:Hi, I am not an administrator so I can not block anyone. If this IP is previously warned you could try report to [[WP:ARV]] or otherwise give the editor a warning (if they made some sort of action that you can warn them for). <span style="font-family:Verdana">[[User:Qed237|<font color="blue">'''''QED'''''</font><font color="red">'''''237'''''</font>]] [[User talk:Qed237|<font color="green">('''''talk''''')</font>]]</span> 12:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
:Hi, I am not an administrator so I can not block anyone. If this IP is previously warned you could try report to [[WP:ARV]] or otherwise give the editor a warning (if they made some sort of action that you can warn them for). <span style="font-family:Verdana">[[User:Qed237|<font color="blue">'''''QED'''''</font><font color="red">'''''237'''''</font>]] [[User talk:Qed237|<font color="green">('''''talk''''')</font>]]</span> 12:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
== Regarding undo done in 2013-14 CL ==
Hi there. Just confused when the scores in there are "2" and "7" in the aggregate columns. ~~[[User:iitoutcast|Deepak]] ([[User talk:iitoutcast|talk]]) 18:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Revision as of 18:13, 19 March 2014
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.
This is Qed237's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Infoboxes
Please stop removing acceptable information from infoboxes - notation of the the team that knocks a club out of a cup competition is perfectly acceptable information as can be seen here, here, here - all of which have been accepted as Good Articles with it's inclusion. There is no compunction to include that notation but there is also no reason to remove it if it exists. Please stop making diruptive edits. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a second and think about the tone you are using. Just because I try and improve wikipedia does not mean my edits are "diruptive", that sort of wording will come back and bite you. The fact is that infoboxes are very often too big with a lot of unneccesary info and Wikipedia:Infobox templates#Purpose of an infobox clearly states that we should keep the info to a minimum: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.".
You should know I will most likely take this furter to find some sort of consensus. No Premier League article has this info and I see no use at all for it. I am sure that if I look I can find just as many GA's without that unneccesary information. It should be mentioned in text and not infoboxes. QED237(talk)11:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Mikel Arteta shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
@GiantSnowman:, Yes I know, I am so sorry. Had a lot on my mind and many things to do, so in my head I had not reverted three times until I counted them. I stopped as soon as I saw it. So sorry it will not happen again. Dont think the template is really nheccesary since I stopped. We should not template regulars? QED237(talk)18:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Templating regulars for things like 3RR should not be necessary, but it sometimes is. Sorry if it seems harsh but I cannot ignore your part in this, especially after I blocked the IP. GiantSnowman18:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I see that you've blanked the article, apparently for a deletion request. As far as I know, however, a blanking is only considered a deletion request if the author, who is the main contributor to the article, blanks his own article. Since you have not created the page, I suggest that you bring up the matter at WP:RFD instead. I've reverted your edit for now. Thanks! KJclick here00:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2013–14 FC Schalke 04 season
That isn't an up–to–date club season article. I have change the format that I would use. I don't add friendly matches anymore. I have it separated by each competition the club is in. I added a "background" section as the first section and moved the transfers sub–section up with the "background" section. I also have combined the the date and kick–off time columns in the match report table. I have eliminated the "city" column from the same table. I have deleted the "table" section in the match report table and put it in it's own seperate table in it's own sub–section. I have also started to combined minutes played with the appearance and goal table for the squad statistics. The 2013–14 FK Austria Wien season article is an example of how I currently do it. The issue with Italia2006 started here. The very first thing he says to Werner100359, who looks like doesn't have a whole lot of experience, "Please stop editing this article..." In my opinion, Italia2006 has been rude to me in the past and what he said to Werner100359 was rude. The debate seems to have moved over to commas. I have pointed out that there is more than one user who uses commas. Then Werner100359 quoted Italia2006 on my talk page. Kingjeff (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're starting to have a serious problem on our hands. He won't use the consensus-decided model because he "doesn't like it?" Are you kidding me? The rudeness he references actually has to do with previous incarnations of the same argument. He's just upset he's wrong. How should we go about fixing these articles? Italia2006 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know how we should go about? Perhaps discuss at WT:FOOTY with big risk ManUtd guy will say collapsible is no good or edit the articles ourselves? I am afraid I dont have much time, my time on wiki is limited nowadays and I have a lot of things to do. QED237(talk)00:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may be a case for vandalism if he's constantly going against what is clearly the consensus-decided format and layout and insists on doing what "he likes" (which gets more ridiculous every time I read it). Italia2006 (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what troubles me is that I have not read any "consensus" in written for more than the fact that everyone uses the collabsible boxes. Otherwise the ManUtd article would have been changed as well. QED237(talk)00:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have to distinguish between de facto and de jure consensuses. This is more de facto than de jure. If it comforts you I'll see to the Manchester United article being converted as well. For one thing, I'll ensure the 2014–15 article is begun with the collapsible football boxes. Italia2006 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that sounds great. Unfortunately as I said I dont have much time (develoing new league table templates, spain next) and I have a lot on my mind outside wiki, but I will keep an eye out if you want/need any help. QED237(talk)00:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Qed237, The club season article that Italia2006 had problems with was the 2013–14 FC Red Bull Salzburg season. I didn't set the format for that article. So, please don't make out like I go around arbitrarily deciding to impose my own format on other users. Please show me if there has been any consensus about the collapsible boxes. When I start a club season article, it's I, the creator of the article, that decides the format. If another user takes issue with me about my format, I am willing to use consensus. here. By the way, I am absolutely insulted that I wasn't informed about this discussion about me. Kingjeff (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah you're absolutely insulted I'm sure. You posted on this page discussing a topic which I'm a part of without mentioning me, but I don't feel insulted because it's not a big deal. Italia2006 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that the creator sets format for article. That is a problem since editors can start articles way too soon just to set "their format". It would be some warring who is first. And I am sorry if you feel offended, I do never start discussions about other editors, but this time I replied and perhaps I should not have done that. Sorry. QED237(talk)11:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not in an authoritarian sense. But when the creator's creates the article, he has made a decision on what format to use. There isn't much an editor can do if it doesn't go against Wikipedia policy. Consensus would be the only way. If it does violate policy, then you can make changes without even making consensus. Kingjeff (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Agreed, Kingjeff. Italia2006, there has never been a proper discussion about what format club season articles should adopt. In fact, the earliest club season articles used tables, just as I did when I started on the Manchester United season articles. If anything, the articles that use collapsible boxes should be converted to use tables. But until such a discussion occurs, there should be no mass changes to any set of club season articles, especially if the only rationale you're using for the change is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. – PeeJay11:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. Tables are the antiquated form for articles. How much clearer can it be when easily 95% of the season articles use them? If we're talking about rationale, I have no idea what your rationale would be for converting the dominant form. Italia2006 (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are they antiquated? Tables are not obsolete, nor do the collapsible boxes provide any additional info that is actually relevant to the articles they are used in. No one is suggesting that any mass changes be made - in fact, I said that there shouldn't be any until a proper discussion takes place. Please, if you want to make sweeping changes, discuss them first. – PeeJay17:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19 of 20 Premier League club articles use the format I've been talking about. The one that doesn't is the one you edit. Bias much? Italia2006 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I really wish you would've read this — "This is what I'm talking about. The Manchester United article uses commas because it doesn't use Footballbox collapsible. The reason I haven't argued with that editor is because that format for Manchester United's season articles goes back decades."
— before commenting here. Kingjeff didn't create articles with his own format, he converted them. I understand YOU using the format that you do because it's been in place for such a long time. But take a look at 2011–12 FC Bayern Munich season and you'll see that Kingjeff has done this only recently and has no legitimate reason to do so. Italia2006 (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. We've been through this before, as you may or may not remember. See #League table template above. Despite my asking you to point me to the WT:FOOTY consensus that required the template to be used, you couldn't didn't. Nevertheless, I have not removed the league table template from the article, despite its having regularly been one or two, or even worse one-and-a-half, matchdays out of date.
Even if there is consensus at WT:FOOTY to use the template for the "current" league table, I'm afraid you can't insist on the removal of the league table as of the day of Birmingham's last game, which is not necessarily the same as the table as of the last Championship matchday. Thank you for your understanding. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the discussions at WT:FOOTY got enthusiasm from template-enthusiasts, an attempt at constructive comment from a few, some of which was ignored, and general indifference from most people. If you think that's consensus, then fine, perhaps it is.
If I were introducing some particular item of code on Wikipedia, I sincerely hope I'd make sure there were enough people interested enough to update the thing completely at the end of each matchday or thenabouts before trying to enforce its use. I don't think it's constructive insisting on us using the thing and then telling us "well, if it's not updated, do it yourself". It does the readers no service if the articles are worse with it than without it. And some are.
But that's by the by. I'm not sure what your problem is with my including a table as of the club's last matchday. Ever since the BCFC season articles included a league table extract, that's what it's been. I'm not including it instead of your template, but as well. You can't really think our readers are so easily confused that they can't tell the difference between a table in a section headed "League table (part) as of the date of Birmingham's last game" and a table in a section headed "Current league table (part)", surely? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As often happens, the template is updated after the early game on a Saturday. So for several hours at a minimum, it reads "Updated to games played on 1 March 2014" or whatever, when it actually means "Updated to games played at 12.45 on 1 March 2014 but not the later ones". And, as also often happens, it isn't updated again for somt time, perhaps because potential updaters glance at it, see it's "Updated to games played on 1 March 2014", and don't check to see if it actually has been.
On your second point, please remember that we're talking about the Birmingham season article, not the Championship season. The trivial answer, though with a valid point seeing as I'm not advocating excluding the "current" table, is that with both versions in the article, the reader would get the chance to directly compare how much difference your hypothetical three-week hiatus had made to their league standing... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FPL
Why are you saying the link [1] doesn't work? It works fine here, and has been in the article for ages to reference the league for Australia. And why remove New Zealand? If you do that, why not remove the MLS and NASL entries for Canada, which surely are the same thing? Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It works now that you gave it to me here but it did not work at the article. Just showed "page can not be shown", must have been some minor error you did with the link. Otherwise I guess it is okay. QED237(talk)22:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to the version I created and it was fine. Must have been a web hiccup. Okay, link works. But what is the objection to the actual content? Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest after taking a second look I might have been to fast, but you should still have put explanation at the talkpage before you re-added the information. But I can agree with you now that the link is working. QED237(talk)22:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not used to discussing what seems to be a minor non-contentious edits at Talk on any other page. And discussion at Talk on this page in particular never seem to come to a resolution. And now I'm stuck, because now when I reverted your edit, a 3rd editor came in, simply on the basis that I'm disagreeing with 2 other editors, and seems to have reverted it on principle, without even considering the content ... Nfitz (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been fine if you just gave an explanation on the talkpage. However I restored your edit now and hope it works out. Have a nice day. QED237(talk)23:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hopefully it avoids a 2-week debate at talk, which at the end of the day, no once can figure out what the conclusion was ... :) Nfitz (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Qed237. You have new messages at Corvoe's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Negredo
Hi. Álvaro Negredo never played for the first team of Real Madrid. He was repurchased and resold immediately. The story is explained in your timeline, it is not necessary appear in the infobox. Thank you.
Gringoladomenega (talk) 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Just because he did not play does not mean it should not be listed. Per WP:BRD you should take it to talk before re-reverting and this is second time in a month you do this. Please discuss at article talkpage (or go to WT:FOOTY). QED237(talk)22:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prem 2014-15
Hey QED. Thanks for pointing out my mistake there, I was being somewhat lazy with checking my facts. However, I was still correct to add City as confirmed to be in the 2014-15 season. Please also observe from your own source that Norwich and West Brom can only score 58 points apiece. They are also due to play each other, thus guaranteeing that one or both must fail to reach 57 points and thus City are confirmed safe for the following season.
I actually ran a few scenarios on a PL prediction table which allows you to predict scores and see how it affects the table. There are actually so many teams down the bottom on just a few more points than Sunderland, and yet who each must play other bottom-half teams so many times, that I struggled to even get City to finish below 10th. Simply put, there are far too many dropped points from bottom-end clubs playing each other for City to not be safe. Falastur2Talk22:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I understand, you are most likely correct. What puzzles me is that the source (not mine per say, I didn't even like the article being created so soon) still has City as "lowest possible finish 18th" which woiuld mean relegation, and that this is the source. So adding City goes directly against the source and we should follow source (even if wrong as this time). Perhaps there is a better source out there?. QED237(talk)22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that this is because they didn't calculate all the different scenarios, they just - as, in fairness, most do - calculated lowest possible finishes based simply on how many points each team could score, and not on whether it was possible for all of these to happen at once. The problem is it's actually really quite difficult to come up with an algorithm which calculates these scenarios, especially when you're talking about more than just two or three teams playing each other and wrecking these maximum points tallies. In the last 5 or so seasons I've tried a number of different methods, and each one comes up lacking. For this exact reason, most websites simply won't even offer a "lowest possible finish" stat, as it's virtually impossible to calculate manually and would be far too complex to be worth the effort of coming up with a computer solution for. Honestly, you're lucky to have even found that one website - regardless of the fact that it, simply put, is wrong. Falastur2Talk23:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is so true, but what should we do next? If we say this is accepted to add man city soon other teams will be added without them being above 18th in "lowest possible finish". And as you said the math is fairly complicated so it is the same discussion of next day sceanrios and WP:OR that has been on WT:FOOTY earlier. We should not add anything if we dont have source for it, even if I know you are right. QED237(talk)23:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to say. Possibly the best thing is to do what has previously always been done - simply wait until the simple, if slightly less accurate, method of ruling a team as qualified applies - and only include City when at least three teams individually cannot catch them, which is what you were doing before. I'd be happy simply ignoring the whole "must be supported by an outside website" thing here because I don't think it applies in this situation, but I understand that I am in the minority with this view so I won't try to fight for it with any real energy. Honestly, even though the chances of people exploiting it are low, you're probably right that it's simply not worth letting it fly.
Let's not make this conversation about something it's not by bringing up WP:OR though. WPOR is probably my most hated thing about Wikipedia, because 99% of Wikipedia users don't understand what it means. WPOR is not about compiling different numerical statistics, because mathematics by very nature is either correct or incorrect, and in a case like this where you know all the info you need, you can comprehensively prove or disprove anything given only time and mathematical ability. If three people wear red ties and there are eight people in the room, it is not original research to calculate that 8 - 3 = 5 people are not wearing ties. Nor is it original research to, say, total up the total number of goals scored by a team in the Premier League era, or calculate when a team is safe from relegation. Just because no-one has printed the maths on an external website does not mean that the maths is inherently unprovable. If no website in the world contained the sum "1 + 1 = 2" it would not mean that we could not verify that that sum was correct on Wikipedia. No, WPOR is about stopping people from, say, finding that sales of French-made pop albums had gone down since 2012 (I made that up, for the record) and then making an article called "The Decline of the French Music Industry", or watching the news about the current situation in the Ukraine and editting the article on the Russian military to talk about how Russian foreign policy now involved using military forces disguised as local paramilitaries to forcibly annex neighbouring states. Both of these have some basic facts which imply they could possibly be true, but it is not provable that they are actually accurate, and it is Original Research to claim that they are.
Well written and I must say I can agree with you. There is something about routine calculation in OR i believe which has been debated in next day scenarios with a lot of boolean algebra wheter that is routine calc or not, but I guess this is not what OR was for. If you want to add Man City I wont stop you, but I suggest we wait. It is up to you. QED237(talk)22:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mesut Ozil Update
Hello, I was going through stats of Mesut Ozil and found them not updated. Hence, I made some edits to the stats table for Mesut Ozil based upon the link number 90. I just saw that you have reverted those edits. Can you please verify the edits and make the necessary updates? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushkar.np (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The templates I mentioned on Kante4's page are {{fb}} and {{fbw}}. If substitution is used with these templates, instead of substituting a wikilink, it substitutes {{flag}} with three parameters ( | altlink = women's national football team | altvar = football | mw = women's ) for the fbw template. I had simply put a wikilink and {{flagicon}} which was replaced by the fbw template here. I feel if the wikilink is a proper one, there is no reason to replace it with a template that transcludes another template. EddieV2003 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Costa
I'm having more experience of the user who reverted my clarifications without explanation. He then reverted my copyedit to an intro paragraph, changing it from constant gerund to past tenses with a very poorly written note that I was, to paraphrase, inserting the entire article into that paragraph. I think WP:COMPETENCE comes into play here as I am not convinced of his English language ability. The Almightey Drill (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Man, stop threatening me and wanting to intimidate me, I get me with another user.--User:Gringoladomenega (talk) 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I is not about intimidiation you have to learn about wikipedia rules. ONe revert than you should discuss at talkpage. You should now that being warned a couple of times in the past. QED237(talk)21:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Friend, I already did what you said. Now, no need to reverse everything that I edit. In Giovani dos Santos, this (my) is the original edition, until an anonymous user with IP started to change. Leave this way it has always been thus. Thank you.--User:Gringoladomenega (talk) 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The IP has the right to edit to. You can not do three reverts for any reason except clear vandalism. Please read the info in the wanrnings you have recieved. QED237(talk)22:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I report for vandalism? You think I'm that? Look at my other contributions. Sempe'm collaborating and reverting vandals. Have you explained to me about the situation and all right, we were talking about it, it was not necessary.--User:Gringoladomenega (talk) 7 March 2014 (UTC)
i did not revert anyone at this article, only consulted the page as the other fellow user asked me to. Sincerely (it's always the best policy) i do agree with him, at least in box, what's the limit for playing positions in the box?
In Giovani's case, methinks FORWARD would suffice marvelously, but that's just me. I also agree the fellow user "at hand" should use more summaries and discuss things more thoroughly, but he's in no way a vandal, no siree.
Speaking about a related matter (Diego Costa), messaged the other user that has been involved in the articles recently, about having all my changes reverted (and i do write summaries, unlike Gringo), my message was summarily removed without one word of reply, but he did leave the interaction between himself, you and a BLOCKED user, so in his eyes i'm worse than a WP disruptive editor, fair enough. Don't know why people act like that towards me (Almigthey is not the first to do so, nor is he the fifth or the tenth), really saddens me.
Why do You keep on edit Allsvenskan ??? The best position that (my team) Landskrona BoIS ever has achieved is 3rd, in 1937/38. Please see https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotbollsallsvenskan_1937/1938. At this time goal ratio was used to differ teams with the same points, not goal difference. And Helsingborgs 36/27 > 40/31. This is very well known, and not forgotten among supporters of Landskrona BoIS. Specially since it was their main local rivals Helsingborg that benefited from the goal ratio system. Are You some kind of Sock Puppet for Reckless ? (Sorry, but I have to ask) Boeing720 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Timestamps
Hi mate. I see what you're trying to do by reverting people who don't update timestamps when they update stats, but wouldn't it make more sense for you to simply check the stats and update the timestamp yourself, then leave a message on the offending editor's talk page? It would save us from having out-of-date articles and might not discourage new editors from contributing. (I realise I'm probably guilty of doing that myself in the past, but I hope that doesn't preclude me from giving advice!) – PeeJay00:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not an administrator so I can not block anyone. If this IP is previously warned you could try report to WP:ARV or otherwise give the editor a warning (if they made some sort of action that you can warn them for). QED237(talk)12:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
