User talk:Qed237/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Football pages at WP:RFPP

Hey Qed237,

I saw your requests for page protection for various football teams at WP:RFPP and have protected them all for a week. Can I ask that, if possible, you provide a little summary of what's going on (beyond "persistent vandalism") when submitting a request? That helps show me what to look for. For these articles, I deduced that it was the chronic addition of unsourced content, but it took a while to confirm what was going on (I don't really follow football, which may have made it harder). Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 05:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Airplaneman: Yes sure, I will try and remember to do that. Qed237 (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Rafael Joins Olympique Lyonnais

http://www.olweb.fr/fr/article/communique-de-presse-68569.html

Why do you keep reverting my changes? Is there something wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrCham (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Everything in the deal is not completed. Just read your source, it say it will be completed in the coming days. Qed237 (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Rafael

Please stop reverting changes, he has signed for Lyon, I added citation as proof from a reputable source (BBC Sport), I am not trying to damage the site, merely updating HullCityForLife (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@HullCityForLife: Everything is not completed, the clubs has agreed but official presetation has not been made and without everything completed the article should not be changed. Wikipedia is not a newsticker. Qed237 (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Franck Ribéry

Please explain to me how putting league cup statistics in two different columns is more consistent then putting them in one column? In the other table, I have detected two errors in and there are possibly more. I don't see any league listed in the other table. So, the other table fails to meet mos anyways. My table is much better source and is closer to the mos than the other table is. If you want it to meet mos to the tee, it is better to make the few small changes from my table than to have to fix the problems with the other table. Kingjeff (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I just fixed it up to meet mos. Does it meet your approval? Kingjeff (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingjeff: Yeah, its fine. Qed237 (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

updates

	great work
	hi there, great work you are doing with the co efficient updates, its really appreciated, one point however, legia's 3-0 walkover result confirmed by uefa today hasn't been updated on your rankings with an extra .250 for Poland... thanks. Chelschris11 (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Chelschris11: Thanks, I will take a look at it. Qed237 (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

AIV report

If a user is deliberately adding incorrect info, it would help admins unfamiliar with the topic if you added a short note about why the info was incorrect. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Okay thank you, I will keep that in mind. Qed237 (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Transfer window is officially open 1 month in the winter (January) and 2 months in the summer (July and August), but since leagues end around may/june a lot of domestic transfers can happen already then. The transfer window for this summer closes on 2 September if I remember correctly. Qed237 (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries

 Done GiantSnowman 11:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Those edits of simple vandalism don't merit revision. However I would suggest you seek a range block at AN if there is a single dynamic disruptive IP. GiantSnowman 15:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

About rafael and transfer to lyon

Hi, Rafael has signed to lyon and he picked the number 20 http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/rafael-completes-lyon-transfer-pays-6188231 http://metro.co.uk/2015/08/04/rafael-da-silva-selects-no-20-shirt-at-lyon-in-honour-of-manchester-uniteds-20-premier-league-titles-5326571/ RuleTheMachine (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@RuleTheMacine: We have to wait on confirmation from Lyon and your source say He confirmed on Monday evening that a move was happening, with a four-year deal agreed.. Note the word happening as it is currently on its way but not completed. Qed237 (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

FC Spartaki Tskhinvali

WP:RM please. GiantSnowman 08:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ángel Di María

He confirmed are Paris Saint-Germain player and passed the medical test. --Cristianho19 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cristianho19: Do you have any reliable source saying it is confirmed? Qed237 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

In english: "My objective is help to PSG in Champions League" [1] - English version: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristianho19 (talk • contribs)

@Cristianho19: Read the article, it says The Argentina international will sign a four-year contract at the Parc des Princes worth 10 million euros a season, according to Le Parisien.. Note the words will sign which clearly indicates he has not signed yet and it is only according to Le Parisien and nothing confirmed from PSG. Qed237 (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Squad numbers and WP:NOTNEWS

1.
On the first team page on the official Manchester United website, found here seven players have a 0 next to their surname where a squad number would be does that mean they don't have an official number and therefore none should be added to any article about them unless they appear on the website?
2.
If Wikipedia isn't a newspaper why are pages here called articles?
Thanks in advance TeaLover1996 (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: I am not sure and an 'article' can be many things, not only newspaper text. Qed237 (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi Protection Template

Is {{edit semi-protected}} for requesting an edit to a semi protected page rather than applying a padlock to the top of the page? TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@TeaLover1996: Yes, {{edit semi-protected}} is for non-autoconfirmed users to request edits to semi-protected pages- if they use that template, it shows up in Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To add a padlock, the code would be something like {{pp-vandalism|expiry=9 January 2016|small=yes}}. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

What was 'disruptive' about my edits to the 2015–16 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round page? I hadn't noticed the warning at the top of the page so apologies if that's what it was (I've also never seen that warning before). Otherwise I was just putting in the final scores. PhilSmith91 (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@PhilSmith91: You changed correct wikilinks to incorrect links here (they are Southampton F.C. and not FC, and Vitesse without Arnhem) and the UEFA and FIFA trigame (shortening) for Romania are ROU and not ROM like in this edit (please see List of FIFA country codes). Qed237 (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: That doesn't seem to be described by the 'disruptive' editing guidelines - the links all worked anyway so just a bit sloppy. Anyway I'll be more careful in future. PhilSmith91 (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@PhilSmith91: Well those edits in need of correction at the same time we were busy with other edits (hence the 'in use' on top) made it disruptive, at least in my opinion. Qed237 (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Will Keane

To be fair to User:Wutzwz, Will Keane is listed in Manchester United's first-team on their website, they just didn't include him in the announcement about squad numbers, presumably because he's currently out on loan. – PeeJay 20:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Okay I was not aware of that. Qed237 (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:2014–15 Premier League table

Hi Qed.

Why are categories not included for the template? I see them included for prior PL table templates [3], for PL tables 10-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14. They seem to tie everything in together, so what's the issue? Thanks!--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Shreerajtheauthor: In templates categories should be added in the documentation (if it exists) otherwise it should be added within noinclude tags. Otherwise the pages the template is used on will also end up in that category, which they should not. For example '2014-15 Arsenal F.C. season' should not be in category 'Premier League tables' just because they use it. Qed237 (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay that def makes sense, and I see what you mean. So if I was to reedit them and place within the noinclude tags, then that would be appropriate and wouldn't show up on '2014-15 Arsenal F.C. season'? I can correct edits if that's okay?--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Shreerajtheauthor: If you add them together with the other categories it should be fine (look at the 2015-16 table that already has an other category). Later the categories may need to be corrected as I think Category:Premier League table templates perhaps should be a child to Category:Association football templates making the last one not needed. Qed237 (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected it per your suggestion. I added both for now, and we can cleanup later if we do remove. One more thing I noticed for Template:2013–14 Premier League table was that it was also under Category:England football league tables, which I think is the child of Category:Association football templates. Seems to be some inconsistencies now between 13-14 and 14-15/15-16 between which ones are included.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Shreerajtheauthor: Yeah, it is good for now, but maybe we have to take a closer look later. Qed237 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Loan move

In the infobox of a player is → team name (loan) a manual of style on loans or a consensus? TeaLover1996 (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: I believe it is both. Qed237 (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@TeaLover1996: I believe it's a consensus, there isn't anything official in the manual of style about it, but it's just the way consensus has decided to do it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996 and Joseph2302: It is in the player MOS from Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Qed237 (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I stand corrected. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Libelous

Was this edit libelous, defamatory or a violation of the BLP policy? Just as it was reverted and I wondered. TeaLover1996 (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC) @TeaLover1996: I suggest you ask the editor in question. Qed237 (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

ICC table

Hey, quick question, you reverted my edit to the ICC table on the Manchester City season article, I am not sure why, there wasn't an edit summary so not sure what the reasoning is. The edits matched the main article. not a biggie, just wondering. Paul  Bradbury 16:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: Just as a standard we never use that gold color for first place, just like we dont use it in league tables. Qed237 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks, fair enough, its the colour they have on the main article. Do you think its worth putting a colour in or just leaving it off. Paul  Bradbury 16:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: Honestly it does not matter much to me, but gold seems a bit unneccesary for just a pre-season tournament. Not like they actually won anything notable. Qed237 (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:IMPERFECT

You need to stop deleting stuff just because other editors didn't do it quite right. Per WP:IMPERFECT, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles". Obviously, if unsourced information is added to a biography of a living person, you can delete that to avoid legal issues, but if information is true and you know where to find a source to prove it, perhaps your time would be better spent by doing that instead of pissing people off by deleting their good faith, albeit imperfect, edits. – PeeJay 20:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: WP:BOOMERANG? Funny how this is coming from you who has hardly any skill of collaborative edits but has a habbit of insulting both IP's and editors in very inappropriate edit summaries. Sorry, but it is hard for me to listen do you when you have a habbit of pissing people off. It is not my burden to source edits from others. Qed237 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It may not be your job to find the sources, but it's certainly not your job to undo edits when you know full well that the content is accurate. And you're right, perhaps we're not so different, you and I, but I'm at least willing to admit when I'm wrong. – PeeJay 20:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, you know full well that I do as much good work around here as you do. You only have to look at the number of DYK, GA, FA and FL articles I've contributed over the years. How many of those have you done lately? – PeeJay 20:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I have not said you dont do any good work, have I? I know very well how much work you do, I would just appreciate a better "tone" instead of all cursing and name calling. You have been here way longer than me so you have most likely created more articles and been more involved with DYK, FA and so on, mainly because we work in different areas. I tend to do more updates to current sports events, different tables (league tables) and other similar edits. Qed237 (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I rather beg to differ: you say I have no skill at working collaboratively, when there is evidence to quite the contrary. Anyway, as I've said, unsourced edits to BLPs and obvious factual errors should always be deleted as soon as possible, and in cases of obvious vandalism it is my decision to berate the vandal mercilessly, but you don't need to undo edits just because a source hasn't been provided or because a timestamp wasn't updated; I mean, for goodness' sake, it's hardly worth the effort and is more than likely only going to start an edit war! I'm not claiming to be a perfect editor myself – far from it – but I recently found WP:IMPERFECT myself and I thought we could both stand to learn from it. – PeeJay 21:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Sure, I will put it on my 'to do'-list to read it. Qed237 (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Instead of writing "You need to stop...." that immediately sounds agressive, you could always try "Hi, regarding 2015–16 Manchester United F.C. season I would appreciate if....". You know very well I am not a vandal so you could try and talk to me as a normal person and assume good faith. Qed237 (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, message received. By all counts, the "Undo" button has a rather adversarial quality to it, and I think we could all do with learning that just because someone reverts our work doesn't mean we're enemies. – PeeJay 21:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Yes, and sometimes people thinks undo and revert is the same, but in an undo those things that did not need to be reverted may not have been undone. Qed237 (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

In which case it is often better not to "undo" but simply to edit the older version to include anything useful from the newer version and leave out the negative contributions. – PeeJay 21:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Displaying of matches

Could you provide a link to the copyright laws you cite as the reason for no more than one match being displayed? I can't find anything. Under which country's juristiction, might I add? I struggle to see how it's the UK, as several sources have the entire list. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Spa-Franks: If sources have the full list, it's probably because they've paid for a licence to display the fixtures from Football DataCo. Wikipedia can't afford those licences, since we're "The Free Encyclopedia", so we have to stick with what we can legally get away with, which is only the next fixture. – PeeJay 10:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Spa-Franks: The right to the fixtures is owned by Football DataCo and protected under British Copyright Laws. Everyone that wants to display fixtures must pay a license fee, and wikipedia as a free media can not afford any license fees (or court costs if we display the fixtures). More info can be read in this link from inbrief (a helppage for law issues) and they explain that one upcoming match, but not more, can be displayed. Qed237 (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:2015 Belarusian Premier League table

Hello, Qed237.
About Template:2015 Belarusian Premier League table.
Page regulations_national_championship_2015.pdf. Button "Скачать" (Download).
Page 20, 13.3.
Online-translator from Russian to English
13.3. The team with the most points is the current and final standings above the teams that scored fewer points.
In case of equality of points if two or more teams, places in the League standings:
according to the results of the games between them (the number of points, number of wins, the difference of scored and conceded goals, number of goals scored);
at best the difference between scored and conceded goals in all matches of the championship;
for a greater number of wins in all matches;
for a greater number of goals scored in all League matches.
GAV80 (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I found this source which may be the best one to use - UEFA Paul  Bradbury 18:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: Okay, I will add that as a source and revert back to your order (but with goal diff before matches won and not the other way around like you had it?). Too bad it has to be downloaded, it would have been better if we could link directly to the pdf. Qed237 (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: UEFA has had a lot of errors in their tables. Qed237 (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: I wrote "6) Matches won; 7) Goal difference". I was wrong. Right "6) Goal difference; 7) Matches won". GAV80 (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: If you want, you can check that it looks okay now. Qed237 (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: I saw. It's OK. Thank you. Will you update table with today's matches? Or will I update? GAV80 (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: I usually look through all European tables in the very late evening/night to see if any needs updating so if you haven't I can do it, but it is up to you. Does not matter to me who updates it. Qed237 (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: I send letter to www.scoresway.com about season rules. They changed rules on their site. I changed link on page Template:2015 Belarusian Premier League table. GAV80 (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: Okay great. I think we can actually use both as source. Qed237 (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: Once again, really good work contacting scoresway, not many would go that far. Just a final question, when reading the document and translating it to english I believe I read something about play-off matches to decide champions, before the draw? I might be wrong and the document wont download at the moment so can t read it again, but it is possible that "play-off (only if deciding champion) should be included before the draw. Qed237 (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: 13.3.1. When determining the first place at absolute equality of all specified indicators at two and more teams of the highest league the additional match or a tournament in one circle is appointed between these teams. 13.3.2. For other teams of the highest league and teams of the first league at absolute equality of all the specified place indicators in total standings are defined by a lot. GAV80 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: So for deciding champions (first place) there is a play-off match (according to 13.3.1) otherwise a draw? At least that is my interpretation. Qed237 (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: You are right. For first place – play-off match, for not first place – draw. GAV80 (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: Okay, so for consistency with the other tables (see User:Qed237/sandbox#Domestic leagues) then it should be "9) Play-off (only if deciding champion); 10) Draw." Qed237 (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiki god

People like you drive me crazy. Who put you in charge of Wikipedia? Why are you sending threatening messages to me and others about what we put online? I enjoy adding little known but true facts about relatively obscure people and you keep coming along and deleting them like an annoying little scrat. You aren't in charge of the Internet you know. Man, I hate nerds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.19.181 (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Content on wikipedia should follow wikipedia guidelines and we cant add unsourced contents to biographies of living persons. It must be sourced. This is wikipedia guidelines and not my own choice. And please stop the name calling. Qed237 (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox Player Info

Hi, would it be against any policies if I was to create a players infobox and put what I want into it? Would it be a problem? TeaLover1996 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

In an article yes, in personal sandbox I dont think there is a problem. Qed237 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

2013 FIFA U-17 World Cup

What do not you like my circuit at the World Cup to 17 years, the World Cup hockey and ice hockey in the Olympics, because they are more modern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.110.57.129 (talk • contribs)

I see no motivation or reason to change from the old version that has been used for a long time. Qed237 (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Also IIHF determines standing based on group stage position and not group stage record. Qed237 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I am counted goals for and goals against,0 goal difference in 2013 U-17 World Cup FIFA and 2015 IIHF WC. And this tables more beautiful.

I'm just very sorry that my work is not assessed, although I have not yet forgotten the password from the old account, I was very much respected, and now you hate me, but you used to respect me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.110.57.129 (talk • contribs)

Goals for and goals against it not most important, IIHF goes after group position first. Per WP:BRD please establish consensus before making such a major change. And believe me, I dont hate you, this is about the content. Qed237 (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Nominating a page for Deletion

Hi there, I have found a page about a professional footballer and the page is 'List of International Goals scored' by a player. In order to delete the page which category or tag do we use. In this case I know WP:GNG does not apply. Does WP:NFOOTBALL apply? Or any other would do great.Cheers!!! NextGenSam619^t@lk 14:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

3 v 2 is not a consensus

I'm not sure what compelled you to refer to that miniature discussion as a consensus, but it isn't. Stop brandishing that word as an excuse. There is no consensus, so I don't know why you're claiming that there is. Italia2006 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Italia2006: There was 5 v 2 and if you dont agree open a new discussion. Lets keep this at one place, either new discussion at Footy or the article talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, If information is sourced correctly please stop removing it because it isn't your preferred choice. The right information always trumps a bad source. Also simple arithmetic doesn't even need to be sourced. An infobox is a summary of the information in the article but you go with the right information not an outdated source. You should fix the article instead of constantly reverting editors. It is against many guidelines to do so and is probably pushing edit warring. I know you are a good editor but you can't just revert stuff if its correct, which for most of your revisions at the premier league season article doesn't seem to be at issue, just the fact the source has not updated yet. Paul  Bradbury 13:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury:On wikipedia we follow reliable sources, it is very simple. Qed237 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

We do and I have not suggested otherwise, however if a source is inaccurate we do not (reliable or not). As the opening sentence on reliable sources says Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. A TV broadcast on Sky Sports is a reliable source by the way. Common sense says that peppering the article with such cites however would not improve the article. For the record when you reverted my revision the NBC source had been updated. I am simply asking for you to apply some common sense I have seen you revert numerous editors who have not put in factually incorrect edits as reported by reliable sources. You also may want to check out WP:PRESERVE Paul  Bradbury 14:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Serbia

I noticed you worked on Slovakia and Isreal tables today. I was about to work on Serbia and wanted to let you know so we are not working on it at the same time. Unless, of course, you are already started working on it. Equineducklings (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Equineducklings: Sounds good, I have not yet started on Serbia (or planned on doing it) so go ahead and do it. Qed237 (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Ice Hockey 2018 W.Olympics Games

Can I add that the team has got to the Olympics in the preliminary round group , or is yet to be confirmed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.187.37.34 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

They are confirmed as we have a source from IIHF with the groups. Qed237 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Relegation play-offs

I have a question about a minor thing about which I have changed my mind a few times. I think I first noticed it while looking at 2014–15 Scottish Premiership. Instead of Relegation play-offs, that article uses Premiership play-offs. It made me realize that may be a more accurate way of describing it. It is a relegation play-off for a tier 1 team , but it is a promotion play-off for a tier 2 team. As a result, I wonder if relegation play-off is an inaccurate label. Like I said, I'm not sure myself. What do you think? Equineducklings (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Equineducklings: I have thought about that to and I decided to go on as it has been mostly before. For the team in the top division table it is for relegation so I choose to pipe to relegation, but the playoff could have other names in the articles. Not sure if this is the best and I am open for a discussion. Qed237 (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I opened a conversation here to see what others think. Equineducklings (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Equineducklings: Great, thanks. Qed237 (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

2015-16 FA Cup Qualifying

Why was it necessary to delete 2 rows to save space, when actually it looks much better and technically uses up less space with the extra rows? It adds clarity and keeps it easy to use. M00036 (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounded a bit negative - Hopefully, you'll see this from my point of view. M00036 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@M00036: No worries, it is good that you want to discuss. Basically I think we should keep it 'clean' and have one row for each match, and I have been working a lot with other articles like Champions League, where template:Aet and notes are being used. Also WP:NDASH and recent discussions has resulted in '1–0' without space rather than '1 – 0'. Is it better if I clean it up after the round has been played? Qed237 (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No personal preference - sorry, it was probably me that interrupted you converting the 1 - 0s into 1-0s! M00036 (talk) Do you know if there's a way to reduce the space used by the W.O. note and the (a.e.t.) in those two rows? 19:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@M00036: I tried by using 'nb' instead of 'note' which made it a bit less space, and we could possibly use [[Overtime (sports)#Association_football|aet]] instead of the template to remove the dots. I will se if I can find an other solution. Qed237 (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: It looks like the tables just fit as they are without any team names spilling into extra rows (which would go against your earlier comment!) for the moment. Thanks for all of your help - the replays will be finished by Wednesday night so we will see...

Have now removed the spaces. M00036 (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Great. Qed237 (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sadio Mané

Hey @Qed237:,@BethNaught:,@Mattythewhite:

77.130.193.59 is out of control on Sadio Mané, reverting edits, swearing, and blanking his (talkpage). I gave first 2 warnings, A bot has given 3rd warning, but he has still blanked his talkpage and reverted edits on Mane again. I'm not an admin so next steps?--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, since it's just a "something might happen" template, it's not worth fighting over. If there is an actual transfer someone will soon add it with a reliable source. If they mess up the article in other ways, warn them and if necessary report to WP:AIV. BethNaught (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree the template itself isn't the biggest deal, but I feel user is new and if we don't act now this user will feel he can continue acting in the same way, insulting other editors.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

If that happens they will get blocked anyway. I'd say for now just leave it be. BethNaught (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

And some of his edit summaries are a trifle robust shall we say? Fucking this, you prat that, etc. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Ozil

Hi,

I reverted the Ozil page, because the version you reverted it back to contained some inaccuracies and insufficient information.

For example, in the intro it said he ranked 1st in assists in La Liga in 2012, but it should say 2011-12. It also contained virtually no information about his performance at Euro 2012, which I expanded recently.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naughty-Dalmatians (talk • contribs) 19:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Naughty-Dalmatians: There was several reasons why I reverted to that revision. For example I dont think all of your edits were WP:NPOV with words like staggering 9 chances, who says 9 chances is 'staggering', seems POV to me. Also the word glory in FIFA World cup header was really bad. Also the ranking was made 2012 (for 2011-12 season), but still a 2012 ranking. Qed237 (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I was actually about to remove the word 'glory' myself lol, that's when I noticed the revert. Yeah I'll remove 'staggering' as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naughty-Dalmatians (talk • contribs) 02:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Great. Qed237 (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

TeaLover

Please ignore Tealover's pings, he seems to be an attention seeking troll in my opinion. Thanks. JMHamo (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Looks like he needs his talkpage access revoked during his block. Qed237 (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion. Perhaps ping User:Floquenbeam with your concerns? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Just ignore, no need for any other action. JMHamo (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It is up to admins to decide, just an idea when someone does these disruptive pings asking if they can be good and seeks attention. Does not matter to me, I ignore anyway. Qed237 (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:WikiProject Football

Can you have look at the outstanding requests. I see you have refused one previously, however it looks like they should now be actioned.Blethering Scot 17:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Blethering Scot: Done. Qed237 (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it.Blethering Scot 18:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Qed237 (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

fa cup pre 2015-16

as per ALL fa comps last year and the year before what you have changed it to is not the same format as the previous years. if you'd like to go back through 13/14/15 and change them too? to have the cross for 'aet' instead of the words and to have the 'extra line' showing won on penalties etc is standard and has been across the previous pages for the Vase, Trophy and Cup. I'm just keeping the format the same this year.....as i have when i set up this years Trophy page....you can look at them if you choose.

User:GNEbandit User talk:GNEbandit 16:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@GNEbandit: Just because it has been in one way before does not make it right, wikipedia keeps improving. The way I modified to, removed the use of extra excessive rows and is the way score is displayed on many other pages like UEFA Champions League and other well developed pages. It is simply better to display everything on one row. Qed237 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

2016 WC Hockey

Why you delete group A-B content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.187.199.23 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Could not see any source for those groups. Not a single source in that article say what teams will play in Group A and Group B respectively. Qed237 (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

http://pribalt.info/hokkei/kubok-mira It is Russian source,but you can translate this text,OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.187.199.23 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can translate that but I am not sure it can be considered a reliable source. Qed237 (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/u-s---canada-reportedly-grouped-together-for-2016-world-cup-of-hockey-141904294.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.110.36.93 (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC) It is reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.110.36.93 (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You really need to start talking and stop reverting. Nothing is confirmed and the yahoo source just say 'reportedly' and not that it has been confirmed. You can not add rumours. Qed237 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not rumours!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.110.36.93 (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"“I can not comment on this because it is confidential until September" Qed237 (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

And do not remove signatures. Qed237 (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Tretyak it is high-rankes person!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.110.36.93 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It is still not official until September. Qed237 (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

OK,but please Qed,not delete this content,it is possible to correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.110.36.93 (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

We can not have unsourced content, the best I can "offer" is that we keep the tables but comment away the teams with hidden comment so that they are not visible. Qed237 (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The head of the Russian Federation is a reliable source. Please stop reverting and start contributing in a constructive way. I will report for WP:3RR since you are ignoring discussion on the way you are reverting sourced content Paul  Bradbury 15:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: He leaked not confirmed information that has not been confirmed and may be changed. Until if has been confirmed it should not be on that page, just the same as football transfers, we dont add until confirmed. Qed237 (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The Russian head of the federation, a participant, that is a strong enough source. It's not an agent or an anonymously attributed source in a newspaper. Not all info has to come from the primary source, in fact in some instances it is preferable that it does not to prevent bias. You should not have made the last revert it is a violation of 3RR, I'll let you self revert it while we reach consensus in lieu of reporting it, since I genuinely do want to resolve this sort of editing with you Paul  Bradbury 16:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: Reporting me would lead to a WP:BOOMERANG situation, you are also reverting, please remember that. Qed237 (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not likely as I have not violated nor do I intend to violate WP:3RR I also have attempted to engage with you about the issue, both ere and this type of revert in general below. Paul  Bradbury 16:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: And I have also tried talking to you and explain, but you refuse to listen. Qed237 (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No I am listening, but all you have said so far is that you don't like the source, we disagree on it. You are not sticking to the spirit of editing, you are agressively reverting across multiple articles multiple users who have made good edits, in a lot of cases properly sourced. We may disagree in this instance whether the source is reliable, but you do not have the right to revert the information just because you think it is. Either you can be constructive or I will report and take my chances with WP:BOOMERANG I am pretty sure I have complied with the spirit and the letter of the guidelines if not then I deserve what I get. However I don't want to report you as I think you make some very good edits, I am just asking for you to abide by, or at least acknowledge WP:PRESERVE and also to dial it back with the reversions. To understand that other editors are trying to improve the encyclopedia and that your actions are not helping. Paul  Bradbury 16:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: Wikipedia is based on reliable source, both you and I know it. If we were not to update "clean sheets" or "top scorer" or other stats according to source editors will add after their mind and Alexis would have gotten goal yesterday, Yaya Toure would have two goals according to some editors and so on. All stats must be reliably source and wikipedia is not a newsticker so we can wait a few hours until sources has updated. Also we should not introduce factual errors, for example updating some things on 18 August and then have a timestamp saying it was updated on 15 August, and I think you know that. Qed237 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree and to be honest I wait a while before updating in most cases. However there are a lot of editors who are new or inexperienced and need help and guidance. Aggressively reverting them doesn't help and isn't assuming good faith. Also there is no time limit on edits either way so instant updates are OK. It was valid that Yaya scored two goals at the time of the edits. It was subsequently overturned, that is not bad sourcing. The reason I pointed you at WP:PRESERVE is because it says you shouldn't revert if you can fix, e.g. by adding a source, changing a source or changing the date etc. Only revert if you can't fix it. Yes it's more work but no one said Wikipedia was easy. Paul  Bradbury 16:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you have obviously no intention of discussing this or abiding by guidelines I have referred this to dispute resolution Paul  Bradbury 23:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Any suggestions...

...on how to handle this user that you warned several times (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yadrielrios)? Two edits raised my eyebrow: 1 - Adrián López Álvarez, his picture shows him before a game with the Spanish under-21 team, he changed that to Spain A; 2 - Miguel Fidalgo, he spent the ENTIRE season with Vitória F.C. injured, thus played zero matches of course :) He changed that to 26/5. Maybe a deeper scrutiny of his edits (I only checked these two to be honest) will produce if it's a vandalism-only account. Let's assume good faith for now (I'm running out of it by the way, after nine years)?

Attentively, keep up the good work --84.90.219.128 (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I dont think it is a vandalism-only account because someone would have blocked him by now, but it might be worth keeping an eye on the editor if time exists. Thanks for the information. Qed237 (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

baba's transfer fee

	please tell me why baba's transfer fee is 21,700,000 pounds
	please tell me the reason that baba's transfer fee is 21,700,000 pounds. Didierforever (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Didierforever: I dont know where, but you can not use transfermarkt as a source as it has been deemed unreliable after seeral discussions. Qed237 (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: I was informed about the use of transfermarkt. i have given other sources which say the same thing (current edition on chelsea 15-16 has 3 of my references to it). Didierforever (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Didierforever: Okay, but do NOT copy my signature directly. It is against the rules. Make your own. Qed237 (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Sure. i am sorry. Did not mean to copy. I just copy pasted what you wrote and changed accordingly since I have no idea of the syntax. Didierforever (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Julian Green

Wondering why you deleted a goal from his tally, considering it wasn't updated and he just scored yesterday so 16 would be correct MS88Deer (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@MS88Deer: Read bottom of infobox, it says Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of 18:51, May 26, 2015 (UTC). When stats are updated, the timestamps must also be updated (both in infobox and the career stats section) so other editors know it has been updated. Qed237 (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Copa del Rey

How to improve Copa del Rey Topscorers by Season and Copa del Rey Topscorers to be accepted ??Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There has been a decision at AfD that they should not exist so you need to find consensus first and convince editors that these articles are notable. Qed237 (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

How to convince other editors ? Is a page with all of this editors or ... ?85.186.144.162 (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There are different project around wikipedia and as this is a football-related article I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, but you need good arguments as it has been deleted many times now. Qed237 (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You undo the complete list from there also. It is not good for a separate article, it is not good inside of the main article. How is good ?? Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nowhere, Wikipedia isn't for indiscriminate lists of information. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alexiulian25: No need for that list. And when will you learn how to sign? Do not sign on top of edits. Qed237 (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

What about this ? : List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers or List of top Premier League goal scorers by season or List of footballers with 100 or more caps or List of top international association football goal scorers by country. Wikipedia is full of tables and lists. Thats why I started to like it and write here, because you can find easy what information you need, and if is an encyclopedia is supposed to have all kind of information, as long as has references and is correct information. Do you want me to make the list shorter, instead of 75 players, to post just the first 30 ? And look ... https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:M%C3%A1ximos_goleadores_de_la_Copa_del_Rey / Anexo:Máximos goleadores de la Copa del Rey : Spanish wikipedia have already the list, this is another reason I want to create it in English also (more people can access and understand) Thank you for your time.Alexiulian25 (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said, talking to me is not going to change anything. Try and convince the football project. Qed237 (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Lets create then other important articles. Cupa României 1940–41, Cupa României 1941–42, Cupa României 1948–49, Cupa României 1950, Cupa României 1951. Many seasons are missing. Can you create then with basic information and after I will correct and add other informations ... one per day and soon we will finish with all seasons. Thank you.Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alexiulian25: FINAL WARNING, Do not sign on top of your posts. I will not read any of your messages and they will be removed if you can not learn how to communicate. Qed237 (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just keep forgeting about this rule. Are you interested in improving Cupa Romaniei ? I already start working on the second season.Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I am very busy and I dont have enough interest to do that instead of other things I need to do. Qed237 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hi @Qed237: Please you does not edits to my talk now! Thanks! Boyconga278 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Why? You have some questions to answer before you are blocked. What is vandalism? Qed237 (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi there, just one question when creating pages can IP users create them or only registered accounts.

Thanks in advance. TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Anyone can create an article. Qed237 (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

One more thing, what does it mean to not feed the trolls?, does it mean don't give them what they want? TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Classic expression. Basically it is if someone ask stupid questions or vandalise your talkpage or something just ignore them, no idea to talk to them as it wont help (often it gets worse). Qed237 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Qed237, It's not true that "anyone can create an article", an IP address cannot directly create an article. IPs instead have to use articles for creation, and get it accepted. Any registered user can directly create articles though. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

About reverted edits on 2015-16 BPL page

Thanks for reverting them. I'm still new, only started editing a couple days ago. I honestly thought the sources would've been updated quicker.

I'll make sure in future! TZealot (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@TZealot: Yeah, the clean sheets is the slow one, the others are must faster. And wikipedia is not a newsticker and we might as well wait. Qed237 (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

TeaLover1996

FYI - TeaLover1996 has been blocked indefinitely for continued disruptive behaviour, so your Talk page should be a lot quieter from now on. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Okay, thank you for the information. Qed237 (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)