User talk:Qed237

Reverted edit in UEFA Euro 2016 3rd ranked teams table

Hello, I saw you just reverted my edit in the table (and left me a message). Im okay with your decision, but then Im a bit confused by what order are the teams ranked, cuz right now to me they seem ranked rather randomly (and am confused how was my edit not constructive). What is decisive for the order of the table in case of a tie in the points (and goals). I thought in case of even performances (points and score), they would be ordered alphabetically, but that doesnt seem to be the case. Judging by the top 3 teams (England-Ireland-Iceland), I thought they are ranked by the group they are in (B-E-F), so I thought by that logic at the bottom of the table it should be Northern Ireland befor Czech Republic (group C before group D)...? At this point I dont see how was that not constructive and how exactly are they supposed to be ranked? I thank you in advance for the explanation and Ill certainly follow it in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msb73505 (talk • contribs)

I will respond at your talkpage to keep discussion in one place. Qed237 (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your recent report at WP:AIV

Re your recent report at WP:AIV [1]: AIV should be for obvious cases of vandalism. You disagree with the way this editor contributes, and it must certainly be frustrating that they never respond to any talk page attempts to engage. But you've already brought this up at WP:ANI - MarcoAlbani1998, and failed to elicit any concern from the many people that commented on your report. I suggest that you need to let this annoyance go, and learn to live with it. Your edit history shows an intense focus on European Football, and that's good, but that passion might be getting in the way of you accepting the Wikipedia environment as it is. We're all part of the Wikipedia community, and some editors are destructive and vandalise, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus that this editor is a problem. I can even see where the extra whitespace would be annoying. To be honest, it would bug me, too. But the solution to the problem is within you. My two cents. Willondon (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Willondon: So this being immediately reverted, or this being reverted, or this changing to an image that dont exist, or this addition of bad png, and same disruptive image change here also being reverted. Note that only once it was me that reverted him and at least three different editors has been reverting him all the time. I get the blank spaces and I have dropped that, put that is just the tip of the iceberg. This editor is doing so much weird edits and never talks to anyone, just keeps on doing them and is obviously WP:NOTHERE. Qed237 (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Willondon: And it continues again. Could you at least have a word with him? Qed237 (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The vandalism is hard to see. The edit you mentioned [2] invokes a different file with the '.png' extension, instead of the original '.svg'. Both files exist and look substantially the same (when rendered on my screen), so it seems like this uncommunicative editor just has a preference for one format over the other. Seems the editor is at least intending to improve the article, so I still assume good faith. Still, Wikipedia:Competence is required, and there are good faith editors that nevertheless create a mess. Not knowing much about football, it might be difficult for me (or others) to see where the damage is exactly. In any case, WP:AIV won't be the forum for fixing it. A well-crafted case at WP:ANI will probably be required. It would be useful to have a tool to report what percentage of an editor's changes get reverted with the next edit. I don't know if one exists or not. I understand your frustration. I'm just saying that WP:AIV isn't likely to be able to help you in this case. Willondon (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I checked both versions of the page, and the images render almost exactly the same on my screen. Is it possible they're just using a format that isn't accessible by everyone? Willondon (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Willondon:For any kind of images, such as this one, which is drawn svg is preferred as it is in vector for much is downloaded faster and is smaller in storage space. Also as you say the look can be distorted for some editors with png. There is absolutly no reason for the editor to change a working svg to png. Qed237 (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I learned a lot today, reading Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload and Commons:File_types#Size_and_scaling. (I’m not complaining. Any excuse to postpone work is fine by me.) My take is that for the diagram you referred to, the SVG format is indeed the preferred one, though PNG files are respected as a useful format.

A real problem is that the editor doesn’t respond to anything for some reason, and does not leave edit summaries. If you want to pursue it, I think you’ll need to find a forum where this sort of thing is discussed and build a consensus that the SVG versions should be used instead of the PNG. After that, any persistence with no attempts to communicate could be considered disruptive, and you might interest an administrator in helping with the problem. That looks like a tough slog, so you might consider going to WP:ANI with a simple request (i.e. not delving into the details of the actual content disputes) based on the total lack of communication. Sincerely, best of luck. Willondon (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Dele Alli

why did you revert edits on early life, its true hes from heelands/conniburrow I know him 2A02:C7D:B5D8:7D00:8C2B:BBA7:BC30:F814 (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced and not notable. Qed237 (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2016

Hello, i'm talking about table Group C after Ukraina vs Northern Ireland. The correct position should be, Germany in pos.1 cause have higher goal different, next Northern Ireland in pos.2 cause have higher goal scorer than Poland. So I edit with correct position, but you reverted. What you thinking about that? Sorry if my English is bad. Farizkang (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Farizkang: Read the tiebreaker rules. Head-to-head record comes first (as always in UEFA competitons). So far the only match between teams on 3 points in Poland v Northern Ireland 1–0 so Poland 3p (+1), Germany 0p (+0) and Northern Ireland 0p (-1) in head-to-head. Qed237 (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) (edit conflict) Farizkang The first tiebreaker is head-to-head matches- in head-to-head matches between Germany, Poland & Northern Ireland, Poland have 1 win, Germany haven't played any, and N Ireland have 1 defeat. So the order should be Poland, Germany, N Ireland. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

No, No, No, if you see in the article

The four best third-placed teams are determined according to the following criteria:

Higher number of points obtained;

Superior goal difference;

Higher number of goals scored;

Fair play conduct;

Position in the UEFA national team coefficient ranking system.

and no head to head — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farizkang (talk • contribs) 18:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Farizkang: That is how you rank the third-placed teams since they dont meet eachother. Within the groups it is head-to-head. Please read the tiebreakers again. Qed237 (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, sorry my fault you was right. Farizkang (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I just wanna ask you, why third place combination ACDE, ACDF, ACEF, ADEF no longer possible. please expain to me cause I don't understand? Farizkang (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Farizkang: Hi. First of all it is good that you asked. The reason is that both group A and group B has finished and the third-placed team of group B (Slovakia 4 points) is ahead of the team in group A (Albania 3 points). So for that reason group A (Albania) can not qualify without group B (slovakia) as they are above them in the ranking. All combinations with A and no B is therfore no longer possible. Qed237 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Álvaro Morata

"Selected for the finals in France,..." (with a source!) is also a live update? Whatever, i'll wait until the game is over. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Be Quiet AL: No, but adding a goal with an empty cite template? You know better than that. Qed237 (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I know man (and sorry if I seemed angry in the original message), AGAIN you are 100% correct. The reason for the ref with empty fields? I often do that, to make job easier (for me or anyone else who edits the page) when game is over. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• I see that you approve of my reversion. Don't worry about the blank ref mate, I PROMISE to add ref when it is ready, even if it kills me :) --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Re this: feel free to notify me directly if the user does something like that again. I'm watching, but I'm not much good at telling right from wrong in football articles. The "0-10" looked kind of unconvincing even to me, though! Bishonen | talk 20:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Okay will do. The match he edited is actually still in play, so perhaps he was predicting the future? Anyway, I will let you know if I see something. Qed237 (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Just to be clear, the current score is not 0-10. If it was I could have assumed good faith and an interest in adding the current score, but now it was pretty clear a delibirate error (from my point of view). Qed237 (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Timestamp

• Hi there, yes I completely forgot that, and I will keep it in mind, thanks a lot.--Bo hessin (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

references to former Yugoslavia in modern-day player infoboxes

I've explained my edit in the edit summary, as well as at length at User talk:FkpCascais#references to former Yugoslavia in modern-day player infoboxes. It appears you used the rollback functionality to facilitate a series of non-vandalism changes. Kindly revert yourself, because that's against the rules clearly spelled out at WP:ROLLBACK. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Joy: We always list conmuntry of birth in infobox. If a person was born in Roman Empire, we dont write whatever current nation the person was born in. It is place at time of birth, which I believe has been explained to you. Qed237 (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2016 knockout phase

Any idea on why Tvx1 continues to remove useful content from UEFA Euro 2016 knockout phase? I really do not see the point of removing the qualified teams table, which is standard on all knockout articles. Also, I see no reason to remove the format explanation, especially since after the tournament is over and the bracket is finished, the pairings will not be as clear. Not sure why the user insists on removing a helpful section, thoughts? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Secret Agent Julio:I have no idea, it is sourced content that should be there. Qed237 (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Zlatan Ibrahimović revert

Hi, I would assume the changes you reverted were made in good faith. Why revert without any comment acknowledging that and without an explanation as to why the changes are not useful? I see many reverts of this kind by established editors here on Wikipedia and I can't imagine it encourages new and inexperienced editors. Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: That was a simple mistake where I accidentally clicked before being able to write a summary. Qed237 (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright. May I suggest you explain on their talk page? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

my editions revert

i compelete all of pages and u delete all of them? why?This behavior is not true. third place and semi final are important and final runnerup are incomplete and Premature. please restore my edits. thanks