use two different reports. In the end I would go with FIFA since it is "their tournament" and they are the one that provides the official statistics. Qed237 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKeZZZ (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

i found this on FIFA website "The other attractions Hosts United Arab Emirates from Group A showed Malaysia no mercy by firing home ten unanswered goals. Ahmed Khalil netted four times and Ali Mabkhout recorded a hat-trick as the 2015 AFC Asian Cup semi-finalists ran riot. But the home side had Omar Abdulrahman to thank as the playmaker provided as many as six assists. In the day's final game, Saudi Arabia thrashed Timor-Leste 7-0 as they share the top spot with UAE in the group." So who really scores a hat-trick [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKeZZZ (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure and I am not the right person to make that decision. Qed237 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

i just want to discuss about it, i think right now we must wait for the final report from FIFA — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKeZZZ (talk • contribs) 07:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Creations

I am done with explaining my edits and creations. Do what you need to do. Cheers. MbahGondrong (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

2016 World Cup of Hockey

Why you have been delete my edits?

Article Team North America Exict.

The Host Team,The Rest Of Europe,U-23 Players,this one is the same as host,under-23 players,the rest of europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.110.29.189 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That article must have just been created (did not exist before) and I am not sure it even should exist. Also per MOS:CAPS why would you want to start every word with caps, that makes absolutely no sence. I could not see any improvement of the article in your edits. Qed237 (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Being blocked

So I got blocked for an edit on a page, but it's okay for you to make the same edit as I did? Seems rediculous to me, I'm getting really annoyed by this, I've been blocked from editing at least 4 times, I might just leave Wikipedia if this keeps happening, thanks. So I can't make live updates, but you can? You don't even follow your own rules and because you're an admin I can't block you for a week EdmondCA (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@EdmondCA: I am not an administrator and could you please tell me what edit you are talking about? Qed237 (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

I suggest a WP:SPI, sorry. GiantSnowman 12:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

UEFA Coeff-s

This is final ranking to 9 September.

But this not final ranking for draw UEFA Euro 2016 (Pots) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniil1888 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Daniil1888: That can not be called "final ranking" and also I can not see any reason why the september ranking should be added? Qed237 (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Then, as I define this new information about the UEFA coefficients? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniil1888 (talk • contribs)

@Daniil1888: Not notable enough, it has no use. Qed237 (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Well,I had learned from my mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniil1888 (talk • contribs)

Not a big mistake, just that the September ranking is not used for anything and we dont have a "current ranking list". Happy editing. Qed237 (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Timestamp

Hello, could you please update time stamps yourself rather than reverting good edits (minus the timestamp), feel free to bring this to WP:FOOTY, where I am sure other editors will agree with me. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I usually do, but when the same editor ignore it over and over again, it is getting tiring. Qed237 (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit which had nothing wrong with it... It should not have been reverted. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Qed237 (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

2015-16 Manchester United Season

Sorry, but I thought it was a pretty obvious and straightforward edit, seeing as the three players I removed from their squad list no longer play for Manchester United. Jonny Evans left to West Brom, Javier Hernandez left to Bayern Leverkusen, and Januzaj went out on loan. Why should they still be apart of their squad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thriller08 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Thriller08: That section is a table of the stats for this season (not currrent squad) and all players that has been playing or in the squad should be there. Those players you removed have contributed and played this season so why remove them? It is not a list of current players. Qed237 (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Short articles

Early today came across this exchange you had with another editor, and I have seriously object. I've had a look at the creations you're probably refering to; while they are obviously wanting when it comes to length, all of them conform to WP:PSA, and threatening another editor with a ban for what amounts to a good faith attempt at constructive editing is not okay. Speaking from experience, the only editors I've ever seen blocked for bad creations are ones who persistently ignore notability guidelines, or whose creations are outright vandalism. The worst thing this editor has done is basing their creations on a single source (and the occasional typo), which is easily correctable, and certainly not blockworthy.

I thought I would also take a moment to explain why the creation of short articles must be acceptable. (After all, we do have an entire guideline on the issue.) First there's the notion of the absence of a deadline. Assuming the subject is notable and clearly identified, and the content is verifiable, reliably sourced and written from a neutral point of view, a short article can always be improved upon later. Second, there's the fact that Wikipedia is not compulsory. No editor is required to put in more time and effort than they wish. This means that partial or incomplete edits (and by extension the creation of short articles) must be acceptable unless their incompleteness actively misrepresents the information they are trying to convey (e.g. not updating timestamps). Finally, in this particularly case, there is BLP-policy. When dealing with biographies of living people, editors are actively encouraged to err on the side of caution. This inevitably leads to shorter articles, and is probably a good thing.

Happy editing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: Thank you for this information. I just want to clarify that I never proposed that this editor should be blocked (at least that was not my intention), but I proposed a topic ban from creating articles. There is a difference between 'ban' and 'block', and perhaps I did not make that clear enough. Anyway I have read and understood what you have written and I will not do it again. I have always learnt "quality before quantity" both at home and in school and based on that I would like to see article creations that is not only 'one-liners' and I am not the only one complaining about this user. When I create article I take my time and google for information and add text to the article, so to see other editors making 10 one-liners in one day and never improving them is not fun. It is like they create them just to get credit for creating many articles. But as I said I have read what you wrote and will learn from this experience. Qed237 (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Players of Malta Premier League

Hello QEd237. I saw Kyle Hendry's article but he has only 1 cap at Maltese Premier League (soccerway profile) and as I know the Maltese Premier League it's not a Wikipedia:FPL so this player fails Wikipedia:GNG or not. If it's reverse, please tell me cause I'm interested to create Entonjo Elezaj's article which is a Albanian Goalkeeper who plays for a fellow Maltese Premier League side Sliema Wanderers and has also 2 caps with it (also some other caps at international level with the Albania national youth football teams, but no matter) (his soccerway profile). Thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Eni.Sukthi.Durres: After a quick look, it definately looks like the article should be deleted. I will take a closer look later. Thank you for the information. Qed237 (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok thank you for being clear. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Eni.Sukthi.Durres: Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hendry. Qed237 (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Turkish Süper League

Hello QEd237, Could you please explain me why you undo the changes I have made to Turkish Super League article regarding the standings? I have checked and there was no harm to the article after I made the changes. That's why I really wonder. I check the Barclays Premier League article, there can be changes after some of the matches are played, but we can't do it for Turkish Super League? That does not make any sense. User:Omerlaziale(talk) 23:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Omerlaziale: After your update it said 'as of matches played on 30 August', which is not true. There is clear information that the update parameter must be updated so others know when it has been updated. Now you added matches after that and made the standings incorrect. Qed237 (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I will also change the update date as well as the standings from now on. User:Omerlaziale(talk) 02:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Omerlaziale: Great!. Happy editing. Qed237 (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Jack Grealish

Please do not revert appearances and goals for Aston Villa to date he has made 20 appearances and scored one goal. Regards --palmiped |  Talk  13:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Palmiped: As to date yes, but infobox stated "as of 27 April". Timestamp must be updated. Qed237 (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Reported to admins

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eightball (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Eightball: Could you please use the correct notice next time so it links to the correct page, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Qed237 (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Might as well link to correct thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User continually reverts correct edits. Qed237 (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Eightball (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Eightball: Why not? Qed237 (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Qed237, he doesnt have to - he left {{subst:ANI}} on your talk page, so that's enough (even though it should have been {{subst:ANI-notice}}. It does not say that you must link to the relevant section. JMHamo (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo:, No he did not, please read {{ANI}}, he left {{AN-notice}}, when infact I was reported to ANI and not AN so should have gotten {{ANI-notice}}. It is two different boards, he might as well have linked me to edit-warring noticeboard. It says on top of WP:ANI what notice to use, not so hard. But since I am not dumb I managed to figure it out anyway. Qed237 (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You can call that "human error"... JMHamo (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JMHamo: You dont have to link to the correct section but it would be good to be linked to the correct page/noticeboard. Qed237 (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I can, but yesterday when he attacked me without showing me some good faith it was hard....Qed237 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Some people think he made a valid point... just saying. JMHamo (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Yes, he made. But I dont think you saw some of the messages yesterday that had been removed. When someone comes up and put a hand on my shoulders and say 'we need to talk, I am not happy with some of yuor reverts' I can take that discusssion. When someone comes from behind and swings a baseball bat at me I will turn around and fight back. This is why I stopped commenting yesterday and returned today, because continuing would have led to a block for both me and him for personal attacks. Qed237 (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not referring to any personal attacks that may have happened (that's a different issue), but the "timestamp" issue has been going on for a while now... just search your Talk page archive, so it's time you take notice. I have no more to say. JMHamo (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: I am also not the only editor so why onyl go after me. See this and this. Qed237 (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No live updates. (TW) a fact?

Hello, Revert here is not in the guidelines of my native wikipedia if it's in english wikipedia I'd like to know, thanks H^akan·IST 20:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@HakanIST: There is consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football not to do any live updates as it easily can cause errors on the articles. Also the infobox is always for league only. Qed237 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds overly protective for Wikipedia:En ,will keep in mind though... H^akan·IST 21:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do. Qed237 (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

City of Manchester Stadium

Why do you keep removing the edit that refers to the stadium as "The Etihad"???? That is what it is called for short... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.165.1 (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any source for that? Wikipedia is build on content based on reliable sources. Qed237 (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Vandalism? Please explain? La Fuzion (K lo K) 19:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lafuzion: You have been told before not to make any live updated, and yet you do it anyway. Perhaps "disruptive" would have been a better explanation. Qed237 (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

European records

First time using this, not sure I'm doing it right. What do you mean with 'It clearly says MATCHWEEK'? I changed Cristiano Ronaldo's record of knockout stage goals from 34 to 39 because it is old. He had 34 knockout stage goals at the beginning of the 2014-15 season and he added another 5, 3 against schalke in the round of 16 and 2 against juventus in the semifinal. The goals he scored yesterday were in the first group stage game of the 2015-16 season, my edit had nothing to do with any specific matchweek.

Ioannsukhariev (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

A lot of edits from yesterdays result was made when they should not have been. We update at the end of every week. About Ronaldo stats you should only change if you have a new updated source for the stats. Qed237 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't know about a source that keeps up with his numbers that way, I just saw 34 and remembered reading about that record last year. I counted his goals just to make sure and here's an article about him scoring his 35th in the first leg of last season's round of 16, but if I make another change in the future I'll try to find some relevant sources. To avoid confusion, by the end of the week you mean sunday night?

Ioannsukhariev (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ioannsukhariev: Okay great. End of the European matches (Champions League and Europa League) is enough for that article so thursday night/friday morning. Qed237 (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ioannsukhariev: Seems like source is not currently needed for that section but it should be needed when we display stats. Qed237 (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal religious categories

Hello, how are you? I wanted to ask you about some of the issues in Wikipedia? In the past we disagree in putting (Spanish Roman Catholic) category on Iker Casillas article

I want to know what is the basic condition to put a personal religious categories such as (Spanish Roman Catholic) and (American Roman Catholic) category in one of the articles in Wikipedia

I learned through instruction, that the primary condition is that there be a personal confession as well, but one of the members differed with me and said that artists and athletes should not be placed in the religious categories , and this category special for priests, clergy, religious missionaries

I wanted to ask you because you are prominent and ancient member in English Wikipedia

If you are also confused the issue ask rest Members in wikipedia

thanks to listen me --Muhib mansour (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"prominent and ancient member" classic! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Muhib mansour: Hi, I am fine, how are you? Categories are not my strongest area, but I always like sources. If there is a reliable source and information in the "personal life"-section saying something like "(name) is a Spanish Roman Catcholic(source)" then I think the category is appropriate. We should not add categories that is not supported with text and source in the article. Qed237 (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, I agree with you that there should be sources

But my question is, Is it permissible to add sports and artistic personalities in personal religious categoriess? , As long as the source to prove it

One of the members in wekipedia, and I am currently in a dispute with him, says that personal religious categories private for religious personalities like priests , theologians and religious media people, and says that all categories by the addition of sports and art figures is wrong (that mean, they must be edited)

In this case, classification (Spanish Roman Catholic) of them is wrong, what is it you say to him?

what you say about this issue --Muhib mansour (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Muhib mansour: I think those categhories should be for anyone, including sports people, if they can be sourced. Qed237 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, I think that you have to also say that to (User:Bastun) that this is the wrong thing, which has repeatedly rejected the same as what you said --Muhib mansour (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect to Qed237, they are incorrect. As previously explained on several occasions, @Muhib mansour:, the policy on editing biographies of living persons is clear: section 4.4., on categories about religious and sexual orientation states: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." (My emphasis added). Two criteria, not one. To look at Pierce Brosnan, the article you have a problem with: Has the subject publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question? Yes. Are the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources? No. Brosnan is notable because he is a famous actor - that is all. He has not been involved in, for example, promoting Catholicism, opposing the recent marriage equality referendum in Ireland, organising or participating in religious events, etc. The most he has done is mention his religious beliefs, when asked about them, in a couple of interviews. Both conditions required by WP:BLPCAT have not been met. If you want to change the policy, by all means bring up a discussion on the biographies noticeboard, Forum shopping is not the way to proceed. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Bastun , You did not say the all truth here, Pierce Brosnan article in section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_Brosnan#cite_ref-79) he admit his catholic faith with trusted source, and this is enough to put the personal religious categories in any article , The thing that I want to show to User:Qed237, is what he (user bastun) told me in the his talk page, that (Irish Roman Catholic) category is the just correct category because it does not contain a sports and artistic personalities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bastun#pierce_brosnan) , Though what he says is true, you must change all categories in Wikipedia, to become such a (Irish Roman Catholic) category, greetings --Muhib mansour (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly not my topic, so I would appreciate if you continue someplace else. Qed237 (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Really?

Zelalem made his third league appearance for Rangers on Sunday. The correct way to fix the page would be to change the timestamp that said "September 6th," not revert the page. You acted in a childish and counterproductive manner. Shameful. Eightball (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Eightball: Make sure to update timestamp and there will be no issue. Qed237 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

All you do is revert correct edits on football pages instead of improving them. I will report you to the administrators if you do not stop this. Eightball (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do, I have not broken any guideline and never been blocked. Dont be mad just because I reverted you. Qed237 (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I am mad because you are a vandal. DO BETTER. Eightball (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You and I have clearly different interpretation of WP:VANDALISM. Calm down. Qed237 (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor and just walk me through your thought process? You see these pages, you know the appearances/goals are correct but the date is not. Why revert the appearances/goals instead of correcting the date? How is that in ANY way productive? Eightball (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Eightball: First off all I am sorry if I where very aggressive yesterday. You "attacked" me pretty hard with this the minute I was going to turn in for the night, but that is no excuse. Anywas, regarding your question it is basically it is a result of frustration. You brought up the case of Divock Origi and for example this edit I reverted because I was tired of correcting the editor when he has done this before and has been notified about timestamps. Many editors has recieved messages but continues to ignore timestamps anyway (some has eventually been blocked) and seeing this issue every day is frustrating. I can understand that new editors and/or IPs can miss updating it, but not editors that has been aware of the situation and not when there is hidden comments. I have once brought up the idea of an WP:EDITNOTICE do add on articles with this issue (just like I created Template:Livescores editnotice for articles with a lot of live updates) but did not get much response other than "we would need to add it on a lot of articles". Qed237 (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing further needs to happen here so long as you commit to improving articles first and improving editors second. I apologize for the way I acted initially. Please stop reverting correct caps/goals when you know only the timestamp is wrong. Eightball (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You are an obvious troll, you contribute nothing of value, and I will not rest until you have been punished or banned. Eightball (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Eightball: As I have told you before, NO MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS, you are just diggging yourself a big hole. Qed237 (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Heads up

Check this. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: wow, User:Eightball only gets worse and worse, now even shopping. Could you leave him a message not to do so? I leave him a message he would probably explode. Qed237 (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please direct me to whatever rule this violates. I simply do not know what further action to take. Eightball (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Eightball: You need to watch your own back before attempting to raise a body of opinion against another editor. Statements such as "he is an obvious troll and people like him desperately need to be purged from this site" are incompatible with this project's ethos. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Eightball: Try WP:FORUMSHOP and similar. You have already taken it to admins, so try listen to them and just stop harrassing me. Qed237 (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That is not a rule, that is a suggestion of a common error. As I have found no other recourse to stop your obviously negative behavior, I don't see what else you'd like me to do. Are you going to stop blanket reverting stats additions when you are fully capable of simply correcting the timestamp? Eightball (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that, as User:NeilN has just pointed out to you, the rules will not be changed just because they do not suit you. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

They do not suit anyone. They are not in the best interest of this encyclopedia. Why are you allowing an editor to do nothing but make pages worse? Eightball (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, get your facts straight. I have done far more good work than you have. Qed237 (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Eightball:: There are procedures for attaining policy changes; they are not achieved by personal attacks, harassment, and general lack of faith in other editors. Although with the amount oftime you've spent at AN/I, perhaps you have grown fond of the place. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been given no reason whatsoever to have any faith in Qed237. It is obvious he does not intend to contribute. Eightball (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"It is obvious he does not intend to contribute", what are you talking about? As I said I contribute on many things here on wikipedia. If you have nothing to say that makes sense then stop writing at my talkpage, I use it for proper discussions and not rants. Qed237 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Arsenal FC

Posted this on the Arsenal talk page. Thought you should know seeing as you edited all of it in I believe...

Who added all these regional and reserve trophies to the club's trophy haul? This is a farce and isnt corroborated by the club (http://www.arsenal.com/first-team/honours), UEFA (http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=52280/profile/) or FIFA as well as the link to the most successful clubs at the top of the page! This is not to deny arsenal havent physically won those "trophies" but they do not count as honours by any credible source and unless someone can provide evidence to the countrary, then they will be removed. Wikipedia is supposed to represent factual and accepted information, and these "honours" dont fall in either category. Davefelmer (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: I dont have the time for this now, but this belongs to the article talkpage or possibly Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Qed237 (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)