User talk:Abcmaxx/Archives/2015

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of association football rivalries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Arabi SC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 7 January

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

• On the Relocation of professional sports teams in the United Kingdom page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relocation of professional sports teams in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dons. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Górnik Wałbrzych (football)

added a link pointing to Legion

Mike Ashley (businessman)

added a link pointing to Ibrox

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of sports rivalries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rauma. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Qatar national handball team

Hi Abcmaxx. In regards to your recent edits on the Qatar national handball team, I think a controversy section is inappropriate. No other handball, or football teams for that matter, have separate controversy sections on their Wikipedia page. I've noticed that if any sort of controversies are added in a national sports team's article, it is usually interpolated in the history section. For an example, see: South_Korea_national_football_team#Semifinalists:_2002_World_Cup (this was the only article I could find with a detailed subsection on a controversy).

I think it would be a boon to the page's consistency if the controversy section were incorporated into a history section and reworded/edited as to be completely relevant to the team itself. I would also add other relevant details of the 2015 tournament, e.g. they are the first non-European team to reach the finals. What do you think? Elspamo4 (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's entirely appropriate, as if it weren't for their dodgy tactics such a team would not exist. I think not having a controversy section on that page is unfair because it's hard to explain why their goalkeeper who's represented 3 other countries suddenly became Qatari, same goes for the other Montenegrins, Spaniards etc. in their squad. Their achievements have been won by these very questionable tactics, so therefore when reading their page and seeing that they are suddenly first, one might mistakenly think Qatar is a top handball nation. I would not really call them a non-European team, they more of a "rest of the world team" and the only one of its kind, plus in all the years of watching handball I have never seen refereeing decisions so blatantly in favour of one team, so how they reached those finals is important too. This team is seen by most as an abomination and ruins the nature of sport, therefore having a "controversy" section is the most neutral way Wikipedia can highlight this.

Now yes, these all came to light during the tournament, but the implications of these antics go further, they have won the Asian championship, and their sudden "success" highlights the corruption and flaws within the IHF, and it's likely they will continue to recruit other mercenaries for future tournaments until someone actually stops them. It also shows that the opponents of the football World Cup 2022 bid were very much right in their fears that Qatar as a host fails to uphold any sporting values, not afraid to resort to bribery and cheating and that they are chosen for any other reason than money.

If you think that Qatar's success is entirely feasible, then I suggest you look at the Saudi Arabian team, a top Asian team which didn't resort to bribing anyone, and despite their best efforts and good will they were convincingly beaten by every team by about 20 goals, such is the gap between Europe and Asia. Saudi Arabia has a much larger population and more resources than Qatar, so if weren't for these controversies, the Qatar national team would look very differently and achieve much less than they currently have. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the main point of my post. I am not proposing to remove the content of the controversy section, I am proposing the incorporation of it in a 'History' section. This is the norm in all of the national sports teams on Wikipedia. Also, if you think you can find sources showing that their success in other certain championships was derived from employing any of these tactics, then please do share. Elspamo4 (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not see the purpose of that, and yes it is the norm for smaller incidents in "normal" teams but not for teams which identities have been drastically shaped by such controversies. In controversial histories separate articles or subsections are common, e.g. RB Leipzig#Criticism, Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes. Given the scale, influence and impact of these controversies, relegating them merely to a history section would be to diminish its importance.Abcmaxx (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you found the only sports team on Wikipedia with a controversy section does nothing to negate my comment. You won't find many others because editors generally follow WP:CRIT and try to maintain a neutral point of view when being involved in an article.

The criticism sections of both the tournament and team are based entirely on fringe theories put forth from non-notable sources and I will correct the content soon enough. You'll be free to discuss any changes you feel are necessary on the talk pages of the articles. Elspamo4 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry what?! Eurosport, onet.pl, ESKA, sport.pl non-notable sources?! Fringe theories?? You're having a laugh right? I'm sure I could find pretty much every sports portal with handball coverage speculating and criticising and saying the same thing, the allegations of match-fixing are pretty serious, as is the exploitation of rules and buying foreign players. I won't find many others because sorry to say Qatar is the only team of a kind, as no other team has ever resorted to these kind of tactics. Per WP:CRIT a section is created to describe a significant criticism made by a notable critic seeing as every non-Qatari sports newspaper and outlet criticised such tactics, even commentators during Qatari matches struggling to defend them. For instance, a person who is notable and sourceable only for having been convicted of murder is arguably implicitly being criticized for most of the article - the Qatari team other than it's existence itself is only really notable for it recent antics and the fact no Qatari players play in it. I realise that you may support the Qatari team but I'm sorry, deleting a criticism section of a team which exists only because of how they built their squad in a country disinterested in handball (hence why they had to buy fans from abroad) is seriously altering the whole article and not fair reflection of its achievements Abcmaxx (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, fine. The only criticism on the tournament article is about Qatar. It is very abnormally written and targets only one country. It is also unheard of to have a separate controversy section in most sports articles. But I'll let someone else deal with the inadequacies. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Because only one country in the entire history of handball has done such things! It targets one country because only one country has adopted such standards and as a result attracted criticism. I don't see your point, the criticism is not directed at Qatar because of prejudice or some big anti-Qatari conspiracy theory, it is simply because of the unsporting tactics they have employed. The fact is the Qatari team is a team made up mercenaries with temporary citizenship and very lucrative financial contracts who clearly have no link whatsoever to the country and have played for other countries beforehand; the fact that they only got to the final due to very blatant refereeing favouritism prompting allegations of match-fixing is unprecedented. It is an abnormal situation and warrants high levels of criticism.

And no it is not unheard of to have separate controversy sections or even whole articles to controversial teams as I have previously pointed out, plus the IHF's decision to kick Australia out and replace them with Germany has also been mentioned in the tournament page, so I don't see in what way Qatar has been unfairly treated. There was more than one issue with that particular team and as a result the media and nearly everyone who supported a different team was highly critical, including opposition players.

You may of course have the opinion that you see nothing wrong with referees favouring the host side, or with the way they have assembled the team, and you are free to that opinion. But you would be in the minority, and actually the controversy section has been written in the nicest and most neutral way possible; an unreferenced and unfair section would be one saying something along the lines of "Qatar has bought their way into final through bribing referees and mercenary players who are shameless traitors, making it one of the most disgusting, disappointing and farcical tournaments I have ever watched" a view I'm many millions who watched in the hope of a fair international competition secretly (or not so secretly judging by the amounts of vandalism on the page alone and social media comments) hold.Abcmaxx (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relocation of professional sports teams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gori. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

History of S.P.A.L. 2013

This is an FYI that the PROD deletion of the above page has been opposed. It takes only one opposition to a PROD deletion to invalidate it, so the deleted article has been restored. If you want to make a further attempt to delete it, please use WP:AFD - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand - what? Abcmaxx (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You proposed the page for deletion. It was deleted. There are three major types of deletion on the project. Speedy, PROD, and full deletion debates. You chose to use PROD - Proposed Deletion. PROD has the advantage of being the simplest. You can propose a PROD deletion for almost any reason. But it has the disadvantage that it takes only one voice in opposition to the deletion to block that deletion. This opposition can be either before or after the deletion has actually happened. In this case someone objected on my talk page to the deletion. So the page has been restored. But if you still feel that it should be deleted, you can start a full deletion discussion at WP:AFD, and lay out your arguments for why you think it should be deleted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't choose anything, I merely nominated the page for deletion, what happened next I have no idea. Did anyone state a meaningful reason to restore it? Abcmaxx (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I've commented on your talk page, let's continue this on your page. Thank you for letting me know Abcmaxx (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Affiliated clubs

You added "Affiliated clubs" to {{S.L. Benfica}} but those clubs are listed in List of S.L. Benfica filiations which is linked in the template. Besides, there are more affiliated clubs which are not in the template.

There is no need to add all or some affiliated clubs/teams to the template, especially when it is S.L. Benfica's template. SLBedit (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry didn't see that at first. Point taken Abcmaxx (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did to JS Kabylie, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 17:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And the challenge was.....? I didn't add the content, I merely reverted someone obliterating the article Abcmaxx (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you re-added heaps of unreferenced and inappropriate material, all while falsely accusing an editor of vandalism! GiantSnowman 17:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not normal to delete 40 000+ characters so I assumed it was vandalism (happens often with that amount of deletion). I didn't add anything, none of it was written by me. Furthermore that deletion reverted a whole article into a stub. Why don't you try and contact the person who actually added that material, I'm sure it's a translation from somewhere, instead of having a go at me for essentially trying to save the article. I added the template in the hope whoever added all that material (which must have taken ages to write) would clean it up, rather than the gung-ho approach of "better to delete than contribute anything meaningful" Abcmaxx (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

So you didn't check the edit before reverting? Even worse! GiantSnowman 19:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That still doesn't justify ruining an article. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jodi West‎

The article Jodi West‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.Cavarrone 22:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Jodi West for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jodi West is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodi West until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cavarrone 22:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Relocation of professional sports teams in the United Kingdom

added links pointing to Sunderland and Newcastle

Milton Keynes Dons F.C.

added a link pointing to Newcastle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

JS Kabylie

Hi, could you please not add back the swathes of unreferenced text to this article without linking to the relevant sources. I appreciate you have provided a list of sources, which at a scan look reliable, on the talk page, but this is not sufficient. The text has been challenged as unreferenced and removed. It should not be restored until inline citations are correctly linked to the relevant portion of the text. Just because text appears to have been translated from frWiki does not mean it is OK to leave it on enWiki unreferenced. Fenix down (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ugh what are you on about, I was slowly but surely adding tons of references to the text, and there were sources in the text I re-added. I was going to transfer more of the frwiki sources when I had the time. Thanks for helping by undoing all the work though rather than actually helping, really constructive of you Abcmaxx (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

And how was it constructive of you to add back a load of unreferenced text? Like you were asked, please do this in your user space then merge. You might also want to read the sources you are adding, things like you tube are generally not considered reliable, the RSSSF source does not support the sentence it is referencing, the second source is about a specific player not the history of the club and the first source covers god knows what of that huge rambling beginning. Fenix down (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's good enough for every other Wikipedia (including the French) but of course you have to find a problem where there isn't one. Better to delete and have it over and done with rather than actually do something right? Abcmaxx (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not deleted, it's still there in the history, I just removed it until someone (you?) could add sufficient sourcing as has been repeatedly asked of you. And you should know that non-enWikis do not necessarily have the same requirements as enWiki, so saying "it's Ok, its on the frWiki" is not good enough. Not really sure what your problem with adhering to WP:V is when asked to provide reliable sources. Please refresh your knowledge of WP:BURDEN. Fenix down (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I said where the sources where, all that needs to be done is be put in the right place. I'm not sure if you take some cruel satisfaction on your incrediby pedantic power-crazed deletion-harassment spree, but deleting an entire club's history when most articles have only a paragraph or two just because you found some silly reason you are adamant on keeping on throwing. See if you actually co-operated the entire section would've been properly referenced by now, but you insist on a) me doing it all by myself (why should I be the only person who wants to move forward?) and b) challenging every stupid little thing Abcmaxx (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm only challenging the complete lack of references, which you are now adding. thanks for the AGF though! I note you completely ignored my comments on WP:BURDEN. Fenix down (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "complete lack" is it though, you just don't seem to like the sources because of who-knows-what. Youtube (i.e. Algerian television programmes) and the unofficial site with its history are reliable sources, and RSSF is merely to show table standing i.e. if JSK won in years XYZ, RSSF can back that claim up Abcmaxx (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well it kind of is:

• One source for the first history section doesn't really cut it, particularly when large swathes of that section are not even covered by that source.
• The source for the second section is not reliable as it is YouTube by general consensus.
• The third section remains wholly unreferenced.
• The source for the section on 1966-77 doesn't discuss what you think it does at all, the source is about a player called Abdellah Jebbar, and doesn't mention anything that is written in that section as far as I can see.
• The sole source for the lengthy 1977-1989 section is a link to the 1988-89 league table and therefore does not support anything said in that section.

Some of the later RSSSF sources are fine, but there are still major gaps in sourcing a lot of the text. I appreciate you are adding the sources in piecemeal, but I am concerned that they are not sufficient to support the text. I'm going to keep an eye on this page and if I don't think the sourcing provided is sufficient, especially given the exceedingly poor quality of English then I will take it to WT:FOOTY for additional input. Fenix down (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I never said it was perfect, but some sources are better than no sources at all, in addition I added a cleanup template so it's pretty clear to anyone reading it that is not yet polished. It's better to have this than nothing at all, using the same rationale why Wikipedia allows "stub" articles. I don't speak any Arabic, and I'm sure there must be a lot more sources in that language so by leaving what there is now hopefully someone will come along and add some stuff, maybe someone who is actually Algerian and can navigate their way better through the sources, where if the entire thing is just deleted, then the article will forever remain no more than a stub Abcmaxx (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and I am pleased you are adding the sources, but partial sourcing does not mean previously challenged, unsourced material should remain. It is a shame when articles remain stubs, but if no reliable sources can be found then that is how they should stay. Fenix down (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relocation of professional sports teams in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Livingston. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

DJ Dopefish

added a link pointing to Jungle Music

Mumsnet

added a link pointing to Bad Education

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Marc Potts

Back in October you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Who requested it be restored and was there a reason given for the restoration request? Abcmaxx (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your question here. The words "requested at WP:REFUND" in the message above give a link to the request. JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your research and contributions on relocated and/or phoenix clubs worldwide. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relocation of professional sports teams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shanghai Pudong. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Legia Warsaw

I have reverted your page move as undiscussed and controversial. If you wish to move it again please use WP:RM. GiantSnowman 18:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You didn't discuss the revert either though did you Abcmaxx (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD. GiantSnowman 21:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited US Créteil-Lusitanos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kop. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

restoring Alain Ngamayama

Yes, it is possible. See WP:REFUND. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:Piotrus that only applies to uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions or rejected Articles for creation drafts), or in "articles for deletion" debates with little or no participation other than the nominator.. That's not really what happened here.Abcmaxx (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Remind me then what happened here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:Piotrus It went to AfD which was supported on the basis that I liga is not a fully pro league. It is a fully pro league and has been added to the pro-league listAbcmaxx (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of University of Preston

The article University of Preston has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

By the acknowledgement of the article's creator in the text and in an edit summary, there's no reason why someone would search for "university of preston" since there is no place with that name. Hence, there's no reason for this disambiguation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of association football club rivalries in Europe

added a link pointing to Neman Grodno

Metroplex

added a link pointing to City of Preston

Red Star F.C.

added a link pointing to Saint-Ouen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Hello, I'm Sir Sputnik. Your recent edit to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues appears to have reinstated information or content another user has expressed a problem with, so I have removed it for now. You are encouraged to open a discussion on the article's Talk page to seek consensus on this matter. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not reinstate information or content a user has expressed a problem with into articles, as you did to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Reinstating your preferred version without discussing runs afoul of the "community" aspect of this project, and as a result your edits have been reverted. Per WP:BRD, it is recommended that you open up a discussion to seek consensus on this matter before reinstating your preferred versionon the article's Talk page. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

MK Dons Kits

Hi. I see you reverted my edit about the MK Dons 2010-11 kit manufacturer. This one was definitely made by ISC. I have this one in my drawer. See http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Milton_Keynes_Dons/Milton_Keynes_Dons.htm Could you reinstate my edits? User:Zorro77 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Zawisza

Please remain civil. There is no need to use phrases like 'destroying the article' just because my edits are different to yours. I would say that English-language sources are preferable unless there is a reason to doubt their reliability. I have no reason to believe Eurosport is unreliable and note that at the time of the incident they had not won in 7 games which sounds like a bad run to me. I think you are adding too much weight to this sub-topic and there is too much text on it. Is zawiszafans.net a reliable source? I removed extra (uncited) text that had been written regarding their foundation year. Please cite any text being added. Eldumpo (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You deleted a lot if information without much justification. They have not won 7 games since the fans boycotted the club and, some say that it is because had no support. Most players left due to the bad atmosphere and the fact they became deeply unpopular, their squad became depleted due to the country-wide fan disapproval of those players. Even so, no matter how badly they played, Zawisza is still in the top division after decades of lower league football, and therefore the fans would not be expecting anything other than a relegation battle. The Eurosport article is simply wrong.

I have added references, and yes zawisza.net is the largest website about Zawisza, and yes they were founded in Koszalin as say a) the club's history section on website and b) every other language wikipedia. It's not a matter of opinion, it would be just wrong to state it was due to results, we want Wikipedia to be reliable, and not misleading, and as complete as possible, right?

I haven't added anything controversial, nor anything that isn't widely reported. The 2014 protest is significant because it has thrown all sort of debate in media about ultras, player loyalty and club owners; it was also the reason for many players leaving Zawisza or even Poland altogether; it was the reason the logo was changed to the despised Hydrobudowa one; and, one could say, that the slump in form is due to the ongoing war between fans and the owner along with his players. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If the content is unreferenced, it can be challenged and removed. Citing information to the official website, or from un-reliable sites (including fan sites and blogs) is not sufficient. GiantSnowman 19:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The thing is it IS referenced! One (misleading) Eurosport reference doesn't suddenly trump the entirety of the Polish media Abcmaxx (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No, there is lots of content which is unreferenced on that article, it is extremely poorly written anyway. GiantSnowman 07:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

So your solution is to just delete it all, turn it into a stub? That's not really a way forward. There isn't lots of content in the article anyway, besides, things like it played once in the Intertoto Cup isn't incorrect nor anything hugely controversial, plus it all makes sense from a chronological point of view. I've added tons of references, to an article which was an expanded stub at best at first, and now someone keeps wantng to revert referenced changes because they can't read Polish, or think that English sources are always 100% correct. Most Polish clubs on here don't even have a history section, even big clubs like Widzew Łódź or Lech Poznań, better a crude outline than noting at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

If content cannot be adequately referenced then it should be deleted, as simple as that. WP:V! GiantSnowman 11:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It can easily, it just requires some good-will, which I would suggest rather than being counter-productively pedantic and pointlessly difficult all the time. I've referenced it now anyway Abcmaxx (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes to to WP:FPL

Given their serious policy implications, changes to WP:FPL are almost always controversial and should be discussed beforehand. The particular changes you are seeking make run contrary to consensus, established Here in the case of Bosnia, and here in the case of Macedonia, and repeatedly reaffirmed through use in the deletion process. If you wish make these changes, you must demonstrate that either the consensus has changed or that the underlying facts have changed sufficiently to invalidate the preexisting consensus. Simply put, you are not empowered to unilaterally reinterpret sources, you must involve the community in this process. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Brazilian Série C is also professional? took you 2 weeks before you decided to take part in the discussion Abcmaxx (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

How exactly was I supposed to take part in a discussion two weeks ago that you only started to two days ago? But let's not even go there, this has escalated enough as it is. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elana Toruń, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ostaszewo and Lubicz. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at FPL

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.

This message has been sent to both parties involved; please also note that another admin has already fully-protected the article in question. That is not an endorsement of the current state. Please continue discussions on the talk page and reach agreement/consensus. GiantSnowman 17:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

List of association football rivalries

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of association football rivalries. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 08:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever contributed anything to Wikipedia User:GiantSnowman? Abcmaxx (talk)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of association football rivalries.

This is your final warning - if you continue to re-add unreferenced content then you will be blocked. I strongly suggest you read WP:V and WP:RS, and I strongly suggest you use the article talk page before editing again. GiantSnowman 15:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, do not call me (or anyone else) an idiot again - WP:NPA. Secondly, I am not stopping you adding references - I am stopping you adding unreferenced content. Feel free to add back material only after you have found a reliable source (quick lesson - other Wikipedia articles; YouTube videos; or blogs are not reliable!) GiantSnowman 16:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You even deleted stuff which even had a separate article. How would I know what references to look for if you deleted everything? I have never seen you contribute anything to Wikipedia other than your deletion quest, makes question what's the point of trying to look for refs, let's just have a load of incomplete stub nonsense. Also cheers for keeping tabs on me, Big Brother is watching Abcmaxx (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relocation of professional sports teams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Girardot. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: 2015 Knurów riots

Hi Abcmaxx, I've answered your question at Talk:2015 Knurów riots. Please remember that neutral point of view as a core Wikipedia policy and abstain from using non-neutral language (such as "murder") even on talk pages, as it may unnecessarily heat up discussions there. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

RB Leipzig

Hi, could you please explain why the division championships should be displayed in the honour section? Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

An honour is when you win a trophy. Those division championships are in their trophy cabinet, they're called "championships" for that reason. the 3.Bundesliga and 2.Bundelsiga are championships too, just higher up the pyramid, therefore I see no reason not to add those honours in.Abcmaxx (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Phoenix club (sports). GiantSnowman 18:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman are you having a laugh?! Those were added from the articles themselves!!!! Abcmaxx (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added refs now happy? Would it kill you to add some refs for once or you just there to pick holes in everything? Abcmaxx (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You may wish to refresh your knowledge of WP:BURDEN. Fenix down (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And also WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTARELIABLESOURCE - just because it might be cited elsewhere on Wikipedia is irrelevant; if you are adding information then it needs citing directly per WP:V. GiantSnowman 11:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

May I remind you all of WP:COMMON which has been horribly not followed Abcmaxx (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And may I remind you that that is just an essay and is immediately followed by WP:NOCOMMON. All you are being asked to do is add references to material that has been challenged. I have already had to revert an unreferenced revert by yourself despite these warnings. If you add anything back to Phoenix club (sports) without adding a reliable reference, you will be blocked. Your conduct is now getting disruptive. Fenix down (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of FC Arsenal Kiev (1925) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article FC Arsenal Kiev (1925) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC Arsenal Kiev (1925) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of association football club rivalries in Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spartak Moscow. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix club (sports)

Please do not add that tag back again, the clean up has been done by removing all unreferenced elements following challenge and a list being incomplete is not a reason for a cleanup. Fenix down (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

but being factually incoherent / completely illogical suddenly doesn't require clean up? i have every right to challenge as much as anyone else. The article is complete garbage in its current form Abcmaxx (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

the article is fully referenced to reliable sources. It is not up to you to add items you believe to be correct without references once they have been challenged. The article would be improved with the addition of more clubs but not if they cannot be sourced properly. Simply because a club shares a similar name or comes from the same town as a former club does not make them De facto a phoenix club. I'm sorry a lot of your edits were removed but WP:V is a fundamental tenet of enwiki. There is currently nothing wrong with the list in its current form other than that it is incomplete. The current version does not need cleaning up. Fenix down (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There is it makes absolutely no sense. Yes the same name club does not inherently make it a "phoenix", but if one folds and the other was restarted right after the previous one folded with the same name and logo and the only reason it is a separate club is because of domestic law. E.g. Salernitana Calcio reformed about 3 times but is still the same club, due to Italian law. In Bulgarian law that is not the case, and currently we hace F.C. Etar, with almost the same name, logo, colours not being included, but its other 2 reformations are. The article is garbage and makes no sense, especially as the term "phoenix club" exists only in the English language. You didn't challenge anything either, you just removed it with a blanket blanking of the page and just stuck a WP:V on it Abcmaxx (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There was clear challenge here. I added a significant number of references that were missing, tagged as unreferenced those claims which had no mention in any club article at all, let alone an unreferenced claim, and removed many which were clearly not phoenix clubs in any sense of the word.

This is not the first time that you specifically have been asked by editor simply to add some sources to your edits and to stop making subjective presumptions. You were asked here and here, whilst this thread shows simple errors on your behalf in making assumptions about club succession.

All you are being asked to do is supply some sources to your claims and to stop making assumptions. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult thing to grasp. If you don't like the way FC Etar is presented, then find a source for the other reincarnations, that is all. Fenix down (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Piast Gliwice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Champions League. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited KKS Włókniarz 1925 Kalisz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Women's football. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited KS Cracovia (football), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Niedźwiedź. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Homenmen Beirut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Homenetmen Beirut. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Hutnik Nowa Huta

added a link pointing to Stomil Olsztyn

Krzysztof Kotorowski

added a link pointing to Olimpia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Nottingham derby, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 12:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You're taking the piss aren't you? It's just a list of matches!!! I have an idea let's remove every article to a stub without any attempt to actually contribute anything or help, that's what Wikipedia is all about isn't it? Abcmaxx (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:RS and WP:V before editing. GiantSnowman 12:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Plase familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:ANTIWP WP:COMMONSENSE and also the bit about WP:V where you have to challenge an edit, not just remove it for the sake of it. Also cheers for attempting to find sources, find your input to wikipedia really constructive and helpful Abcmaxx (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to FK Budućnost Podgorica. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 14:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I referenced it you idiotAbcmaxx (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at FK Budućnost Podgorica. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. GiantSnowman 16:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dartford F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newport County. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Are you still (active) editing Wikipedia ? Maybe you can help me to improve some football pages and create others. Thank you.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you still active ? --Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I will take you in my team, I am on your side about what you said about some editors ! And you are not the only one !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)