User talk:Abcmaxx/Archives/2016

January 2016

If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at FC Zhetysu, you may be blocked from editing. Per WP:RM, only non-controversial moves need not go through the RM process. With this club I can see no indication that their name needs to change, certainly they seem only to refer to themselves as "Zhetysu" or "PFK Zhetysu" in recent news articles on their own website. To be honest it's really not helpful to simply move articles and not provide a single reference in the article to indicate confirmation for the updated name as it just confuses readers. If you think the article needs to move, please start and RM. Fenix down (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Warning sign overuser I used something called Google, it's really good on finding stuff like these sources [1] [2] [3] [4]. Oh no I changed the name to its actual one, how awfully controversial. See the logo? what does it say? Please read it.Abcmaxx (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMONNAME, just because a word appears on the badge means nothing. The club don't use it, many other sources don't (google hits:117,000). A lot less do (google hits: 14,500) Indeed some of the most reputable sites spell it completely differently. By your argument I suppose Arsenal F.C. should be moved to drop the "F.C."? Please refresh your knowledge of COMMONNAME and try to refrain from moving articles where the move is not completely uncontroversial. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited İzmit, 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) 09:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 29

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.

Durham Wasps

added a link pointing to Sunderland

Relocation of sports teams in the United Kingdom

added a link pointing to Sunderland

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of national stadiums, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Hockey Stadium. 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) 16:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adana derby

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Adana derby, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Adana derby) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Adana derby, Abcmaxx!

Wikipedia editor Prhartcom just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Adana derby article looks good; nice job. References could stand to be changed to use Template:cite news. Prhartcom (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Prhartcom's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

@Prhartcom Thank you! Sadly not everyone agrees, some people are very keen to patrol my every move and keep deleting it Abcmaxx (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adana derby

The article Adana derby has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable sports match

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. reddogsix (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adana derby

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Adana derby, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

you want to try reading first User:reddogsix? Abcmaxx (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Adana derby. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. reddogsix (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@ talk they haven't the previous 1000 times Abcmaxx (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adana derby

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Adana derby, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Safiel (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Recreation of articles

Repeatedly recreating articles previously deleted by discussion, as you did with Adana derby, is disruptive. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik you're funny Abcmaxx (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Adana derby for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adana derby 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/Adana derby (2nd nomination) 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. reddogsix (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Bare URLs

Please don't add bare url's as reference to articles like you did with this edit on Red Star F.C., especially when the same reference was already provided further up in the article and could have been easily copied across. Wikipedia:Bare URLs is pretty clear, stating: Most importantly, do not add bare URLs to articles. Calistemon (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, at least Abcmaxx is providing references to reliable sources. Here's a nifty tool guys, just fill in a few blanks, check it out: Makeref Best, Prhartcom (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If you do it you might as well do it properly, or at least try, especially when the policy is quite clear on it. But thanks for the handy link, I saved it to my userpage for future use. Calistemon (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queensferry. 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) 09:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi mate, hope you're well. I just wanted to drop you a line because I've been struck by a few of your recent edit summaries. Things like "AFC kingston impostors" and "AFC wank wank wank". I hate to sound overbearing or whatever, and I'm not trying to silence you or say your point of view is invalid—it's just stuff like this isn't really in line with the Wikipedia pillar of Civility, and I'd strongly advise you to tone it down. When people come on the pages and call MK Dons "Franchise" or whatever, don't rise to it; just revert them and the community will support you. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

My edits constructive and I fail to see why a higher threshold is applied to me regarding civility than someone who contributes maliciously who bears no punishment at all or sees any consequence of their actions. Free speech, and seeing as I don't get paid for this and is a hobby, I am free to say whatever I feel appropriate. AFC are impostors, and the 2nd edit I was merely quoting a popular yet simple chant Abcmaxx (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say your edits were not constructive. Judging from your post you would presumably think it acceptable for someone of an opposing viewpoint to use edit summaries like "MK franchise imposters" and "MK Dons wank wank wank", on the basis of free speech and because the latter is, as you put it, a popular yet simple chant. I don't think you actually would find that acceptable, so I don't see how it is holding you to a higher threshold to write to you as I have done. Anyway, do as you wish—I worry about this kind of thing might make other users perceive you, but you are right that this is a hobby you don't get paid for, and it's hardly my place to tell you what to do in any case. I hope you're doing well and thanks for the work you do. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

AS Monaco FC flag

Dear Abcmaxx, I agree that seeing a French flag next to Monaco might feel strange or unnatural, however when Monaco qualifies for European football it does so under a French register, therefore it is regarded as a French club and it also earns UEFA coefficient points for France!

As for your examples:

• FC Vaduz is a Liechtenstein club who've chosen to play in the Swiss competition, where they cannot qualify for European football via the Swiss league. Instead, they qualify for Europe each year by winning the Liechtenstein Cup!
• Wrexham is a Welsh club, which can only qualify for European football with an English licence as they play in the English league. By playing in the English league they are also prohibited from earning a place in Europe via the Welsh Cup, which is why they don't participate in that. In short, Monaco should get a French flag since they are playing in Europe under a French license. Sorry about that, but that's how it is! --Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 19:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

So why does Wrexham have a Welsh flag then not English? AS Monaco is based in Monaco as a Monegasque club. It is affiliated to the FFF but nowhere does it say it is regarded as a French club that is absolute bollocks and I'm sure many fans would actually take offence to that. Where does it say it is French? The two countries share customs and currency and Monaco have only 1 team - that doesn't make it automatically French, it means they allow the 1 team to join their league. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Tell me where you see it and I'll tell you why. But probably because Wrexham did not qualify via an English competition, for instance if you read the article on Wrexham: "Wrexham are perhaps most notable for ... and a 1–0 victory over FC Porto in 1984 in the European Cup Winners' Cup, Wrexham were eligible for the Cup Winners' Cup due to winning the Welsh Cup. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 18:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In 1933, Monaco were invited by the French Football Federation to turn professional. So they were invited from Monaco to join the league, they didn't change nationality at that point Abcmaxx (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely. But in the Europa League they play under a french registry, which is why the French flag is put. See also the following discussion: Talk:AS Monaco FC#Club nationality. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 18:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes and Swansea City play under an English registry, as do Cardiff. yet no-one assigns them the English flag. I think the two line interaction can hardly be called a debate. Also UEFA's website isn't necessarily correct, they have a huge database and it's likely it's just automatically generated from the league they play in Abcmaxx (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Where in European football do you see the Welsh flags for both those clubs... show me an example. --Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 21:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Also... please have a look at ANY other page which lists the previous matches in Europe vs Monaco... all FRENCH. For example: Rangers F.C. in European football (1961-62), AEK Athens F.C. in European football (1963-64), Inter Milan in European football (1996–97, the year they played Hutnik Kraków) and many many more... --Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 21:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Then there's a lot of errors to fix then. In 1._FC_Magdeburg Swansea has a Welsh flag, as it does nearly everywhere else because its a Weslh club, as per List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country Abcmaxx (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed I do think there are several of these errors elsewhere on wikipedia, however the two cases you mention are in fact ok, because both Swansea and Wrexham qualified that year by virtue of winning the Welsh Cup, as you can see at List of Swansea City A.F.C. seasons and List of Wrexham F.C. seasons. Notice how Swansea also qualified for the 2013–14 UEFA Europa League through the English league, so during that competition they have an English flag. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 06:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Problems with Violence at UEFA Euro 2016

I'm sorry to have to tell you that some of your edits to this article have been problematic.

Firstly, this edit claims "Hungarian fans clashed with stadium security, sparked by the security not allowing a small group of black-clad Hungarian fans join their main group of supporters", but the source given does not appear to say that. Secondly, this edit ascribes a general view of "There has been much tension between the two [Croatia and Turkey] and numerous provocations before the tournament." to a report in The Sun. General consensus at WP:RSN is that The Sun is not a reliable source, but particularly for negative events involving living people.

Because this article involves living people, these edits have had to be redone. I would advise you to look at WP:BLP carefully and make sure any claims, particularly general ones that may generate controversy, are cited to an excellent source - WP:RSN may give you some advice of what is applicable to use. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you actually read any of the other sources? The Guardian article said there was 100 of them and were black clad and tried to join the main group? Same with the "There has been much tension between the two and numerous provocations before the tournament". The two referred to are KoB and Turkey, booing the minutes silence back in November by Turks and an exchange in various banners and threats, all of which were publicised in the French sources I listed? Granted the Sun is a shite source but there was nothing controversial in it? Abcmaxx (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Bet365 Stadium

It would be a good idea to look at talkpages before moving articles like Bet365 Stadium. Qed237 (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

+1 - Talk:City_of_Manchester_Stadium#Requested_move_18_February_2015 is completely unrelated to Bet365 Stadium .... So please make sure you check the correct talkage before moving!, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 18:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's discussed to death on nearly every stadium, Valley Parade etc. etc. It was renamed because no-one bother to check what the stadium's actual name is. I went on the UEFA website and found it, so I moved it. No-one will ever call it Bet365 Stadium aside from TV presenters and everyone knows it. I suggest you undo the damage before another pointless debate ensues only to find out that I actually did what 99% of the consensus already has been. what next, Pornhub Stadium? AK47forhire.com Stadium? No wonder football culture is dying in England, next they'll be serving popcorn and install kiss cams.

Same applies to you User:Davey2010, although cheers for being so patronising. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for undoing everything User:Qed237, you work in marketing or what? just because Arsenal are massive sell out to a bunch of sheiks doesn't mean other clubs want to be in the same boat. Reminds me of Gaylord Entertainment Center, these sponsor names are a joke, Wikipedia is not an advertising board Abcmaxx (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Get consensus or move on, Oh and you're welcome!, Just incase you don't know what a talkpage is this may help you. –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC). –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad you can read properly, suggest you re-read what I said, unless of course you're too far up your own arse to admit it Abcmaxx (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Abcmaxx. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Qed237 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I have had enough of you now, you dont like the stadium names, we understand that. But there was RM not to move and you have to consider each stadiuym individually. That does not give you right to behave badly and start calling people for different things. Grow up. Qed237 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh no a block, who will revert all edits then? Ah an anonymous editor doesn't like me how awful, life in tatters. I suggest if people don't like my responses they should start being less patronising and less aggressive in how they edit, rather then reverting, and then saying I'm all wrong and don't know what I'm doing and the only way I'll ever be right is if I go through a tons of stupid admin tasks, and even then probably reluctant Abcmaxx (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Can you please tell me what does the fans being right-wing or left-wing, anarchist or pro-lgbt have to do with the actual club itself (which is disbanded for several years now anyway)? And more so, the fans of completely different club? You're welcome to start an article about hooligan fan movement in Belarus and put that stuff there. I can also add that the source article you provided is extremely biased and exaggerating, but that's just my opinion, and I didn't even remove the link this time. -BlameRuiner (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You for real? Do you understand how football culture and supporters groups work? Have you ever been to a football match? It has EVERYTHING to do with the club, because it's fans is what shapes the culture and perception of the club. Your strange argument is like saying what does Celtic F.C. have to do with Catholicism or Ireland, what so different about FC St.Pauli, why is Brighton & Hove Albion v Crystal Palace F.C. more than just another fixture. Every football page has a supporters section, and the vast majority of the supporters have friendships and rivalries with other teams. What goes with that is particular atmosphere during derby games, and a different one during friendship games/tournaments/events. What does the fans being right-wing or left-wing, anarchist or pro-lgbt have to do with the actual club itself - the club is determined by its fans, as they are the only constant in a football club, so it does have absolutely everything to do with the club. Furthermore the section was about the club's supporters - I described them and provided a reference. Extremely biased and exaggerating - because it's website about post-Soviet football? It's written by journalists and academics, therefore it's reliable, no more biased than a normal national UK newspaper. Also you're confusing organised support with hooliganism. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 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.

FC Dinamo Brest

added a link pointing to Neman Grodno

List of association football club rivalries in Europe

added a link pointing to Neman Grodno

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Adana derby has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Adana derby. Thanks! VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Online} 13:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bradford City A.F.C.. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GiantSnowman 09:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Giant is this a joke?! Abcmaxx (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you edited against what a reliable source said... GiantSnowman 10:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you read what the source said? Do you know what vandalism is? Or you're too far up on your high horse to assume good faith Abcmaxx (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bradford City A.F.C., you may be blocked from editing.

You are deliberately twisting the source, see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. GiantSnowman 11:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you don't get it, though I might speculate...the reference you are trying to use does NOT state what you have written. You therefore need to either a) stop editing or b) find a reference that does support you. I strngly suggest you make your case on the article talk page (as you should have done days ago per WP:BRD). GiantSnowman 08:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Giant Yes it does. They were playing FC Halifax. Halifax AFC does not exist anymore. By logical process (which you seem to completely lack) they cannot refer to Halifax AFC as that is a defunct derby because the club no longer exists. They are two separate clubs hence they have two separate articles. I don't really know what your problem is other than just being difficult for the sake of doing so. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not my issue - where does the source state "formerly strong"?! GiantSnowman 09:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

but it is my issue? or only your issues count now? it doesn't mention anything about Halifax AFC so I removed it from the sentence relating to the source, Pretty simple, even you can probably understand that. From that I was made to understand they probably did have a rivalry with Halifax AFC but they do not anymore as it doesn't exist anymore. Really not difficult. Also branding about vandalism tag is highly unfair and you're not the Wikipedia police, nor any form of higher rank than I, so I suggest you pack it in a bit anytime someone disagrees with you. You're making a simple unpaid hobby very arduous and unpleasant. Next time on you're on my talk page I suggest you come across less boorish and more civilised Abcmaxx (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Adana derby has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Adana derby. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Adana derby has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Adana derby. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adana derby (August 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Adana derby and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Robert McClenon. Thank you. Gestrid (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@talk one rule for me, one for others though? How come no-one assumes good faith when I edit? Or you guys just like being irrational by posting stupid messages like this? Abcmaxx (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Repeatedly calling other editors stupid is not going to get you anywhere except blocked Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Fucking joke really is Abcmaxx (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I've started an ANI discussion regarding your behavior toward me and other editors. Feel free to participate, but please remain WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF there. Not doing so, especially at ANI, is likely to get you blocked. The link to the discussion is in #Notice. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User not assuming good faith. Thank you. Gestrid (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 November

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 List of association football rivalries page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (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, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Abcmaxx. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)