User talk:Qed237/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Premier League Future Fixtures

I'm not saying I don't believe you. I'm saying I find it hard to believe that listing future PL fixtures would somehow be disallowed under copyright law. So please point me towards that stipulation. Nuked (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I read the "articles" and the actual articles linked within the last link you posted. Although there is confusion, it seems pretty clear that there is no copyright to fixtures. Live fixtures, maybe, but not simple fixtures. So please do not remove them again. Nuked (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you stop reverting my contribution? I've already shown you why it's a valid contribution, to which you've replied nothing. Nuked (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Qed237, I'm starting to think that WP:NOTHERE might apply. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: You are not the only one. Qed237 (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Qed237 conveniently forgot to link to a recent discussion in which he participated, that clearly concludes that future fixtures are not under copyright. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_88#Season_article_fixture_lists) So who's WP:NOTHERE now? Nuked (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nuked: Perhaps you should read what nothere actually says? I linked to the conversations I had in my mind, and you can not seriously expect me to remember every single discussion I have been involved with? If I asked you what you and your teacher spoke about on your first day of third grade, would you remember? Just dropthestick and move on, without resorting to personal attacks. Qed237 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: It was the most recent discussion about future fixtures. You were clearly against it then as you are now, so your selective memory isn't difficult to understand. Your attitude, however, now that you've been called out, is pretty appalling. I can understand being a bit embarrassed. No one likes not being right. But you haven't been the least bit remorseful about the whole circus you started because you couldn't remember the last time you discussed future fixtures. AND AND AND I DID tell you that in the fourth discussion link that you asked me to read, there was a mention of the very court case that rules future fixtures uncopyrightable. You chose to IGNORE this every single time, instead pulling me into a whole pathetic circus. Hanlon's razor says I have to assume you're simply ignorant, but either way, I feel sorry for you. And I know what nothere says, and I think it applies well to both yours and my own actions through this whole ordeal. Only difference is, I don't have experience with this AND I don't really give two shits one way or the other. SEE YA! Nuked (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF and stop your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Also dont WP:SHOUT. Qed237 (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Following the comments made on your thoughts about adminship a couple of months ago, I see you are still misusing Twinkle to revert editors you are having a content dispute with. Can you give me a reason not to request it's removed from your permissions? And I might add, your most recent revert is pathetic – you've clearly been proved wrong on the fixtures issue, so trying to justify continuing to remove useful material via another excuse is really quite petty behaviour; if the fixtures are moved, the text can be amended – other websites list fixtures as they are currently planned (as we do with events like elections, but move them if the dates change). You will never be an admin if you carry on like this. Number 57 13:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Multiple users has removed the content and previous discussions at the football project has told us to not have the fixture lists (for example WP:Crystal has been used as motivation) and then you link to a discussion with only one response? The fact that you then say other editors edits are "pathetic" and reverts yourself without joining any discussions and in fact joining an "edit war" makes me interested to see if you can give me one reason not to request to have your administrator rights removed. I know you are having issues with me, but dont try and abuse your powers. Qed237 (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to be very familiar with WP:CRYSTAL – there is no problem including future events if they are "notable and almost certain to take place". Unless you are suggesting that Leicester will not play these games?

You'll also notice I have commented at WT:FOOTY, so the claim that I have reverted "without joining any discussions" is incorrect.

I'd also be interested to know which of my admin powers I have abused here. If the answer is "none", which I believe it is (as far as I am aware the only admin power I have used today is to move an article to a protected namespace, as requested at WT:FOOTY), then don't try and make silly accusations. Number 57 14:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: The most recent discussion I found was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 88#Season article fixture lists at which it was decided that even if the fixtures might not have been copyrighted maybe they should not. One editor said "even if we can include them, I don't see why we should" and others agreed. I might have got the copyright issue wrong, after looking at older outdated discussions and what other editors have told me, but then you could have left me a message of your own an told me to self revert instead of accusing me of pathetic edits and linking to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#2015–16 Leicester City F.C. season which only had one reply when you used is as motivation in your revert (diff). When you made your revert, you had not responded in discussion. The "abuse" comes from the fact that I feel that you are trying to bully me in to following your opinion. You know were well that multiple editors are against the fixtures, yet you threaten me that my twinkle permissions should be removed and that my edits are pathetic. If I as a non-admin would have said those things I would have been blocked. You could have prevented the situation by talking. Qed237 (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you would not have been blocked. There is a difference between commenting on someone's behaviour (acceptable) and their character (not acceptable).

With reference to the past discussion you cited "at which it was decided that even if the fixtures might not have been copyrighted maybe they should not", there is clearly no consensus in that discussion – there are equal numbers of editors on each side of the debate. Please don't misrepresent discussions in this way. Thanks, Number 57 15:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: If you say there is no consensus, then could you please try and explain to me why you as an administrator choose to enter a content dispute and make two edits of your own instead of talking to involved parties first? That does not sound like admin behaviour to me. Qed237 (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Because the rationales being used in that discussion were clearly incorrect or badly flawed. Number 57 15:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Then you should have restore content to pre war revision. Qed237 (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the version by the party in the right is that which needs restoring. I have no time for the "restore the pre-war version" argument, as in my experience, it is largely used by unconstructive editors to block constructive additions/removals (this is not a pop at you, but referencing what I have seen in the Israeli/Palestinian sphere). Number 57 15:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: But you just said that there was no consensus for the fixtures, so then adding fixtures is just as wrong as removing them (just as closing admin stated at WP:ANEW). So the page should have as it was without the addition. Yet you choose to "pick sides" and use the fact that your are an admin to instert your preferred version (with fixtures). You must be able to see that from my view. Qed237 (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You brought that discussion to my attention AFTER the edits were made, so please stop trying to twist this. I am not going to respond to any further comments here, so please join in at WT:FOOTY#2015–16 Leicester City F.C. season and WT:FOOTY#Fixtures Lists in Club Season Articles if you are still unhappy. Number 57 16:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Kevin De Bruyne

You just undid my change of birthplace in the article about Kevin De Bruyne, you added as comment "Unsourced". Drongen is a submunicipality of the city of Ghent and there is no hospital, almost everybody goes to a hospital in the city centre of Ghent, so he most be born there. Since Drongen is a submunicipality it's correct anyway to say he's born in Ghent. Even if his mother gave birth at home in Drongen there will be "Gent" as birthplace on his identity card! Who will know best: me who's born, raised and still living in Ghent or you? Gentenaar~nlwiki (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Source say "Drongen, Belgium" and we follow source. Qed237 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Referees and cities

Hello! I noticed that you reverted my edit in 2015–16 Svenska Cupen after I put "(Lund)" after Andreas Ekberg's name. I thought it was praxis to write the city after the name (or the country if it's a national team match), but i guess that have changed? I would appreciate if you wrote wrote explanations in the edit summary instead of just revering. Have a nice Sunday! :) // Mattias321 (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Mattias. It seems like standard procedure the world over to indicate where the referee comes from or the association to which he is affiliated. English refs used to have their names followed by their town, e.g. Graham Poll (Tring), but now they seem to be followed by the county FA they're affiliated to, e.g. Mark Clattenburg (County Durham). Same applies to the refs in UEFA competitions, e.g. Alberto Undiano Mallenco (Spain). If this is also common practice in Sweden, why remove (Lund) from Andreas Ekberg? – PeeJay 20:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Already answered. Qed237 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Manchester City stadium

Hi, I have a quick question. Do you think we should maintain the use of the sponsor name (Etihad Stadium) at the Champions League articles or accept the change PeeJay2K3 made a few days ago to City of Manchester Stadium? He only changed in Man City's case. Thank you in advance. The Replicator (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@The Replicator: In general we avoid sponsor names, but the manchester city case is special since Etihad is so widely known so Etihad is used on many places. However, in this case I would go with "City of Manchester Stadium" since it is the article title, UEFA says that is the stadium name in reports (City v Kiev today) and also to avoid the sponsor name. Qed237 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Taylor

Everything I wrote about Taylor is factual, I was at the game and it happened exactly as I said. Please don``t delete my post because you don`t like it. It is factual and it is accurate and totally referenced as it was on TV and I have watched it over and over.FirthyFlaps (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple editors has opposed your edit and not a single source was added to the article. Qed237 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Rotherham United club badge

Hi Qed237,

Noticed you around a lot in the history of various football pages, so thought I'd ask for your help. Apologies if this is presumptuous. The club badge on Rotherham United F.C. - [1] is incorrect. It's the pre-2005 rebranding badge, although to the occasional viewer it's not exactly obvious. I'm happy to fix this, but I have absolutely no idea how to do so. Could you point me in the right direction please? Cheers Gricehead (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gricehead: Hi. You are right, I edit a lot of football pages and I am happy to help as much as I can, so feel free to ask me for help. No problem. Unfortunately images are my weak spot and I often keep away of those. I have never uploaded an image myself. If you look at the page for the file File:Rotherham United FC.png, at the very bottom (almost) there is a link saying "Upload a new version of this file" that you probably can use. But as I said, this is not my favourite area and you might want to ask someone else first. Let me know if you need more help. Qed237 (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gricehead: Perhaps someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football can help you. Qed237 (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what the people at the football project page have to say first. Gricehead (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

2015-16 FA cup

Can u please edit the wikipedia page of the 2015-16 FA cup because i tried to edit it but i did not do it properly so can u please edit it for me.Thank u. A.Mamun — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMamun84 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I dont know what you are doing or trying to do in most of your edits. I suggest testing your edits in WP:SANDBOX and using preview button before making any edits. I am almost ready to talk about WP:COMPETENCE. Qed237 (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Kane Watford , Kane's father

Hello Qed237

Harry did not play for Watford , he trained with them for 4 weeks before joining Tottenham and I was not born in Galway !!

Kanewiki (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)kanewiki

Sources say something else and I dont care about where you were born. Qed237 (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have sources saying something else? Qed237 (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Haris Medunjanin

Hello Qed237!

I noticed there are no youth caps at aforementioned players' profile, so I found some sources that I have put on his talk page, could you just look at them and check of they're reliable? And what to do next?

Thanks! HenryChinaski91 (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Currently I am very busy so I can not make any promises, but I will take a look if I have some spare minutes. Qed237 (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit to 2015–16 Chelsea F.C. season

Hello Qed237,

I noticed that you removed the lineup based on appearances from 2015–16 Chelsea F.C. season that I had created several weeks ago. Per protocol here on WP, I assume good faith (even from an Arsenal supporter), especially from a user as experienced and skilled as yourself, but I was just curious as to why you made this edit. I've only been editing for a few months and am still learning the finest points of things here, so if you could let me know, I'd very much appreciate it.

Thanks! Amccann421 (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Amccann421: Hi. First of all, I am sorry for not explaining better in edit summary and it is good that you asked. Starting XI (or lineup) has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football with the consensus that they are WP:OR and should not be included. Everything we add should be sourced and we can not source players position for each match (players move around in free roles sometimes) and players can play in different positions in different matches. It is just a lineup that is created by editors, which is not allowed. More information can be read in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 80#Starting XI in Season articles and other discussions linked in that article. If you have more questions feel free to ask me. Have a nice day. Qed237 (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I figured that was what it was. Now that you mention WP:OR, I realize that's exactly what I did. My error. I had just seen the starting XI on a separate season page (I think it was Galatasaray; I'll find it and remove it if it hasn't been) and assumed that was proper format. Thank you for your quick response. Have a good one. Amccann421 (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, is there anything I need to do to become a member of WP:WikiProject Football? I'm intrigued by the prospect of working with fellow enthusiasts of the sport and learning more about both the sport and Wikipedia. Thanks. Amccann421 (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Amccann421: There is nothing special you need to do and you can find the information on how to do it here. Basically what you need to do is to put Wikipedia:WikiProject Football on your watchlist and add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Members. Qed237 (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, great. I'll do that. Thank you! Amccann421 (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Would it be notable?

Hi Qed, here again to ask you a question.... Would it be notable if I made a list of goals article of the remaining players at List of top international association football goal scorers by country that do not have an article about their goals yet, some of my lists have been deleted so it would be so kind of you if you can make me a short list of the players that whose international goal list article would be notable? I await your answer at my talk page. Thank you : ) TheSoccerBoy (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Liga I

Stop editing Template:2015–16 Liga I Relegation Round table. You want it to be your way, and your way is wrong. You are nobody, I am a nobody too. We are here only to follow some rules, and the OFFICIAL rules about Liga I are decided by FRF and LPF. I dont know who is scoresway.com, but they are not official. On frfotbal.ro, the standings are from 1 to 8. http://frfotbal.ro/index.php?competition_id=89 On lpf.ro, the same. http://www.lpf.ro/clasament-liga-1 I guess that they know what they do. At the end of the season you can add an entire table with all the places from 1 to 14. But until then, this table has to begin with number 1. Eddie Nixon (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eddie Nixon: You may want to read the rules and also have a look at how all other league does it. Just read the OFFICIAL rules in the documents at http://www.lpf.ro/documente-utile.html that states La finalul sezonului regular, se vor cunoaște echipele clasate în play-off (locurile 1-6) și play-out (locurile 7-14) and so on. Qed237 (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eddie Nixon: You can not even update the table properly and fail to update timestamp. Qed237 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You are confusing things. The regular season ended. There were 14 teams in that part. Of course that there is a 14th place. But now, in the play-out, there are only eight teams. It cant be the 14th place. Eddie Nixon (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eddie Nixon: What dont you understand? The team that wind the play-out will be considered 7th and the last-placed team will be 14th this season. It is fact. Qed237 (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact is that LPF and FRF use the numbers from 1 to 8 to determine de table. This is what you dont want to understand. Eddie Nixon (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Huggle message from Laberkiste

I just logged in to see if anything has happened with my unblock request and saw a message with final warning from User:Laberkiste that I had created, before it was removed by User:Floquenbeam. @Laberkiste: what page were you talking about? As far as I am concerned I have never created such article. @Floquenbeam: Do you think this have or will affect my chances of getting unblocked, seeing it has been there for 3 hours during my unblock request? Also while I am already asking and you being an admin, how long do you think it would take before my request is answered? Qed237 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the warning was an error based on you creating User talk:CHELSEA FC FANCLUB - that user subsequently turned it into an attack page (it's now been deleted). Number 57 22:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Thank you for your answer, it sounds very reasonable. Qed237 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Qed237, the huggle message Laberkiste left was a mistake; he tagged a now-deleted user talk page for speedy deletion as an attack page, because the user was using it to attack other editors, but technically you'd created the page (to warn the user), and huggle in its infinite wisdom automatically sent the notification to you. I look at Laberkiste's edits, he seems to generally be doing a good job, and I'm sure this is just a one-off, so I didn't really even think I needed to talk to him about it. But the warning can be safely ignored, I'm confident no one looked at that and ignored your unblock request, and no one thinks you created an attack page.

I'm inclined to accept the unblock request; @Number 57:, any further comments? It seems Qed237 has acknowledged he was wrong and "deserved" the block, and promised not to resume edit warring. Qed237, I'd prefer to wait a while to see Number57's reaction. But a word of caution, if Number57 has previously talked to you about Twinkle misuse, you should really take that seriously too. I don't have time to look into what that was about, but in my experience Number57 does not issue such warnings lightly. It isn't technically possible to prevent someone from using Twinkle, but in the case of repeated problems, it is possible to forbid someone from using it, and block them if they do. If this is due to past use of Twinkle to edit war, then the warning about being really careful not to edit war is doubly important. I'll check back in a while to see if Number57 has commented. --Floquenbeam (talk)

Sigh. resigning to fix ping. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Okay no worries, when @Number 57: explained it was a user talkpage it suddenly made sense. And I dont mind waiting, I wont edit more tonight anyway and I am after all blocked for a valid reason and can not demand to get unblocked. It is definately a wake up call as it was not fun to have a big edit prepared and then when pressing save I couldn't edit due to being blocked, so the work got lost. Lesson learnt. Qed237 (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You can disregard this warning, I only wanted to take the attack page down that the banned chelsea user made of it. --Laber□^T

@Floquenbeam: Happy with an unblock, but perhaps unblock the other editor too (I can't do much atm as am at an airport with crap wifi). Qed, I suggest you switch to using Chrome, as if you hit any snags in saving an edit, all your text should be there if you hit the back button (IE used to cause me the same problem till switched). Cheers, Number 57 07:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Being blocked for over 24 hours (out of 48) so thought I could check if leagues in my sandbox needed updating but I see that I have not been unblocked. Seeing that blocking admin @Number 57: is happy with unblock and @Floquenbeam: is inclined to unblock but not around, is there any other admin out there interested in unblocking me? @GiantSnowman and Mattythewhite: perhaps? Qed237 (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for going well beyond 3RR at Template:2015–16 Liga I Relegation Round table. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Number 57 13:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Qed237 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

First of all I would like to appologies for my behaviour at Template:2015–16 Liga I Relegation Round table which led to this block. I dont not show myself from my best side. But I have a few reasons for an unblock or at least reduced block length. #A block is to prevent further disruption (and not punishment) and I promise from now on I will not modify positions in that template until a consensus has formed. However, if I may, I would still like to update matchresults if needed to keep it up-to-date, but I can stay of it completely if required. #I have edited for 3 years in June and made over 50K edits,, so I am clearly not here with an intention to disrupt wikipedia so a 48 hours seems strong #Besides checking my wathlist vandalism occasionally, I currently am working in my sandbox User:Qed237/sandbox and User:Qed237/sandbox4 where I keep track of all leagues and what will happen the upcoming days. This helps avoiding disruption on 2016–17 UEFA Champions League and 2016–17 UEFA Europa League (as well as the league tables) as editors has a habbit of adding teams of their choice that has not qualified. For that reason I want to be unblocked so that I can continue to make this work in my sandbox, and if permitted make update accordingly (or others that I know follow my sandbox can do it). Neither should be disruptive #Also I would like the ability to defend myself regarding this intent at WT:FOOTY to have my twinkle rights removed, also requested at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Preventing use of Twinkle. I hate to say it, but Number57 is in my opinion overreacting, and I have gotten support diff. Although a block is warrented here, I admit to that, and as I said I am sorry, my twinkle rights should not have to be removed and Number57 has been targetting me before and is not neutral, showed by claiming that the other editor was only breaking 3RR while I was "going well beyond 3RR". #I can also take a voluteer day of next week instead, when not being this busy with matches as it is on a weekend. To also make this clear, I think the other editor, User:Eddie Nixon also deserves the same chance to get unblocked if they appologies as well. And if someone breaks that trust (I promise I wont) then a block could be reinstated or made longer.Qed237 (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

per section below. Please take Number 57's comments about edit warring and Twinkle to heart; there is almost never something that has to be done your way right this second. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify the "not neutral" comment, I originally gave Qed and Eddie Nixon the same block message. However, looking at the page history, I realised (or so I thought) that Eddie had only done four reverts as to Qed's five in a 24 timeslot, so toned down his message a little. However, I have now realised that I miscalculated the timing and both did five reverts, so I have restored the original block message on Eddie's talk page. Number 57 15:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

MarvinHumesMad

I've left them a message, thanks. GiantSnowman 17:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Overflow at your sandbox4 page

Dear User:Qed237. Your User:Qed237/sandbox4 is on overflow and appears at Category:Pages_where_template_include_size_is_exceeded. Perhaps could you help us to empty this maintenance category by splitting this sandbox page ? This would also allow a complete display of the contents of your sandboxes. Thanks in advance. Pldx1 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pldx1: Thanks for the information. I guess that is why the reflist is not showing. I will see what I can do. Qed237 (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The template that calls for the reflist is at the end of the page, and is quite ever the first one to suffer from the problem. Good day to you. Pldx1 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pldx1: I removed some table-templates, and also all calls to {{main}} (diff). Hopefully it should be okay now. Once again, thanks for the information. Have a nice day. Qed237 (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

2015/16 Premier League season

I was only putting things right for the monthly awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.208.65 (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that but It would be good if you used the preview button instead of testing different things in multiple edits. Qed237 (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hi Qed237. You recently warned me for supposedly not providing reliable sources for an edit at 2019 AFC Asian Cup qualification. I don't know what you are referring to as the source I used was directly from the AFC. If that isn't considered a reliable source than I honestly don't know what is. The edit was to clarify the situation ahead of the draw which is also based on the source given. Perhaps you didn't understand the situation regarding the play-off round and therefore have taken my edits as dubious. As FIFA has since clarified the situation with Kuwait, it then proves that the report from the AFC which I used was in fact accurate and therefore reliable. Although in general, reports from the Asian Football Confederation are reliable. So hopefully next time you would try and understand the situation, in this case, the situation ahead of the draw for the play-off round before warning users such as myself that we aren't making constructive edits due to supposed unreliable sources which is false in this case. If I'm going to be honest, your warning made me feel a bit offended. You probably don't care about that but that's how I think about your warning. Anyways apart from that I'm/we're all good now hopefully. Hope you understand. Thanks! InternacionalFutbolista (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There was no speculating. There source from the AFC which I provided clearly listed the teams as per their rank from the second round. The AFC listed Laos in fifth which confirmed that their fixture against Kuwait was awarded. The AFC wouldn't have listed them in fifth otherwise. However, in my edit, the way I worded it, it was to cover both sides which I believe was the right thing to do as to make the situation as clear as possible or as you say to make it "clean". When the draw took place, the list of teams arranged as per their rank in the second round was really the case. There really was no speculating though I could understand that it may seem like it due to the way I worded my edit. Anyway, that's all done and dusted now. So it's all good. Hopefully you could be a bit more understanding of the situation next time before deleting the edit on the spot without any discussion and then dishing out unwarranted warnings such as not using reliable sources as you did with me. Thank you. InternacionalFutbolista (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Dean Court/Vitality Stadium

You removed my editing because you say you avoid sponsor names. Well, the problem is is that their field is called Vitality Stadium sponsor or not. To say it is called Dean Court, is inaccurate. You don't change the name of American Football stadiums because of sponsors. The Cowboys field is listed as AT&T Stadium, The Saints stadium is the Mercedes-Benz Stadium and so on and so on with the American squads. Either things need to be accurate or consistent. If you want to be inaccurate listing European Soccer stadiums without sponsors, then the same should be done with American Football stadiums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.11.193.202 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to bring it up to WP:FOOTY, this is a long standing consensus. Qed237 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @107.11.193.202: If you look carefully enough, you'll notice that almost all non-American sports stadia on Wikipedia do not use sponsorship names. Just because the Americans want to do something different doesn't mean we should do the same- as Qed237 has said, there's a long standing consensus not to use sponsorship names, as it's free advertising, and sponsor names are temporary anyway. Anyway, Dean Court is the common name used throughout history, which Wikipedia uses rather than the temporary official name. Note that in the last 5-10 years, the ground has had at least 3 sponsors (Fitness First, Goldsands & Vitality), so it shows the Vitality Stadium name will probably be gone soon anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess it is just minorly off-putting. You watch the games and hear the announcers and it says welcome to The Hawthorns, Emirates Stadium, The Etihad, Vicarage Road, Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge. They all match until you get to welcome to the Vitality Stadium oh wait Dean Court. As far as the different sponsors, they are in the first of a 3 year deal, so it will be at least a couple of years. Even then, I'm not sure how the fact that it may change soon would make it ok for it to be inaccurate now as far as that being the excuse. You wouldn't have Barack Obama as the former president of the U.S. just because his role will change soon.

I understand the reasons and its fine. I guess I just prefer the real name over the common name. Oh well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.11.193.202 (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

What is "real name" is a subject for debate. The sponsor name is just temporary. Qed237 (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qed237. You have new messages at Raymarcbadz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you, I have your talkpage on my watchlist so no need to use talkback unless I dont respond for a while. Qed237 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

About coefficient for Liepāja in CL 2016–17

Hello, Qed237.

On page 2016–17 UEFA Champions League Liepāja has coeff.=2.325 (as coeff. Liepājas Metalurgs).

But on Kassies' page Liepāja has coeff.=1.075 (as new team with only country ranking).

Liepāja is Liepājas Metalurgs or new team? Who is right? GAV80 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@GAV80: I would say it is a new team and should be 1.075 as coefficient. However, I seriously doubt that they would be allowed to participate, see Talk:2016–17 UEFA Champions League#Liepaja. Qed237 (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Source

The Superleague Greece official site: http://www.superleaguegreece.net/el/scoreboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:5404:8400:9DCC:15AF:5BFC:932E (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

2015–16 UEFA Champions League

Can you please tell me what's the problem and you undid my edit ? All the matches have finished and the statistics are from the official page. Chris.astrtas565 (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chris.astrtas565: The entire infobox will be updated when sources and rest of article has been updated as infobox is a summary of the article. UEFA has not yet updated list of top goalscorers. Qed237 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Oh ok thanks, I'm pretty new here and I just wanted to know.Chris.astrtas565 (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chris.astrtas565: No problem, it is good that you ask. Some new editors just edit and dont talk, which could lead to a block if they are doing something wrong. But you are willing to learn and I like that. Welcome to wikipedia. Qed237 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Thank you very much I appreciate that ! Chris.astrtas565 (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chris.astrtas565: By the way I just saw that you are from Greece (at your userpage). Do you think you can help with translation of a text from epo.gr? Me and @The Replicator: have been discussing this announcement from epo.gr regarding the greek parliament having suspended the 2015–16 Greek Football Cup. However, none of us speak the language (and google translate is no good) so I wonder if you can help translate and clear the context of this announcement? We have been discussing at User talk:The Replicator#Greek cup regarding this edit if the tournament will be resumed, or if this is only the Greek Football Association saying that they want it resumed to put pressure on greek parliament? Any help would be appreciated. Qed237 (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: I would really like to help you. Generally it says that the Greek Football Association will cooperate with FIFA and UEFA το review the regulatory framework and asks from the Minister for Sport: a) to resume the Greek cup, and b) EPO to be self-governed. And finally they ask from him to do whatever he can to avoid the "Grexit". I hope I helped you a little bit, my english is not that good and especially with those terms. If you want a better translation ask me and I will give you one but maybe it will take some time. Chris.astrtas565 (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chris.astrtas565: Thank you very much. I think I understand. Qed237 (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@The Replicator: Should we change the note or simply remove the part you added? Qed237 (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Remove it. Definitely we have to wait. The Replicator (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: The final decision from FIFA will be anounced till this Friday, I will let you know if there's anything new. Chris.astrtas565 (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chris.astrtas565: Once again, thank you very much. I check FIFA.com on a daily basis, but an extra set of eyes never hurts. Qed237 (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: The greek Minister of sports signed up today the agreement with FIFA. So the Greek Cup will be resumed. The first leg of the semi-final between AEK and Atromitos will be played on 20 April and the second leg on 26 April, and the second leg between Olympiacos and PAOK will be played on 27 April. The Final will be played on 7 May at the OAKA, Athens. Here's the text from EPO: [2], and here's the text from the press office of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports: [3].Chris.astrtas565 (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chris.astrtas565: Awesome. Thank you very much. Qed237 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@The Replicator: I will update the involved articles. Btw, great work updating the Europa League draw and Champions League draw earlier today. I had some personal business to attend to so I were not available but you did a great work. Qed237 (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

MarvinHumesMad

Thanks - I've blocked them per WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. GiantSnowman 10:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:2015–16 Ukrainian Premier League table

Your recent revert for the template is inconsistent and makes no sense. The outcome of the cup competition is irrelevant as the third-best team (in case if the third would be Dnipro) that is eligible for continental competition would still qualify for the group stage. And inconsistent is due to the fact that both Dynamo and Shakhtar also qualified for the third qualification round of the Champions League, yet they are marked as uncertain. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aleksandr Grigoryev: There are some differences between the cases and believe me, I follow all European leagues and know how the tables are updated. Zorya Luhansk are qualified for third qualifying round as they have that secured that in the league. They can however also qualify for a later round with a good result in an other competition (the cup), but they have still qualified for third qualifying round. It is the same for Manchester City in 2015–16 Premier League who has won the League Cup and are listed as Qualified for Europa League third qualifying round (see 2016–17 UEFA Europa League), even though they may qualify for Champions League in an other competition (the league). Dynamo Kyiv and Shaktar Donetsk have not yet qualified for anything as they have not reached a certain spot in any competition (cup or league). Qed237 (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, thank you for your prompt response. Would you mind if we will move this discussion to the template talk page as I should have done in the first place? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aleksandr Grigoryev: No problem, but I am not able to respond until tomorrow. Qed237 (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Field hockey

I think you can argue 1000 times also does not change the fact that hockey doesn't have knockout stage, every team will still play for final classification. I can't accept your argument that semi-finals are knockout stage, while losing semi-finals team still fighting for bronze medal. Sorry this is not football. System from one sport are not necessary apply to another sport without understand to it. --Aleenf1 12:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aleenf1: That is a matter of opinion. Even if a bronze match is played it is still a knockout stage. I dont see any difference with other sports other than it being one round less (many also has quarter-finals). Qed237 (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what is term of "knockout", are non-qualified teams eliminated after the preliminary round? Which teams are disappeared from the tournament? You said this is the opinion... --Aleenf1 12:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aleenf1: See article Knockout stage. A single-elimination tournament — also called an Olympic system tournament, a knockout (or, knock-out), single penetration, or sudden death tournament — is a type of elimination tournament where the loser of each bracket is immediately eliminated from winning the championship or first prize in the event. Can the losing semi-finalist win gold medal? Otherwise it sounds like knockout to me. Qed237 (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aleenf1: Further reading says This does not always mean that the defeated competitor will not participate further in the tournament; in some such tournaments, consolation or "classification" contests are subsequently held among those already defeated to determine the awarding of lesser places, for example, a third place playoff. Qed237 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds for you? Oic, it still sounds from you. Then sounds from me, it is a wrong phrases. --Aleenf1 12:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Then please join discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics Qed237 (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i don't see any reason to discuss as i'm also cannot find any knockout stage using the Google, i will impress if you can find one for me. --Aleenf1 12:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a knockout stage. Simple. Kante4 (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Gib PL

thanks, I only translated results from the Official Website: http://www.gibraltarfa.com/domestic-football/first-division, and not watched the match. Thanks again--Noel baran (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Noel baran: Okay, I understand. I was not watching the match either but if you click on the matchreport you see table on the right is not updated and looking at twitter from Europa FC they say Match abandoned after 13 minutes by ref after Angels player injured and only 6 players left on pitch (they were leading with 3-0). Also Soccerway lists the match as "SUSP" (suspended). There is no doubt in my mind that Europa FC will be awarded the win, but lets wait for official confirmation. Qed237 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Jesús Navas - Reply

Thanks for the "thanks" QED, but AGAIN I know I performed a wrong move (updating a game before it was over). My turn now to say "thank you for being so patient". Hey, it could be worse, have a look at this update in Urko Vera, is this guy great or what (a brace WITHOUT playing?! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urko_Vera&diff=714200088&oldid=703915210).

Happy editing, all the best as always --Be Quiet AL (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Be Quiet AL: No worries, we all make mistakes and wrong moves sometimes. And I know that you are a good editor so it is easy to be patient with you. The edit you are linking to is something I have seen many times and it always amazing to see how people can score without playing. Qed237 (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Be Quiet AL: Oh, I forgot to say, happy editing to you to. Qed237 (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

IFK Haninge

 Done GiantSnowman 19:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015–16 Arsenal F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunderland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Stats in infobox and career statistics

Hey, thanks for the reminder but was there an occasion I did not do this? I usually am sure to make sure I update the timestamp in both the infobox and career stats box. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@ArsenalFan700: Hi, I am sorry I just realised that in the "workload" I had yesterday I accidently gave you the timestamp notice when it was an other editor making this edit. You were the last editor to edit that page when I saw it, and I must have been confused. Sorry, for that. Have a nice day. Qed237 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hockey at Rio 2016

Schedule --M&m89 (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I used the same format as in London 2012 hockey articles. And you are welcome.--M&m89 (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I think so too, thats why I make sure every hockey competition article follows the same format.--M&m89 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I support QED's format. Kante4 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

If you are changing everything that has been done so far, at least do it right. The Field hockey at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament also has quarterfinals. What you did makes no sense so far.--M&m89 (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The involved articles are already being updated. Qed237 (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

201.183.45.193 not getting the message

Hi. Noticed you reverting the above user. I've been watching his contributions since I ran into him on Ecuador national football team.

User seems to be a long term problem that is getting short term fixes. He has two problematic editing methods:

• Not understanding that a "current" international squad is that called up for the last fixture, and adding anyone discussed in the media as a possible call up.
• Changing the club of players on the national football team pages where there is media talk of a possible move.

This basically sums up 95% of his contributions. I raised at WP:AIV yesterday, but only managed to get the Ecuador page semi-protected, whereas I think this user needs an IP ban (again) as he isn't getting the message judging by his talk page. Thoughts? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gricehead: Yes there is definately issues with this editor. What we can do is warn and report. When editors dont give them warnings, they can not be blocked. I have reported him today (before I saw your message) so lets see if anything happens. Other than that, not much we can do, just revert, warn and report. Qed237 (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gricehead: Now blocked one week, as it seems. Qed237 (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Bracket

Hey, i would take the "new" one. Seeding can be seen if you scroll up... Kante4 (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yup. Just more info on main article without updating it. Kante4 (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no preference, tbh. But i like to show referee and attendance. Kante4 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I would guess so. Kante4 (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Tbh, i only copied them from the oast ones and seeing the template used AND described... But that should not be a point to change it on every template. Minor thing. Kante4 (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That's nothing i know anything about, sorry. Kante4 (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Group or pool, game or match?

Hello again. Qed237. About Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics.

On pages Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament and Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament written "Group". But template for groups named "Pool" (Template:2016 Summer Olympics men's volleyball pool A standings and other). Also "Pool" written in volleyball's navbox (Template:2016 Summer Olympics volleyball convenience template navbox).

Also in Template:2016 Summer Olympics volleyball convenience template navbox written "Matches", but on all other navboxes written "Games". GAV80 (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@GAV80: That is a tough question, and remember that English is not my first language. In my experience, most sports use "group" and that is the standard but some sports, like volleyball, uses "pool" instead. For example, in this article from the official field hockey association they use the word pool. It is a case for discussion if we shoul be consistent over all sports or follow the respective federatation. About the "matches" v "games", I have always seen games as a group of events, while match is the meeting between two teams. For example "Olympic games" or "Asian Games", while we have a match between Manchester United and Newcastle United. In tennis, a game is actually a part of a match. This might be a good read and from what I understand, game is most used in the US, while match is used in the UK and most of Europe. Qed237 (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I go with group and games. A match is what it is, one match. Kante4 (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kante4: Then is it not matches? Like Template:2016 Summer Olympics men's field hockey game A1 should be match instead of game? Or should we use game everywhere? Qed237 (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's leave it as it is. Not worry about those small things. Those are games from the same tournament. Kante4 (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kante4: Just trying to be consistent as we have Template:2016 Summer Olympics men's volleyball match A1, but Template:2016 Summer Olympics men's field hockey game A1. Also the Module:Sports table uses "Updates as of match(es) played on..." and so on. If I were to choose it would be matches, but as you say not the biggest issue currently. Qed237 (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

But to move all templates would be hell job. I personally don't care what the templates are called. And i think no viewer does... Kante4 (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kante4: True, but if I find the time to do it, I might make the moves unless someone opposes. Qed237 (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I won't oppose. Kante4 (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Superleague Greece

Hello my friend. Please note that UEFA gives two spots in Greek teams for the 2016–17 UEFA Europa League third qualifying round and only one spot for the 2016–17 UEFA Europa League second qualifying round. Thanks, Dimitrissss (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dimitrissss: I know that, but that does not change the fact that the fourth-placed team have only secured second round and displaying third round is wrong when fourth place may be second round. We have a note explaining it may be higher round, that is enough. Qed237 (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I see. But still believe that showing two spots for the second qualifying round, is absolutlely wrong. Dimitrissss (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess you can see this with different eyes, but the current way is standard. Qed237 (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert

Hi,

I received a message saying you reverted one of my edits because it is a "test", but according to the revision history, no such revert seems to be made. I am assuming that you reverted this edit, which in the record showed "The Replicator" reverted.

I think "but will be reduced to under 80,000"(A) is a better wording than "but is reduced to just under 80,000"(B). I wonder what is the justification of prefering B over A. (I use American English conventions, and that might be different from Br Eng conventions)

Thanks.

Ueutyi (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Juan Mata

Hey instead of telling me how to do it (complicated) can you fix it then because its people like you who keep undoing work done by people like me and my clubs players (Manchester United) have false stats. He has 83 apps 20 goals in league play FACT according to ManUtd.com and soccerbase.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by GanjaCaliphate (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Intervention with outdated pages

Articles 2015–16 Montenegrin Cup & 2015–16 Georgian Cup must be updated due to outdating to current stages on the first page is final and on the second page is also final. Please update these articles because are required to present competition. --5.172.232.249 (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Niko Kovac

Hey I was trying to edit Niko Kovac's coaching career stats with Eintracht Frankfurt but something got messed up. Was wondering if you could help.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantunovic (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

< br > tags

I see you changed all < br > to < br /> on 2015–16 Liga I, how do those differ exactly? LICA98 (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@LICA98: I just follow what I have read at WP:LINEBREAK. It states Wikipedia currently renders HTML5 where <br> and <br /> are both valid, but <br /> is preferred as it will be rendered correctly in all circumstances, including strict XHTML. Normally HTML Tidy will convert <br> and other valid forms like <br/> and <br > to <br /> including some of the invalid forms like </br>, <br,> and <br.>. This conversion does not work in a number of MediaWiki interface pages and can cause invalid HTML and problems rendering the page. Other wikis may not have HTML Tidy enabled, thus exported pages using an incorrect break tag will result in invalid HTML. So both are valid, I just prefer <br /> as it will always work. Qed237 (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

2016–17 La Liga

Qed, I understand what your trying to say about unsourced edits, On the sponsorship table I put a reference right next to the team name on every team and that link gave out info on every single element required on the table, Ok, I get that captain mistake, but it doesn't mean you have revert the whole thing. I'm not trying to annoy or mock you, I'm just improving the article TheSoccerBoy (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@TheSoccerBoy: A table for that is simply to soon as a lot of the information may change. Also the "source" you added was for this season and said nothing about next season. Qed237 (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Unreferenced?

If I had got there first I would have just added a cite needed tag. :P Fenix down (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)