User talk:Qed237/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi Ro.faridi (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

2016-17 LCFC season

Where does it state that it's against copyright to show fixtures? The MoS for Project Football doesn't mention this. Samuel J Walker (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Samuel J Walker: I think it is best described in this article by inbrief. Wikipedia can not afford to pay license fees and we should not gamble and risk that wikipedia is taken to court. Also fixtures gets moved around a lot and dates and kickoff times are decided very late (depending on cup matches and tv selections), so listing all fixtures does not make sense. You can look at all other club season articles and see we dont list fixtures on those (at least not the big clubs, I have not looked at them all). Qed237 (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
That is badly out of date, the idea that fixture lists could be copywritten was struck down in 2012. 79.74.30.116 (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Well as I also said above the fixtures als gets moved around a lot so we dont show them anyway. Look at all other clubs. Qed237 (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

???

Please, stop vandalism, and see here: https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/players/goals. I made update ONLY AFTER game! What's wrong?--Noel baran (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Aha, now understood about top of Infobox football league season, but why you reverted my edition about top scorers with update and source? In any way, I really not whant to make disruptions, but to add information, that is true and not offend nobody. And I not well English speaker or "knower" of all these rules, but 6-7 years ago I felt myself free here (trayed to not offend nobody), and last years it like a persecution with all this multiplying rules and changes (for example, transfermarkt was reliable source and I used it, whet created an article, but then somebody decised that no, and was removed, but not replaced by this "remover" by something other etc.). And now I see, that you reverted these last editions, but still is 27 Feb 2017. Why no to make updates for you? I really tired with all it. In past I believed, that I am making someting good, but now only blaming in vandalism and threatens about blocking. And maybe my blocking by somebody like you is unavoidable, because I not understand all of these rules...--Noel baran (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

So I wasted 2 hours of my life for nothing?

Looks like, I used 2 hours to make the Liverpool 2016/17 look good and have some information and you undo my great edits because I haven't given sources. Well, when you want, why not give them yourself?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.151.232 (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

RE: Timestamp

I usually do, this one must have slipped through the net. Thanks for the heads up. Samuel J Walker (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Time to come back

On Sandbox 1, because 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification will return. It's time to calculate the opportunities from the matches. --5.172.239.45 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is, I have been busy for a while but I will start looking at it. Thank you for reminding me. Qed237 (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:2016–17 Moldovan National Division table

  • What's the idea of removing whitespaces from one place, and leaving them in any other place? This edit
  • "Petrocub-Hînceşti" is the offical club name, not "Petrocub Hînceşti". This edit + Club's page on Official league's website
  • Changing DIN to DIA? Now all abbreviations are made from first letters, except Dinamo... This edit
  • Club namings: Club name + City, if city is not part of the name. Why you changed only Saxan's representation? This edit
  • Sorry, but "Divizia A" => "2017-18 Division A" is the only commit which makes any sense here. Please explain the reasons of those edits. Thank You 5-ht (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@5-hydroxytryptamine: I will try and answer your questions one by one and since it may be a long discussion I hope it is okay to keep it here in one talkpage for simplicity. I will respond shortly. Qed237 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now taking the questions one by one.

  • As in all other top division league tables, it is for visual effect and readability for the editor. When all "draw_XXX"-parameters and so on starts on the same vertical line it is easier for the editor to read it.
  • I just follow standard piping as we do on all league tables, which is removing shortenings so "FC Barcelona" becomes "Barcelona", "Arsenal F.C." becomes "Arsenal", and in this case "FC Petrocub Hîncești" becomes "Petrocub Hîncești". If there is some sort of error in the club name I suggest you make a move request for that article per WP:RM.
  • In the article 2016–17 Moldovan National Division and the results-section DIA is used for Dinamo-Auto Tiraspol and I was trying to be consistent. It does not make sense to me to have different abbreviation on those places.
  • Same answer as above, it is standard to pipe away abbreviations so "FC Saxan" becomes "Saxan". I work a lot in these top division tables and Champions League and Europa league and it is the same everywhere, except for a few places. For example we dont pipe "FC Santa Coloma" and "UE Santa Coloma" as the FC and UE is needed to separate the teams.
  • Same theory here, it is English wikipedia so we use english name and with article at "Moldovan "A" Division it makes most sense to link to Division A

Qed237 (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@5-hydroxytryptamine: I hope this answers your questions? If not feel free to keep asking. Qed237 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Qed237 for your answers, but I have a few more questions:

  • Probably vertical readability depends on the OS, browser and the fonts used in it, because in my editor they doesn't look well arranged. Image
  • It makes sense. But I would like you to ask to not edit team's name in comment after results line
  • Probably changing DIA to DIN in the main article would be a more consistent solution - common abbreviation algorithm (I can change it, if you agree)
  • I was asking here mostly about general naming logic. FC Saxan is from Ceadir-Lunga, and all teams in the table are named as TeamName City, except FC Ungheni, because TeamName == City in this case. And using just Saxan instead of Saxan Ceadir-Lunga is a step aside from the common naming template in this table. What is the best practice for article's name for a football team? Should I request article's name change from FC Saxan to FC Saxan Ceadir-Lunga?

@Qed237: p.1, 2, 3 - I'm asking about this, because I'm updating this table automatically, and having a lot of out-of-general-logic corner cases makes this job a way harder to do. That's why I'm searching for a good compromise about table's structure. Thank You 5-ht (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@5-hydroxytryptamine: Okay, I can understand your point. I guess the readability depends on OS and browser and for me they are aligned when there is the same amount of characters (including blankspace) in front of them. However, this is only a very minor thing and a personal opinion so for the interest of your bot I am willing to ignore both that and the team name inside the comment. It does not matter for the table itself anyway. Also with the DIA and DIN I have no problem with you changing it, as long as it is the same on both places. Actually the results section should ideally be converted to using Module:Sports results like other leagues, which makes that change easier. About the team names, the article should be located at their most common english name. If you look at UEFA (here) they basically have the same name we do, but I am not sure about common practice. I think FC Saxan is just mainly called Saxan in English speaking countries, while teams like FC Sheriff Tiraspol are known as Sheriff Tiraspol rather than just Sheriff. Perhaps you can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football what they think. Qed237 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I would change my bot's behavior to print spaces for vertical aligns, it's not a problem
  • "Petrocub Hîncești" in area with names and "Petrocub-Hîncești" in comment (comment edit reverted)
  • DIN in both article and template (template edit reverted)
  • Saxan would be named as just "Saxan"
  • Link to the next Divizia A season with common english name would be held as it is after your edit

@Qed237: Looks like a compromise. Am I right? 5-ht (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@5-hydroxytryptamine: That sounds great! Qed237 (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Qed237: Okay, thank you! 5-ht (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Qed237: Pay your attention on this discussion, please 5-ht (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@5-hydroxytryptamine: Thanks for the notification. I will be away now for a few hours, but I will try to look at it later tonight. Qed237 (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop vandalising Moldovan Wikipedia.

Do you really think you are the smartest person down here ??? Every team in the table have the name and the city together.why the situation with Saxan should be different ? Think about. About Petrocub. The club is based in the village Sarata Galbena and their official club name is Petrocub-Hincesti. Double name.exactly like other Moldovan club name dinamo-auto.you better change the page from Petrocub Hincesti to Petrocub-Hincesti. About the division A.why do you need to list 17-18 season if this page did not exist ?? This page will be added on time when will be created.check for English premier league for instance.is listed EFL Championship not 17-18 EFL championship.you always try to make mess.do you have girlfriend ???Kolya77 (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If you really want to become usefull,add the goal scorers to the current season,improve Petrocub's page.it'so poor .why you always stop people from editing by reverting things ? Who you really think you are ???Kolya77 (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kolya77: First of all you dont WP:OWN the articles on Moldovan football, I can edit whatever I want, and also please discuss like a normal person without attacking a fellow editor. With that being said, I am just using standard piping per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football consensus, which is when team is located at "FC Saxan" we pipe to remove "FC" thus leaving "Saxan" in tables and articles. Same as "FC Barcelona" becomes "Barcelona" without the "FC". When article is at "FC Petrocub Hîncești" we remove the FC and display "Petrocub Hîncești" (without the dash). It is about standard piping of the English version of the club name. If you dont agree you can take it to discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, but do not ever tell me what I can or can not edit, and do not call me a vandal either. Qed237 (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You are still doing your way,which is completely wrong. 1.can you understand that the official name of the team is Petrocub-Hincesti (with dash) ????you can visit off website and see this.

2.why you only cut the city name from Saxan and not from other 10 clubs ? 3.why you listed 17-18 season if the page is not created. ?if you dont know nothing about moldovan football ,why you vandalising ? By the way,Next divizia seson will be 2017 only,cause they change the system.Kolya77 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)i

I gave you an explanation above. If you dont agree, go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Qed237 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think you the only person right and others are not ? Stop vandalising and deleting everything you dont like.you are not the owner of article to do this.stop acting this way.you dont need to warn me,warn yourself for vandalism.Kolya77 (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop calling it vandalism when it clearly is not. It has been discussed how to do piping and there is consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football just like I explained above. It is the same for every top division table in the entire english wikipedia. Qed237 (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

2018 FIFA World Cup qualification - Top goalscorers

Do you think 17 players, as we currently have, are a little bit too many? Actually it should be 18, somehow we missed Yu Dabao who also has scored 7 goals. I prefer to reduce the list to 10 players by removing "7 goals" group. Centaur271188 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Centaur271188: Good question. Normally when we have a table of goalscorers (like for example 2016–17 Premier League#Top scorers) we have a limit of 10 players (in this case 12 players since three players has 11 goals), but in 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification#Top goalscorers we have the players in three columns, so it does not look like there is a lot of players. Perhaps around 20 players (or in this case 17) is a good number? For me it does not really matter, I can live with or without players on 7 goals. Qed237 (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Stop icon This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Séamus Coleman and a number of pages, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you keep on doing this, you will get longer blocks Efc1878 (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

May I ask what my vandalism is? What wrong have I done and why a level 4 warning? This is just an attempt of payback for the own blocks of Efc1878 and his latest warning so not a real warning. Qed237 (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
This warning will be removed by myself as it is a clear copy of this warning I gave him. He even "stole" my signature and copied the layout of it. Qed237 (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
What is the problem? GiantSnowman 06:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've also left him a message. GiantSnowman 19:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Steaua Bucuresti/FCSB

Yeah, that's because Romanians don't really edit Wikipedia and majority of them are Steaua fans. They don't really accept the name change. I don't like it either, because it's the most famous club in the country, but it has to be done.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@8Dodo8: Honestly, what Romanian wikipedia says is not really relevant. It is what is the WP:COMMONNAME in English language. For example the real name for FC Bayern Munich is "FC Bayern München" but it has been converted to English. The name should reflect what is being used in English media and that is a discussion for the requested move. Qed237 (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@Qed237: I don't think that's a good example actually. Steaua Bucuresti has been completely removed from the club's name, while from Munich to Munchen it's only a language difference.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Lets take that on the move discussion. Qed237 (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we get some input in resolving an edit dispute?

Hello Qed237. I am hoping that you can lend some assistance. Me and user GiantSnowman need assistance in resolving an edit dispute concerning the kit section that was in the Nigerian national football team article. He removed it citing WP:NOTGALLERY. I disagree with his interpretation and I have shared my reasons on the talk page at WikiProject Football. We request the input of members of this project in order to resolve this issue. Your assistance would be appreciated if you have the time. Thanks! unak1978 16:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup of English Football play-offs articles

I've recently seen quite a few pages related to the play-offs of the Championship, League One, and League Two, which are either not up-to-date or do not have good content (such as 2017 English Football League play-offs, which has lots of tables and barely any prose). Mill. did qualify for the Championship less than an hour ago, but there's still some discrepancies between articles. For example, for previous years the title such as [year] Football League play-offs was used. This year, 2017 English Football League play-offs was used. Anyways, do you know a list of pages that should be edited now that different teams are in different leagues? Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@DatGuy: Honestly, my time on wikipedia the last few months has reduced significantly so I dont have the time to dig in to this problem. Sorry. Qed237 (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

CSD A11

Domestic average home attendances of football clubs is a list that clearly does not meet WP:CSD#A11, which is for WP:NFT type material. Looking at attendance numbers is not something the author of this articles and their mates made up one day at the pub. If you would like to see this page deleted, please use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead. Happy editing, —Kusma (t·c) 12:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:2016–17 La Liga table

Hi, about your last edit on that template, I do not understand why you deleted a sentence mentioning Athletic Bilbao in Real Sociedad's note. I think there was nothing wrong with it. The case seems too obvious, so I decide to undo your change without waiting for your answer. Hopefully you do not mind, otherwise I am sorry :) Centaur271188 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Basically, I dont think it is neccessary information and we have not done it in the past. Previous discussion has resultet in consensus to keep notes as small as possible and then I dont see why we should mention what happens to Bilbao in a note for Real Sociedad. Qed237 (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think this kind of note is popular, we have it whenever domestic cup winners (or potential winners) qualified (or are currently qualifying) for European tournaments through league position. Sometimes we mention concerned teams directly, sometimes we do not and instead say "the spot awarded... was passed down through the league". Therefore that note seems OK to me. Thanks for explaining, I will keep it that way. By the way, in my opinion, we should make those notes only when such situations are certain, not possible. Centaur271188 (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
From what I have understand we show current qualification, not possibilities. Qed237 (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Premier League 2016-17 Template

@Sceptre: @Qed237: As it is right now, the notes are very ambiguous, informal, and, on top of that, contain grammatical mistakes.

  • 'Since the finalists of the 2016–17 FA Cup (Arsenal and Chelsea) currently qualify for European competition based on their league position, the spot awarded to the FA Cup winner (Europa League group stage) would be passed to the next best-placed team' Next best-placed team where? And, taking the 'next best-placed team' to mean 'the next best-placed team in the table', which is still a step of deduction required to be taken by the reader, as far as I am aware, the next best-placed team after Arsenal is Man Utd. 'Currently qualify' wait, haven't they already qualified? If it's about obtaining the licenses, that nuance needs to be mentioned.
  • 'They also qualified for the Europa League third qualifying round by winning the 2016–17 EFL Cup, but that spot was vacated' they - who? The point points to a qualification stage rather than a specific team. They qualified to play in two competitions? I am not really sure that works. And why was the place vacated out of nowhere???
  • 'Since the finalists', 'for European competition', 'would be passed', 'They also qualified' just generally poor grammar

Maybe, we should agree on a compromise - if you really seem to hate convoluted texts? OlJa 22:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: Okay, now I am awake. You can not expect people to respond immediately and revert to your version so soon. It should be status quo until consensus has been reached. With that being said, I am listening at what you are saying. The notes are not perfect and I have been at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football several times. Every time the answer has been "keep the notes short, concise and consistent". So we have the notes the same way on all top division tables (been away for a month or two so not looked at them at all, but otherwise you can see them in User:Qed237/sandbox4). In finished tables we only display note for the cup winners and then say that the qualification spots has been adjusted. For example look at Template:2015–16 La Liga table. It is the shortest way instead of explaining every step. About the grammar, I am definately ready to discuss changes. As you may know I am not a native English speaker, so you probably know a lot better than me. Just try and keep it "short, concise and consistent". If you want a long explanation on how the qualification spots where divided, I think it is a good idea to have it explained in prose in the Premier League season article. Qed237 (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Qed237: Ok, the notes may have to be short and concise, but how do you resolve the ambiguity and lack of clarity I have noted? Thank you for compliance. OlJa 14:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: I have tried to clear it up; if anything looks like an over-complication, delete the parts that you are unhappy about - don't revert the whole edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talk • contribs)
I made some changes as Everton have not qualified for the Europa League group stage. Qed237 (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

2018-19 UEFA Champions League

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2018-19 UEFA Champions League, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:C30:3680:19E:28D8:822C:24D6 (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON. All content you added was unsourced and pure speculation which is why multiple people makes sure it is a redirect to main tournamnet. Dont think you can give me bogus warnings. Qed237 (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
You're wrong! If you're neither able to comment your edits nor to read sources then you are the problemmaker here! --2A02:908:C30:3680:19E:28D8:822C:24D6 (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
As I said, multiple editors agree it should be a redirect until reliable sources confirm the format. Qed237 (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

2018-19 UEFA Champions League

You say the phrase "competition proper" is 'proper standard English". It is not. At best it is slang, and at worst it doesn't even make sense when you think about it. I've tried to edit the page to apply consistent logic (renaming the qualifying phase) in line with what logic was already applied, and then correcting the rest of the page when you objected that my regional change was not was these phases were called but your own logic seems hard to follow. so I really won;t get what you are trying to do with the page. KP-TheSpectre (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Seeing the history you have tried changing it before with other editors reverting your changes, so it is not what I am trying to do, it is what you are trying without consensus. If you look for example at the English FA Cup and how they name different stages (took 5 seconds to find this) it is clear that they separate qualification and competition proper. It is the way it has always been done and you need consensus to change it. Qed237 (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@KP-TheSpectre: @Qed237: "UEFA.com looks back at the stand-out facts and figures of the inaugural UEFA Europa League ('competition proper' is group stage on)." [1] Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@Chanheigeorge: Great evidence. Thank you! Qed237 (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Messi

Why are you as a Wikipedia moderator ignoring the site's rules? The rules clearly state that all the statements must be based on sources..... Saksapoiss (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Saksapoiss: And as long as their is no clear evidence that he has recieved a medal he wont have it as an honour as he did not pklay in the final. Despite previously been told about this you keep inserting it and if you dont stop it may have you blocked from editing. Qed237 (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

How could he have recieved a medal when they don't award any in Supercopa. Saksapoiss (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

These are some of the very reliable source that credit him with 30 trophies. You can't deny these sources according to Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia isn't a place for biased opinions.

I dont know and not my job to know, I just follow consensus. If player has not been in the squad for final, then no honour. Qed237 (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

And this is a biased opinion because there are no criterias by RFEF that player must appear in Super Cup final to be part of the winning team, like there is for example in FA Community Shield. Saksapoiss (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Then I suggest you open yet an other discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and find consensus. Qed237 (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Saksapoiss: The Supercopa de España is just a 2 legged match played usually in a gap of 3 or 4 days and Messi wasn't even part of the 18 member squad selected for the 2005 Supercopa de España. It's not like he played in a tournament, but just couldn't play in the final. That's not the case here. He wasn't even included in the 18 member squad for the 2005 Supercopa de España. So when you already know he wasn't even in the squad, I don't understand why you would want to attribute that trophy to him? As great a player he is, he has a lot of deserved trophies to his name, so why would you want to attribute an undeserving one, the one in which he didn't even feature in the squad. Because Barcelona credits him with the honour? With that logic, Real Madrid credits Bale, Pepe & Ronaldo with the 2016 UEFA Super Cup too, but it ain't included in their page, because they weren't part of the team. As simple as that. Shady59 (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Qed237: Another user Josepolivares is continuing with the same vandalism. Tried talking on his page, but he continues undoing the edits without giving any reply. Shady59 (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I will take a look. Qed237 (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Player Contracts (Free Transfers)

Got it - I'll make sure to edit only the date information in the info box. Thanks a lot for the heads up! Raider1918 (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Great, I'll make sure to get in touch when future issues / questions arise. Cheers! Raider1918 (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Mesut Ozil

Hey Qed237. How come you reverted the edit I made on Ozil article? I think it's notable information useful to the reader. Hashim-afc (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I dont think it should be there as a weird note. Qed237 (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO

What do you mean when you say "WP:STATUSQUO seems popular"? Is it not more useful to have the player's club displayed? Does it not make more sense to use the space more efficiently? I fail to see what negative impact my changes have had. – PeeJay 21:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The club info is not needed and can be seen in top scorers section. Player name and amount of goals scored is the only important part, and apperntly people also want the flags. Qed237 (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
When did this discussion happen? Did anyone point out the fact that a player's nationality is irrelevant? The club is actually useful information, so why not add it? – PeeJay 21:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:EDITCONSENSUS mainly, but also common sense. Why display extra information about club? I can not talkabout the flags, in my opinion they should be removed. Qed237 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems we need to have a centralised discussion then, rather than just relying on the edit tendencies of a few tenacious editors. – PeeJay 22:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 FIFA Confederations Cup squads

Hello, I saw you were part of the discussion at Talk:UEFA Euro 2016 squads involving what to list players' clubs as. I had a quick question for 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup squads, Robbie Kruse last played a competitive match for Liaoning Whowin prior to the tournament, but he terminated his contract with the club in May due to unpaid wages. Should his club be listed as Liaoning Whowin, or unattached? S.A. Julio (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Dunav in, CSKA out

[2]. Chanheigeorge (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Chanheigeorge: Wow, interesting. I had not seen the seeding pots before. Can not find them at UEFA homepage. Qed237 (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
They published the seeding groups earlier with CSKA Sofia included (I read it but did not copy or screencap it), then a few hours before the draw the groups were removed. Now the list (without seeding groups) contains Dunav insteaad of CSKA, and if you saw the draw you see Dunav included. Funny that Dunav was drawn with the last seeded team Irtysh, which would have been unseeded if CSKA Sofia were included (almost like UEFA fixes the draw!). Anyway, likely this issue will not die soon and CSKA may continue its appeal with the CAS. Chanheigeorge (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Chanheigeorge: Yes, I followed the draw (my favourite team is in it) and edit at the same time. However I missed the seeding pots. Qed237 (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Chanheigeorge: And you are right, we probably have not heard the last thing about this case. Qed237 (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Chanheigeorge: Dunav Ruse were included because they filed a lawsuit against UEFA for missed opportunities for letting in a new club in the draw that breaks the rules, that's why the change was made in the last second. Now CSKA Sofia are continuing with their appeal to CAS because according to the Bulgarian Football Union they are a merged club between the bankrupted CSKA Sofia and Litex Lovech. Looks like FC Vereya from Stara Zagora are also filing a lawsuit, because they should have re-played the special play-off from the Bulgarian First League against Dunav Ruse. Things are getting really messed up here, and even if Dunav Ruse wins the first round there is no guarantee that one of the appeals might take them out - either Vereya or CSKA's.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 19:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

BLP redirects

 Done GiantSnowman 06:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Linafoot article

Dear Qed237, why do you want to block me? Because I've added a 'Bogus' article?? The Linafoot is the top-flight football league of DR Congo, the biggest sport in the country with almost 100 million inhabitants, with a club named TP Mazembe who made it to the prestigious FIFA Club World Cup final. The 2016-17 season, and with a reference to the league standings table. Can you PLEASE explain what's so bogus about that? Some Linafoot matches attracted crowds around 80,000... Really a bogus league... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houndground (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Houndground: There is no information in the article at all about what nation it is about and it is very poorly written. I dont want anyone to be blocked, but question has been raised by multiple editors if you have the required competence to edit an encyclopedia. Qed237 (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand the problem. You could have told me to add that information instead of deleting the article immediately and asking to block me, while all I wanted to do is making Wikipedia more complete. I would have added the information that was missing if you asked me, no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houndground (talk • contribs)

@Houndground: New sections always at the bottom of talkpages and you dont have to start new sections when you continue a discussion. All these small things makes other editors think you have issues editing and collaborating on wikipedia. Also you must learn to sign your posts. Despite editong under other account before, you have still not learnt anything and you make many problematci edits. We can not go after you all the time to try and fix the problem your edits create. Qed237 (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but you have to understand... I did a lot of editing and I tried to do it as good as possible. But I didn't know that a page like Linafoot had to be made that way, I couldn't find it anywhere and no one told me until you now. But I'm done editing for Wikipedia, everything I add isn't good enough. In the reactions, a lot of people did appreciate the attendance figures for example, but it can't be made with 100% reliable sources, so the information simply can't be added. I did add relative reliable sources, and I found a lot of information on Wikipedia without sources where no one seems to complain about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houndground (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you can take some time and comeback later. Then you can read a lot of information and look at other articles how they are built. If I am still editing wikipedia then, I might be able to help you and gice you some good guidelines to read. Qed237 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Is it okay if I'll try to add the Linafoot 2016-17 page again, without the errors you mentioned? I want to learn to make the pages the right way, as good as possible. Can you please let me know if things are not right, and how I could do it better the next time? Thanks for the help. Houndground (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Editing

Thank you. Is it okay if I'll try to add the Linafoot 2016-17 page again, without the errors you mentioned? I want to learn to make the pages the right way, as good as possible. Can you please let me know if things are not right, and how I could do it better the next time? Thanks for the help. Houndground (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You fool!

I am writing to you because you controversially reverted most of IP 86.185.127.247's good faith edits. Furthermore, we DO write scores with home score first AND George Boyd's ref 156 got a worse display by displaying RED text. PLUS, you have re-inserted the "ghost caption" of Steve Simonsen which shouldn't be in the source code as the photo was deleted two years ago.

Thank you and happy 1st July. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.147.73 (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Before you start calling people names, there are some things you need to learn. For example the first source you change here says Alistair Magowan wrote the article so that change can be seen as vandalism. Also I explained the clear should be avoided as it depends on the width of your personal screen. Qed237 (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

1985 AFC U-16 Championship

Dude, why did you revert my edits in this article??? Ipsumesse (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

An explanation would be nice, man. Ipsumesse (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I reverted myself didnt I? Also your edits were as it looked completely unsourced and nothing to support the matches. Qed237 (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

What are you on about???!!!

You are the one vandalizing Wikipedia here! I am doing nothing wrong! I have no idea what you are talking about. Stop doing this please.MValera (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Answer at your talkpage for a centralised discussion. Qed237 (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

KS Torun

Hello, I did not vandalize KS Torun. Their official sponsored name is now KS Get Well Torun. Sponsor name "Apator" is not in their name anymore. If you don't believe me, please check (the ranking table on) their official site: http://speedway.torun.pl/. Houndground (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Houndground: Then you should have asked for a WP:RM on the article talkpage. We can not have a article title that does not match the content. Qed237 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
And you didnt provide a single source when editing. Qed237 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for making Wikipedia more up to date... There's already a link to the official page with the club's new official name, but okay, next time I'll add a reference.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and you need to do it correctly. Qed237 (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

time of Beitar v Botev

hey, I went into the site again to make sure I didn't make a mistake, but it indeed shows me 19:45 as the k.o. time. Perhaps it's by the local time-zone of access (I'm actually in Israel, UTC+3)? --SuperJew (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess it depends on local time then. I live in CEST (summer) / CET (winter) so for me the times are always the same as UEFA use as standard. Qed237 (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
@SuperJew: By the way, do you know why legs has been switched? On Botev webpage they still write that they will start at home. Qed237 (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
According to Israeli press, it's because Bnei Yehuda are hosting at HaMoshava Stadium in the 2nd leg, and so are Beitar so they switched the fixtures (probably UEFA originally expected Beitar to host at their regular stadium Teddy, but they can't because of the Maccabiah Games). --SuperJew (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Park Ji-sung

Any chance you could have a look at the recent changes to Park Ji-sung. An anonymous editor is changing the article to have his stint with Myongji University as part of his "youth" career instead of the "college" career where it belongs. – PeeJay 13:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I took a quick look, and my main concern is actually the sources. There is no source for Suwon Technical High School or Myongji University. But if there were, I would agree that at least the last one belongs to college. Qed237 (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The sources are easy to come by – I've just googled and found plenty of evidence that he played for both. I'm just asking if you could revert the anon's edits so I don't break 3RR. – PeeJay 13:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

"in use" tag at 2017–18 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round

Do you plan to put the {{in use}} tag on 2017–18 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round the next day of games? I think I have a problem with this approach, which it seems is how you handled 29 June and 6 July. I appreciate that it is frustrating to edit when there are edit conflicts, but I don't see how we can say one editor essentially calls "dibs" on updating the article. Is this common practice by other football editors on other pages? Was there a discussion somewhere on using this? I was going to get other opinions at a noticeboard somewhere (I haven't decided which board is best, and I am absolutely not planning on seeking some kind of sanction, just going to ask on clarification for the future), but first I thought I'd ask if you plan to do it again, because there's no point in discussing it at a noticeboard if you don't plan to do it. Or if there's already been a clear consensus established somewhere that this is OK. If I do raise the issue somewhere, I will certainly let you know when and where I do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Hi, and thank you for your question. Previous seasons, we were a few editors (3 or 4) that discussed before each matchday and "divided" the work between us. The reason we felt we had to do this was a lot of IP's and inexperienced editors caused a lot of errors in the articles while updating their favourite team. They also caused a lot of edit conflicts, which is a really big issue on these matchdays. These big matchdays can quickly get out of hand and chaotic, so that is why I have choosen to do this. It is not my intention to WP:OWN the article, and if the work is divided amongst editors in a way to avoid edit conflicts that is great. When User:SuperJew and User:Nmk829 added goalscorers to the matches it worked great. I am open for a discussion about this to see what is the best way of keeping these article both correct and updated as quickly as possible (it goes a lot quicker when there are no edit conflicts). Qed237 (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
At the time I think we discussed it at the talkpage of User:The Replicator. Perhaps we should open a discussion at Wipipedia:WikiProject Football first? Or a noticeboard works as well. Qed237 (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I took it to WT:FOOTY, at least to start. Thread is here: [3]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo

Can you please respond to the points raised on the Talk page? Also, i have noticed that the quote from Mourinho has been readded. Can this be removed as it is an outdated opinion and does not back up the claim as intended. (In 2016 Mourinho named Maradona, Pele and Messi as the three greatest footballers of all time http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/690890/Manchester-United-News-Gossip-Rumours-Jose-Mourinho-Top-Three-Players-Messi-Not-Ronaldo ) I would make the change myself but with your recent threat of a block I thought it would be wise to ask you to do it instead. Thanks in advance. O'Flannery (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no point for two or three editors to completely fill up the entire talkpage. Now not a single person will join the RFC because it is way to long. It has been completely ruined, and no consensus will be found amongst those currently writing. There is a reason I stopped. In these situations it is better if the concerned editors say what they think in one or two edits and then let others join in. That is the point of an RFC (comments from others). Regarding the article, I will take a look. Qed237 (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for making that clear, although I hope the points raised will be addressed by you, and others, at a later date. I will refrain from commenting for the time being. Thank you for taking a look at the article (it is a citation for note 1) O'Flannery (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
What are your thoughts regarding the use of that quote? do you agree it should be removed? O'Flannery (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I have been very busy lately so I have not had the time to look at it yet. It is at my "to do-list". Qed237 (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
ok, whenever you get the time, thanks. O'Flannery (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
or shall I just remove it, and if Shady59 starts another edit war then you can intervene? O'Flannery (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I have read the articles now. I am not so sure that it should be removed. It sounds like the sources for the statement in your link are not great and sounds like he is more upset of leaving Real Madrid. Qed237 (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean about the sources, so I have provided more links to the same quote. As for your comment 'sounds like he is more upset of leaving Real Madrid', that is simply conjecture on your part and should not be relevant (especially as it was from 3 years after leaving Madrid too) A bias could be presumed for the quote from 2013 also, since he made that comment while he was the manager of Madrid. Links to the 2016 quote: http://www.sport-english.com/en/news/barca/mourinho-chooses-his-three-best-footballers-all-time-5278608 http://www.foxsports.com/soccer/story/jose-mourinho-lionel-messi-pele-diego-maradona-top-3-best-ever-cristiano-ronaldo-071916 Your thoughts? O'Flannery (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Manchester United

Removed Manchester United 2017 link as this is not confirmed by either clubs. Please stop re-adding this or it will be reported. User-Craigw87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigw87 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Craigw87: Look at the article again before coming to my talkpage with bogus complaints. Qed237 (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I am unable to see any article that was referenced. Craigw87

@Craigw87: Look again, I just reverted you to be able to undue the addition of the vandal and restore the article as it was before. Qed237 (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@Craigw87: An other editor had to step in again reverting to the same version as it was after my final edit. Qed237 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@Craigw87: Any response or do you now realise that you were completely wrong? Please be careful and do not warn people that do not deserve it. Qed237 (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
In this edit you actually restored the edit from NYFC so if anything you where disruptive when you undid my edit when I reverted vandalism. Qed237 (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Attendances

Those attendance figures might not be interesting for you, but for a lot of people it is interesting. Wikipedia is not only about what's interesting for you. Most Wikipedia club and league pages already had the attendance figures included, they're very common as said by other people in the reactions before. I've only added the missing figures of major sports leagues and I only have to add around 4 or 5 more leagues and then I'm done. Houndground (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Amos nondi

hey i would like to ask why you marked Amos Nondi for speedy deletion yet Amos Nondi played in an league allstars match against Hull City Fc and was also named among the top players in kenya, he also earned a call up for the national team which qualifies him as a top player — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennwes32 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kennwes32: If you look again, you can see that I did not tag it for notability reasons. And if I had, your reasons would not have been sufficient as he has not played in any fully proffessional league or national team. Being called up is not enough (he has not played), and playing in a friendly match is not enough for notability either. Qed237 (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It's identical so I've deleted and SALTed. GiantSnowman 17:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting to Get a Administrator Page role for My Article

Hi Sir

{{Some Months Back we where registered our article Called Basically its a Temple Article Mandyada Sri Shiradi Sai Baba Mandir and for 2 to 3 attempts the page was on to deletion and we worked with Mandyada Sri Shiradi Sai Baba Temple but this went on cool because of one change of village name, the person changed village name to the new name on formula the page was on to deletion for 2 days and got deleted, same way they attempted Mandyada Shri Shiradi Sai Baba Mandir H Highlighted Shri we pre requested what's really wrong going on out , it was nothing . but no response , it was on delete}}. and more over the use name was blocked Pranerao EMail Prane_98@yahoo.init was 2 months back}}.

Sir As am the temple Chairman looking to Get back this articles work again , with our details and more.}} Bhaskaraomsai 12:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Looking to get a feed back from you Thanks. Bhaskar Rao M Sai}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskaraomsai (talk • contribs) 12:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why you try and contact me as I am not an administrator on wikipedia and I do not have anything to do with this. What I can say is that if you have a blocked account, you should ask for it to be unblocked rather than creating a new account. Also, articles does not belong to anyone, they are a part of the community and there is no such thing as a "administrator page role". Qed237 (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your help at Marko Arnautović Kind regards MJ ☕ 14:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo

What happened to our discussion regarding Ronaldo on here? O'Flannery (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not bene able to be active last week due to events in real life. Qed237 (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
No worries. I was just wondering why the converation here on your talk page disappeared.O'Flannery (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

UCL and UEL seedings

Hi. If I may, on what basis do you calculate the possible seedings of teams for the group stages? As things stand now, the Europa League article puts Fastav and Lugano into seeding pots 2, 3 or 4, but I don't see how these two can theoretically make it into pot 2. Consider: For a team to be in pot 2 in Europa League, there has to be at least 24 teams lower-ranked teams in a position to qualify for the group stage. However, there are only 20 teams ranked lower than Lugano. And even if there are exactly 24 teams ranked lower than Fastav, they cannot possibly all qualify for the group stage, as at least two of them will be eliminated (Ostersund/Fola and Shkendija/Trakai). Or am I missing something? Cheers. Ivan Volodin (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ivan Volodin: I use a computer program I created myself and then I verify it by manual calculations and the program has never been wrong for the last two years. However, I have been very busy in real life so I have not been chacking the seedings for the last couple of weeks. But I will do it now. Qed237 (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ivan Volodin: I have done calculations now and I will continue to do so now the upcoming matches. You were completely right and the teams has been moved. Qed237 (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Horizontal alignment of the sports table module

Just posting here for a quicker response, but how do I horizontally align the sports table module? By that, I mean for this article, I'd like to move Group B to be aligned to the right of Group A, just to save some space and be easier to read. If this is something simple to do, then I haven't figured it out. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: I found a way to do it via the stack template. But if there is a native way for the module to be arranged like this, I'd still like to know about it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Dissident93: There is no native way to horizontally align the templates at the moment. For an other example how it can be done you can look at 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification#UEFA. Qed237 (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I thought so, thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello there. Im a old "friends" of you and please I ask youti intervene at Freddie Veseli because Im going unfortunely through an edit wat with another user. Thank you. --Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Request

2018 FIFA World Cup is close to finish. It's time for the simulation, which national team will qualify for 2018 FIFA World Cup. Of course, if you have a lot of time. --5.172.234.239 (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Volleyball players layout

Hello there is a discussion about the volleyball players layout being held in the WikiProject Volleyball talk page. Please visit us and help us with your contributions. --Osplace 17:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Volleyball Module Template

I request you to change their size to smaller and merge column, like this. I would like to bring this module to use the FIVB tournaments in 2018. Can you discus for the module in WikiProject_Volleyball. --BTechTV (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Rank Team Matches Pts Sets Points
W L W L Ratio W L Ratio
1  China 5 0 14 15 4 3.750 454 343 1.324
2  Brazil 3 2 11 13 7 1.857 438 405 1.081
3  United States 3 2 7 10 10 1.000 431 434 0.993
4  Russia 2 3 7 9 10 0.900 411 427 0.963
5  Japan 2 3 6 10 11 0.909 462 471 0.981
6  South Korea 0 5 0 0 15 0.000 260 376 0.691

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Qed237. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

About 2017 Faroe Islands Premier League

Hi Qed237,

I think you made a number of good points in your speedy deletion nomination.

In light of these issues, ! have redirected "2017 Faroe Islands Premier League" to Faroe Islands Premier League.

Please do nominate the redirect page for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion if you think I got it wrong.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qed237/Archive_28&oldid=1151903722"