User talk:Qed237/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Qed237. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Manchester United

Mate, I'm 13- I don't know how to reference it. All my paragraphs were legitimate facts. Please put it back up or reference it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel van Persie (talk • contribs)

@Lionel van Persie: I will leave some links on your talkpage when I have the time, but a tip is to look at other sources in the article or other article to see how it is done. It is a encyclopedia and we can not have unsourced material on wikipedia so if it is not sourced it will most likely be removed. It is up to the editor adding the content to make sure it is source, I can not go around on wikipedia finding sources to other editors. QED237 (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

15 saves

15 saves. http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round=255951/match=300186497/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That sentence has been using this FIFA source which clearly states 16 goals in text. I will not put it back until there has been a proper discussion about this with several editors and there are more reliable sources for the stats. Since it is obvious FIFA has written different things we need to find out what other sources say and have a proper discussion before changing anything. QED237 (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you start a proper discussion instead of reverting all my (CENSORED) edits. That sentence is from IMMEDIATELY after the match. The total was revised because one "save" wasn't a save. All official FIFA documentation shows 15 saves. Leave them all at 15 and then have the goddamn discussion. Start a discussion somewhere and I will (CENSORED) participate. PS: (CENSORED).

hey... google this term and see that US Soccer posted it on FB: "FIFA changed the official count to 15 saves after the game." There is no discussion. Leave it alone. You are wrong. Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You are the one that want to change the content from something that is already sourced, so it is up to you to find consensus for the change. And please do not attck other editors, it seems like you are the one who need to grow up. QED237 (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Qed237, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

@Technical 13: Thank you very much! and Merry Christmas to you to! QED237 (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2014–15_UEFA_Europa_League and 2014–15_UEFA_Champions_League. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Please see 2014–15_UEFA_Europa_League#Group_A and other groups with cite sources. 333 -blue 09:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

How is my edit disruptive? And yopu may note how other editors has also removed your edits. PRoper sourcing is with template:Cite. There is no reason for you to remove cite-template and I am only restoring the page. QED237 (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: League tables

Greetings, QED! Thank you for helping me clarify the season matter since I was left a bit uncertain about it. However, since it is a minor concern, I will accept the decision and I will try and revert some of my previous edits. As for the A-League table discussion, having read it, I can understand J man708's frustration if he/she is not used to the new league table and colour system, but hopefully he will adapt to it. Merry Christmas! Arbero (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Runners-up trophies on FC Barcelona's page

Hello

Why is that may I ask? The official guideline states this;

"Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places."

This does obviously not mean that the second places have to be removed. It's valid additional information. In such a case why is there no consensus on Wikipedia? Several club pages have runners-up "trophies" included. The page of RM for instance.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Suitcivil133: There has been discussions and consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football not to list runners-up if there are many first place finishes and as there are so many wins it is appropriate to remove the runners-up. Also I dont have to care about other pages per WP:WHATABOUTX. QED237 (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

STOP EDIT WARRING!!!!!!

YOU ARE VIOLATING ALL THE WIKIPEDIA AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

STOP IT. YOU ARE WRONG. TimHowardHad15Saves (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@TimHowardHad15Saves: I am wrong? Haha good one I guess that is why the IP you continued after was blocke and not me. And stop shuoting. Keep this up and I will most likely open a sockpuppet investigation(are you the same as the IP?), and you may be blocked indefinately if you are a sock. You should realy discuss and not edit until there is a clear cut consensus to edit. I am not breaking any wikipedia laws, I have edited for years and never been blocked. Just restoring the pages. QED237 (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Why should I stop editing? Why can't you stop editing? I don't care that you've never been blocked. What do you want, a cookie? You're the one making the pages wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardHad15Saves (talk • contribs) 00:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Because I restore page to what it was and since the content has a reliable source already (for 16 saves) there should be consensus for changing it. QED237 (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

2009–10 UEFA Champions League: Regulations reference

Hi! Where did you retrieve the real UEFA link?Pahtakor (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I read through the edit history of the article and took a revision from 2010 and saw the source in that revision. Someone myst have accidentaly have changed it later to Europa League instead. QED237 (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Newcastle United Edit

ur welcome Wenno123 (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Christian Eriksen

Hi QED,

just visited christians wiki page to update his profile after his goal today but realised his career club statistics had been erased, whether this was intentional or not is not my concern but was wondering if you could revert the changes made to bring it back. Thank you and hope you had a good Christmas.

Thedorigi (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)thedorigi

Hi Thedorigi,

I looked at the article and it was not me but an other user that removed the career statistics as it had been unsourced for a while after a unsourced-tag had been added. If you can find a source for the career stats I can probably restore the section when I have a minute to spare. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and verifiabiltiy so I would need a source to bring it back. Thank you and I hope you have a good Christmas too!. QED237 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Picture

I request permission to change profile photos to DANI ALVES article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.34.113 (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not an administrator so I cant do that. Actually no one can, what you need to do is make an edit request at the talkpage of the article (if the article is protected) explaining what you want to be changed and why. Please note that there are many rules regarding copyright and that we can not take any image and add it, we must have permission from photographer or you must have taken the image yourself. QED237 (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Tim Howard

Since you're clearly monitoring the situation regarding Howard's number of saves, you must have seen the changes I made to the sources in the United States men's national soccer team and 2014 FIFA World Cup knockout stage articles. I made a genuine error by forgetting to add the same source to the Belgium national football team, and you simply reverted instead of helping a fellow Wikipedian by copying the source from the other articles. That is why I call you a bad Wikipedian – well, that and the fact that you have another habit of reverting people simply because they forget to update timestamps. I mean, how bloody difficult is it for you to check the facts yourself and update the timestamp. Sure, people won't learn if you do stuff for them all the time, but if you leave them a message letting them know about the error they made and how to correct it in the future, you may get a better response. – Pee Jay 18:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe we should both work on our conduct. Just because I'm not perfect, that doesn't give you an excuse to ignore my advice, and it certainly doesn't give you an excuse to act like a dick about it. – Pee Jay 16:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Arsenal 14-15

Alexis Sanchez current league goals is 10 Usman afif (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Usman afif: Sorry about that, an accident, I meant just to restore the cards table. QED237 (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Admin

I reported a user at the Admin Vandalism Intervention article, and the edit seems to have gone, any idea what might of happened? Zafiraman Lets discuss it 01:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zafiraman: Yes I saw it yesterday. Your request was declined (see this diff) with text

Edits do not appear to be vandalism; he is updating football stats. Also, this edit seems to be fixing links that point to the wrong place.

To be honest I am not sure why you even reported the editor? I see no explanation in edit summary why you reverted the editor and I see no problem with the edit at all. You may want to read WP:VANDALISM to see what that is. Also it is only "vandalism-only account" if the editor has done only bad edits such as removing all text on pages, changing names on player articles and so on and this is far from that, not even close. Why was this editor even reported? QED237 (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Andi Lila

Hello. Early I had an Discussion with an fellow admin of wikipedia. I ask you you to intervene at Andi Lila about the same issue because some users are not agreeing with wiki rules, see History edit what is happening. Thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Player nationality

I had a question for you about the statement you made below on Talk:Gedion_Zelalem. What is the source of this convention? I couldn't find anything about the subject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players, but perhaps I missed it, or perhaps there is another place I should be looking that you could direct me to? Thanks. Barryjjoyce (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"Okay, I see your point but the thing is on wikipedia we always you the national team he most recently played for. So in the lead he is german footballer because he plays for Germany. The citizenship can be mentioned in the personal section later on but not in the lead. If you dont agree I suggest you take it up at WT:FOOTY. QED237 (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)"

@Barryjjoyce: It all is from what I have seen in old WT:FOOTY discussions and at talkpage of other footballers such as John Anthony Brooks, Diego Costa, Mesut Özil and others I cant remember name on. QED237 (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!! I went threw your edit history, and saw that you are a good contributor. Keep up the good work!! - BlueRedPurpleGreen (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. QED237 (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Newcastle United caretaker managers appointment

Qed

This may be a ridiculous and silly question, but would you say that John Carver is the sole caretaker manager? The 2014–15 Premier League article has only Carver listed as caretaker/interim, while the Newcastle United templates (managers and squad) have both Carver and Steve Stone listed as caretaker managers. According to BBC and Newcastle United's official website, Carver and Stone have both been confirmed. Do you think I should go with the sources? I have edited both pages, and added a managerial statistics table to Stone's page, but then reverted my edits back and fourth on Stone's page, since I'm not sure if both of them or only Carver is in charge. If you could give me a helping hand, I would appreciate it. Cheers. Arbero (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arbero: I have not followed the coach situation fully and may not have the best view of the situation, but given the sources you provided I would definately say that both are caretakers. At least until I see sources saying something else. In my opinion the sources should be followed and then list both as caretakers. I will take a look at the articles. QED237 (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just wanted to let you know that I brought this subject up in the first place since an ip address claimed Carver was the only caretaker manager in charge in a previous edit.¹ Thanks! Arbero (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arbero: Okay I see. Hope it was okay I reverted you. Let me know if there is anything else you want me to take a look at. QED237 (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I'm fine with it. Well, if you're interested, I wrote to PeeJay2K3 regarding an issue with Cosmin Contra. Would you like to take a look at it? Arbero (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid I wont have much more time tonight, sorry. QED237 (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm alright with it, I received a response from PeeJay earlier today, and he told me it was accurate enough. But thanks for sorting out the Newcastle United issue though, I really appreciate it. I'll message you if I need help at a later stage. Arbero (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Canada junior team

It was obviously held in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, do you know another Kitchener in Canada? Same with Saskatoon? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter if there is other cities with same name. We always use city and country. If people do not know it is in ontarion they can read that in city article. QED237 (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hello Qed237, a user named USA 1783 (talk) has been changing height of sports athletes with out source. I reverted 3 out of 4 of his recent edits. To me it appears like vandalism, but I could be wrong, What should be done with this user?

This are the articles he changed.

- GoldenBoy25 (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@GoldenBoy25: It is not clear vandalism as he only changes it slightly and probably has a source he follows without shoaring that source with us. It is not like he says they are 5 metres in height. What I would to is to leave him a message/template not to make unsourced changes to a WP:BLP (I do this by using twinkle). For example {{uw-biog1}} with one of the articles as parameter. QED237 (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My bad. I did that because other users go straight to warnings. I didn't know, but thanks for telling how use the Wikipedia system. ps I copy and paste that to his talk page. - GoldenBoy25 (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Daily mail

New question! Wiki user PeeJay2K3 has reverted my edits twice claiming "let's not use the Daily Mail, ever" for Tim Howard and "we do not use the Daily Mail unless there is no other option, and we have plenty" for 2014 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. He has never explain on my talk on why is a bad source. Other users have thanked me when I added it on the Tim Howard article. I think is a good source because it gives users an interesting article to read. It also gives information on Thibaut Courtois vs. Tim Howard stats. - GoldenBoy25 (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

(Here is the link) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/worldcup2014/article-2677169/MATCH-ZONE-STATS-SPECIAL-Tim-Howard-sets-new-World-Cup-record-making-15-saves-USA-against-Belgium.html

@GoldenBoy25: Daily mail is by many not considered to be a very good and reliables source. When it comes to transfer rumours they often link every player to many club without any good sourcing and say a lot of things not true and many do not like them as source. QED237 (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Harry Kane 'Club Career'

Howcome you removed the extra info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanstill (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ryanstill: As I said in my edit summary, when adding content to a WP:BLP (Biography of a Living Person) all content that is added has to be sourced by a WP:RS (reliable source). QED237 (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Protection conflict

There seems to be a protection conflict at this article, I went on too the article and there was the accepted, latest at the top of the page but there was no pending changes padlock, so I decided to put the template into the article so that the padlock would be displayed, (I have done this on other articles as well), and when I clicked the show preview button, at the top it said this page has been semi protected, so I am confused as to why both protections are in place simultaneously, if it helps Mattythewhite, added the semi protection to the article, any thoughts? Zafiraman Lets talk about it 02:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 14 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the 2014–15 Svenska Cupen page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 AFC Asian Cup

Well, it was my mistake, as I assumed that I was doing exactly as same as what you did on my edit, but done something opposite. Thank you anyway.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@WCIDFS: No worries, it can easily happen. QED237 (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello---Pique .

Hey mate.

I saw you don't agree with total team appearances with pique , please take it to the talk page i have made a section for to talk about it and make more ground of understanding

thank you =)

Adnan (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the information QED237 (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Giovinco

You are very childish and like warring over the silliest of things. If you think that it would not get updated you must be slightly IQ challenged. I may not be able to predict the future, but I can assure you it will be updated IF Juventus was ever relegated, which would NOT be any time soon. You cannot generalize with random minuscule players in a Chinese league for example, vs. a top four football league in the world. If you want to have it your way, so be it, it will just get removed when he joins TFC in July in a SPLIT SECOND. Have a wonderful day. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to add, how come? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Busy, have a life outside the computer as well. Patience my friend. QED237 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee:. First of all, do NEVER in any way put personal comments against other users like "you must be slightly IQ challenged" as you can be immediately blocked for trying to insult other users, however I will let this slide this time. Secondly you say we should accept it for this player but not others because he is in top leagues? Well then where do we draw the line? And I can assure you that for example not all Dortmund (CL team have to be considered as a big team) players in their squad would be updated if the get relegated (they are in relegation spot), that is how it works. Editors update when there teams win and if they lose something it takes longer for articles to get updated. We can not draw a line so it is best to not include it (although no consensus seem to have been found many seem to say it should not be included). Also as I said Juventus not only play in serie A so player also plays in other competition so in my opinion we should not restrict ourselves to only serie A. QED237 (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In regards to this, "Busy, have a life outside the computer as well. Patience my friend." You answered the person above this after I already left this comment, so I assumed you read it and ignored it. Anyway, if you cannot draw the line, it should match several other pages that are already out there. Just because the page may not get updated in a bit, is no excuse for not adding Serie A. Also, even though Juventus plays outside of Serie A on occasion for other tournaments, they are representing SERIE A. The home for the club is in Serie A before it is anywhere else. Also, if this principle you are suggesting taken across the board, how come when listing appearances in infoboxes, only league matches are mentioned and not out of league matches? Serie A should indefinitely be included. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In European competitions they represtent the Italian Football Association inthe same way Swansea represtents England, Monace represtents France and so on. Note that cup winners play in Europe and a cup winner dont have to be from Serie A but can be from Serie B or lower. They represent NATION not league. QED237 (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, what you are saying is that league does not matter. I agree that they represent nation, however I believe the representation of league is equally as important. This is because, if nation is the only thing represented, that could mean a Serie B team, or for all we know, a Serie D team. If league does not matter, let's just let every team play in one division why don't we? If nation is the only thing that matters, why don't we just through it out the window??? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You have a point there, it is also interesting for readers to see if they play in a top league or not, but that can be seen when clicking on the team or further down in the article. We cant afford to have it in the lead when it may be wrong. QED237 (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That can be said with anything though. You don't have to link the Italian national team, they can just find it later down the page, or Toronto FC, I suppose it will turn up later in the article. Just because they find it later in the article or can search it themselves does not mean it should not be added and linked. Having it linked and mentioned in the first few lines of the article is crucial because that is the first lines a reader reads. How do we know if they will read the whole article? It must be mentioned, have I proven it enough yet? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop removing my edits!!! Why don't you take it off from Chiellini and Gianluigi Buffon then? You are only removing it because I added it! I just want to add another thing. Yesterday, I added Giovinco about moving to TFC, and you said rumours will surface, etc.. Didn't it turn out that it was true, and didn't I write it will be officially confirmed on Monday which is today, and look what happened? It was official today like I mentioned. There was no need to revert that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk • contribs) 22:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I have now look up WP:OPENPARA and we should be reluctant to what we show in a lead and opening paragraph and that comparison is not even close. It is not about if it should be linked or not. The player is notable as being footballer in Juventus and not for league. And I have told you about WP:WHATABOUTX I can not be expected to monitor every article, but I know many articles where league is not shown anymore. QED237 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And yes you were right that time but that does not been rumours will be true everytime so it was a 100% accurate removal. That content should not have been added yesterday. Also your history with being blocked for editwarring I suggest you stop before being blocked. QED237 (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not the one editwarring, you are! Maybe I should block you. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, please also note that before our discussion here I opened a discussion at Giovinco for input from others (a discussion we should not influence) and to only blame me for editwarring when you insist of insterting it on several articles, well "no comments". QED237 (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Now I dont want to wake up tomorrow like a zombie so I will be offline after this edit but I can assure you I will follow this so dont think you can re-add just because I log out for a while. This should be discussed without trying to reinsert, please note WP:3RR, I did not know we did so many so I have now stopped and you should to. QED237 (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is this Giovinco discussion, you never linked it? Also nothing ever comes from these discussions, they just keep going on and on with no one ever doing anything! The same could go for you as well. You insist on reverting Serie A when I have already proven it should be added. Also, you are clearly warring with me as you continue to take down only my edits. As I said before, WHY don't you remove it from Chiellini and Buffon? I know why, because I am not the one who added it. You are deliberately taking mine done and no one others, even though they have they same thing I wrote! Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep refernecing to blocking? Why do you think you have all the power? The 3 revert rule can go for you as well, as you keep reverting content that should be added like it is on other sites, however you just enjoy removing my edits and not others that have been there for a long time like Chiellini and Buffon.Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Please keep it civil. 2. This user has not broken the three-revert-rule yet, I only see maximum 3 reverts in the pages he edited. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Look at Sebastian Giovinco's page, indefinitely over 3 reverts. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I only see 3 reverts involving the same content and in less than 24 hours, sorry. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

15:53, January 19, 2015 15:53 (Reverted 1 edit by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk): Can you predict future, we can not know that for sure. (TW)) (undo | thank), 15:48, January 19, 2015‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk): There are thousand of fottballers that dont get updated when their team is relegated . (TW)) (undo | thank), 15:36, January 19, 2015 (Undid revision 643255144 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) WP:WHATABOUTX and as I said, we avoid league as it may change without articles being updated (especially for less famous footbal) (undo | thank), 15:28, January 19, 2015 Qed237 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,760 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (undo | thank)

That's 4Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The one that added 14 bytes didn't count as a revert, it was just a link modification, just that. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

15:27, January 19, 2015‎ Qed237 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,746 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (undo | thank) Wrong one, this is right. That's 4 Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all I find it amusing you are searching for diffs when I have said "I did not know we did so many so I have now stopped and you should to.", meaning that we should both stop to edit and discuss instead as we BOTH have made reverts. I did stop at that point but you still continued and look at Alessio Cerci very you insterted the content [1] [2] [3] [4] times. It is obvious you have not been on the right side of 3RR. The same applies for Claudio Marchisio and Andrea Pirlo. I strongly think about reporting even if I may get a shorter block myself but it would/should restore those pages to a correct form. QED237 (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Also I opened the discussion at Talk:Sebastian Giovinco where that article is discussed instead of going to an editors talkpage with an IQ insult (will not work in your favour). QED237 (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What evidence are you talking about, just because you have seen it on other pages dont make it correct, WP:WHATABOUTX. QED237 (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@ToonLucas22: If you dont mind me asking who are you? You seem like a new editor who is not an admin and may not have all rules and guidelines totally clear? Not meaning to insult you I was just interested in seeing if you are an admin, I appreciate you trying to sort this out and helping us having a civil discussion. QED237 (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, the thing that is bothering the most is how you were taking down strictly my edits for the inclusion of Serie A, however when you see it on Chiellini, Buffon, De Rossi, etc that have already been there for some time, you leave it. The only thing motivating you to remove it is because I amthe one who made the edit... Also when I edited Pirlo, Cerci, etc. it was when Jan. 20 started so I did not break the rule. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said WP:WHATABOUTX and it is not about exact date and time, perhaps you should read WP:3RR in red it says Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation and I know many that has been blocked outside 24hour margin, you can not continue and start over timewise and do three edits per day. QED237 (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Seconded that, having an edit war even without breaking the three-revert-rule can still result in a block, as told by the 3RR user warning template. Edit war is slightly different from the three-revert rule, and in some cases the one-revert rule or zero-revert rule can be applied to the article in case of an excessive edit war, see WP:1RR (not linking to WP:0RR because it's the same redirect). --ToonLucas22 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, neither i'm that much of a new editor, i'm just making things clear and trying to make things civil. Thanks for asking anyway. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Qed237, do you have authorization to block people??? Also I keep saying that you can be just as much at fault as me because you keep reverting my edits as well. Also, having the EXCUSE that it will not get updated fast enough is totally irrelevant as you cannot predict the future, how do you know it won't get updated quickly? It can also be said with ANYTHING, what if he changes is jersey number or club for that matter, how do we know that will get updated in time??? This excuse you keep saying is absolutely worthless and invalid. Also, as I said a million times before, look at Chiellini, Buffon, and De Rossi, as they have Serie A, but you neglect to remove it from theirs, but only take down the ones I add, you are being very discriminative against me. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No I do not have authorization to block people but I can warn and report, which I now have done. I admit I have reverted as well, which is why I said both of us should stop but you have continued still and is now reported. And you still refuse to listen, I cant controll all fottballers on wikipedia WP:WHATABOUTX. Look at many other player that dont have league like Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Wayne Rooney, Mesut Özil and many more. QED237 (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Source

Thank you for your explanation. Even in Spanish, this can be considered a source? (http://www.clubatleticodemadrid.com/noticias/acuerdo-con-el-parma-para-la-cesion-de-cristian-rodriguez)

BenjaWF (talk) 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@BenjaWF: Thank you for that source. When you add info in his article make sure to use that source, in the other edits make sure to add the link in edit summary. Sometimes we should avoid primary source so a neutral source might be better but that is good enough. Sometimes it can also be better with a source from the club he is joining, and I found one when I searched now http://fcparma.com/news/anche-el-cebolla-e-un-crociatoperlasalvezza-benvenuto-a-cristian-rodriguez?lang=it. QED237 (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and help. BenjaWF (talk) 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. QED237 (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Prize Fund Per Club

Hi Qed237. How's it going? Just wanted to explain that I added the Prize fund "Per Club" bit because the table as it stood did not make that clear. The source at http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/More/prize-fund states "at the bottom ..."Amounts are per club in each round. Numbers in brackets represent the number of winning clubs per round", but there was no such info conveyed via the Wiki entry. SnoiNZ (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@SnoiNZ: Thank you for the explanation. My initial thought was that it was self-explanatory and it should be understood, but now I realise it may not be clear to everyone. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Template

Hi there, do you know the name of the template to be placed on an article of a footballer who is in the news regarding a transfer? Thanks Zafiraman Lets talk about it 17:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess you are looking for Template:Current sports transaction ? QED237 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zafiraman: fforgot to notify you. QED237 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much friend Zafiraman Lets talk about it 8:30PM, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

JavaScript

What is this [5] for, can you help me ? Zafiraman Lets talk about it 21:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zafiraman: Sorry I have no idea what that is for. QED237 (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: On a help page for taking a self wikibreak, it said enter javascript code at that link, if that helps you Zafiraman Lets talk about it 21:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, sounds weird. QED237 (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

MAA

About My Admin Application (MAA), any thoughts on how long I should wait, & any other suggestions about it

Thanks friend Zafiraman Lets talk about it 22:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zafiraman: That is a tough question, you could start by reading WP:RFA and all related links like WP:RFAADVICE, WP:GRFA and WP:MRFA. I have edited 1 ½ years and dont feel close. Usually you have had to be editor for years and not have any blocks for at least a year, and you have to be very civil and aware of all rules and guidelines which takes time. I would suggest that you have been editing regurlarly for 2-3 years (for some it goes fast and for some slow but no need to rush into adminship) and that you then find a respected editor (possibly an admin) that can nominate you. QED237 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok cheers for the advice appreciate it <:) Zafiraman Lets talk about it 23:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zafiraman: And also please end the bolding in your signature so that you dont bold the date and time. In Rfa it actually says that your signature should not draw any extra attention. QED237 (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Zafiraman Lets talk about it 23:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Questions

Hi, I have 3 questions I'd like to ask, if you answer them please could you list the answers in the way I have asked them, thanks

Can an administrator block them-self?
Can an administrator block other administrators?
Can an administrator remove admin priveleges from other administrators?

Thanks again

Zafiraman Lets talk about it 03:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I will try and answer your questions but I am not sure on some of them

I dont think they can block themselves, but I cant be sure
Not sure but I dont think they can block an other adminstrator either, but if an administrator has misused his priviliges his adminship can be removed by beaurocrats and stewards.
No but Stewards and Beaurocrats can remove the adminship and also ruling of Arbitration Comittee. Read Wikipedia:Administrators#Review and removal of adminship

Hopefully this will help answering your questions, if not maybe try and ask an administrator, they should know what they can and can not do. You can also read Wikipedia:Administrators QED237 (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zafiraman: I forgot to ping again. QED237 (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Flags

Can I ask why you keep reverting my edits like you are in some sort of love craze to revert my edits? You primarily edit sports pages, why are you editing Acadians? Why do you keep looking at my edit history? Do you mind? You keep on saying just because it is on one page it does not matter etc. BUT IT DOES. The information has to be related, especially in this case. There are plenty of articles that include flags in infoboxes, and this is one of them. STOP reverting my edits, and STOP looking at my history, mind your own business (to be blunt, not rude). Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: For some reason it popped up on my watchlist and I can watch and edit any article I want. It does not change the fact that WP:INFOBOXFLAG is clear and flags in infobox should be avoided. You can not go against policied and guidelines because "it exists on article X", such things will most likely lead to a new block and length of blocks increases. QED237 (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not know why you always get your way... Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I still do not know why you take away my flags, but leave the ones on Cajun... It is absolutely a mystery why you love to revert only my edits. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, WP:WHATABOUTX again. I cant look at every article on wikipedia, they are too many. QED237 (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Notable people

How are readers supposed to find notable people in see also? It needs to be its own heading so it is easily accessible and easy to find. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no empty sections. And I see no reason why to create a section just or a link when it can be seen in see also. Some articles have 10 see also, do you mean we should create a section for every link and not have any content/text in those sections? That sounds weird and I have always learnt (from writng my masters degree and other thesis) to never have empty sections, even if there is a subsection below there must be text between two headers. QED237 (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Qed237 So is the "See also" section not empty? All the see also section is, is links, which is pretty much like a link in a notable people section. It is still an empty section with only links. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

See also sections and references are lists after the article and not considered as content in the articles. It is not the same at all. QED237 (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay your always right... Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:ORDER Regular sections is part of the "body" of a text and there we avoid empty sections. See also is part of appendices and should be bulleted list. QED237 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't I already say okay? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You did in an uncivil way pointing to me believing I am better than wveryone else (reading between lines) and I just responded with proof. Drop the attitude. QED237 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Some articles have 10 see also, do you mean we should create a section for every link and not have any content/text in those sections? That sounds weird" I will when you will. I will though now. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What? Are you seriously saying you will create empty sections? WP:ORDER, related articles are for see also. QED237 (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I just wanted to apologize for what happened between us last week. I sort of understand your position on Giovinco, Cerci, etc. However, before jumping into another war, I wanted to talk this out with you first. Now your position is that the player should be very well known in order for the league to be mentioned so it would get updated in time right? I still do not agree with this, put this is your position. Anyway, having your logic in mind, Andrea Pirlo is VERY well known and Serie A should be added at least for him, as it is on other very well known ITALIAN players like him (I don't need to list them for the billionth time). Get back to me. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Hi, no worries, as I said then I was not very good last week either, even if I stopped editing I was still involved in getting it started so I am sorry about that. Actually I am against the inclusion in every article, it makes no sense to have it in some article and not in others. I know Pirlo is well known and would most likely be updates but as I said I dont think the league should be seen anywere. Italians and those following Serie A are very proud and emotional of their traditional league, I am aware of that, which has lead to it's mentioning anywhere possible but many other footballers dont mention leagues. Look at the big ones like Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Wayne Rooney, Mesut Özil, Dani Alves, Thomas Müller and many more. We can not have exception for italian players/league when we dont show for other big players. At least that is my view. QED237 (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

About my revert on Cerci last night, the timestamp was not updated and he had not played 2 matches as of 6 January. My source I looked at actually said 3 matches at 24 January. To update timestamp use five tildes (one more than signing talkpages ~~~~~) QED237 (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand that the league is not mentioned on those famous players, however they are not Italian. On all well-known Italian pages, Buffon, Chiellini, De Rossi, etc., they have it. All I want is to add it to Pirlo and only Pirlo, and I will never try to add it anywhere else again. I do not want to add it, and then you go and revert it and back and forth. There is nothing stating the league they play in even in the infobox, which is all the more reason to at least include it in the lead. Also, the talk page you set up about Giovinco helped nothing unfortunatley. I think we should add a page that is about a well known player to get some replies. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Sorry it took I while to answer, I simply forgot. I fail to see why it is important if players are Italian or not. It should be the same for all players and no special rules for Italians so my examples are just as valid as yours. If there is no mention of league it should definately not be mentioned in lead since lead is a summary of the article. QED237 (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I am going to stop wasting my breath on you. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thats your choice, I am happy as long as you follow wikipedia guidelines and stop editwarring. QED237 (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines that say flagicons are permitted in human geography articles like cities, maybe you should take your own advice in this case. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should learn about edit warring and how to edit. I am not the one being blocked and warned all the time...QED237 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Because I am being wrongly accused, and you should have been also, but you contested on my claim and acted not impartial and buttered the administrators up. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No you have not been wrongly accused, you have been edit warring that is a fact. QED237 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you listen? I get the feeling you still dont know what edit warring is and why you were blocked. You insisted of insterting same content over and over again against more than one editor. While I stopped you completed a full on edit war and was blocked. QED237 (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not know that one editor could edit war with themself? You were clearly warring with me along with others when you kept removing my edits. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No but one editor can war against several other editors, not willing to refuse view of other editors. I stopped and you continued and were blocked for warring against more than one editor. QED237 (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep saying that I am continuing, I have not added anything since YESTERDAY. Also clearly User:Alansohn has the same view as me and says that he has gotten into a war with another editor about flags before and that they belong. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said you DID continue which my diffs said and should have been blocked for that (and would have been blocked for approx a month if I had not removed my report). I have not said you have continued tonight but you continued in edit war last week and you continued yesterday (today my timezone). QED237 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You completely ignored my sentence on User:Alansohn having the same view and says that he has continually discussed this situation with other editors about flags and how they should be added. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, when do you think a consensus will be reached at Talk:Edmonton. Can you honestly tell me that consensus are usually reached? People give their opinions and it is forgotten in a week and nothing is really done. This is the sad truth. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I ingnored that sentence because it had nothing to do with the editwar. You were editwarring no matter if you were "right" or "wrong" it is the behaviour we are talking about here. Edit wars takes a lot of server load and fills up edit history when same edits are made back and forth and that is going to be stopped and user block if they are editwarring no matter if they are right or wrong. QED237 (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

About consensus, yes it is often forgotten, which is really sad. If I were you I would wait 2-3 days and then ask if anyone opposes the flag being added and if noone opposes and there seem to be support or flags then add them (recent posts seem to say it is okay, but that does not give you right to editwar last night or now) QED237 (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

^For once that is really good advice, Thanks, I'll do that. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome, I am glad if we can et something positive out of this discussion :) QED237 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Question: You know how I added it on Winnipeg, Iqaluit, Yellowknife, Whitehorse, etc.. Would I have to open a discussion there as well because that would take forever and probably minimal responses with a "lower tier" city? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I usually take the discussion to a related project when it involves several articles. For example if it is something regarding several footballers (or soccer players as said in a few places) I go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and search the archieves for info or start a new discussion. I dont know what is best here and what project is best. At the article talkpages you can sometimes see what projects relate to that article. QED237 (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll check it, glad to see we ended off on a good note. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I am glad for that to, I am tired of the discussions. To be honest I was for a while very close to making sure you were blocked for a very long time, but for some reason I wanted to give you a second chance because I believe you can be a good editor at wikipedia. Please take this chance you have gotten and stop with editwars, just take a second and relax and talk to the editor instead. Happy editing! QED237 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Good Faith Edits

When you view the history of an article there are 3 rollbacks one is Rollback (AGF) , and on some articles it says editor reverted good faith edit by editor (talk) what does it mean to revert a good faith edit? Can you explain Zafiraman Lets talk about it 15:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Zafiraman:, it is partially explained in WP:AGF. Basically it is a way of saying that you believe the editor did not try and vandalise/destroy the page, but it should not be on that article. Sort of a way of saying "thanks, but no". QED237 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Inter Milan

Here is a recent history on the discussion of the article title. Kingjeff (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kingjeff: Okay thank you. Maybe we should discuss this piping at WT:FOOTY because they are listed as Internazionale in league tables and all international competitions and on many other wikipedia articles. In my opinion it has always been Internazionale. QED237 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Another pair of eyes

Hey, a chinese editor (User:李建兴) adding that China should have palyed at the 2011 Women's WC and adding a appearance to the table. I reverted him, talked to him but it won't help i guess. Level 2 warning given. Not sure if i am allowed to revert vandalism more that 3 times (3 right now) so if you could check the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup articles please in case he makes another edit? Kante4 (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Update here. It is vandalism but like i said not sure if i can revert him over and over until i report him after a appropriate warning. Kante4 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kante4: I have actually already noticed that and has that tab open in my browser while doing other things. Will take a look at it and keep my eye open. QED237 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Merci, i guess it ends in a block as it looks right now. BTW, the ping at times don't work somehow. Kante4 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that with the ping also, sometimes I dont get pinged (but notice discussions anyway). Must be something wring with ping function. About the edits I actually am having a hard time trying to understand the editor, but I get the total concept/idea what he/she is trying to say (I think). And yes a block is most likely. I was also considering a edit warring or 3RR template when I warned, but this is not edit war really, more vandalism/disruptive editing. QED237 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)