User talk:Fixed4u

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Fixed4u, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! ---- David Benzam^Contact 16:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 2 June[edit]

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 S.L. Benfica page, your edit caused a URL error (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) 00:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed4u, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Fixed4u! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you(s)[edit]

Hello there FIXED, AL from Portugal here,

i appreciate your actions as much as the next guy, but why so many of them, including two (!) for almost non-existent edits in Mário Coluna?

Attentively --AL (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for a more explanatory answer but that's OK, sorry to bother you. --AL (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, i don't have to blame anyone. Also, judging from your list of contributions, you must be this guy (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:85.240.136.129). Am i not correct? If so, before you send me anymore "thank you"s that i do not deserve, could you tell me what did i do that irritated you last month (here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Always_Learning&diff=608831816&oldid=608739490)?

Also, it would be nice that you (i repeat, in case you are the anon address from Setúbal, i think you are but am not 100% sure, if not think nothing of the message) left the correct order of honours in Rodrigo Moreno Machado, yes the Taça de Portugal is more important than the Taça da Liga, but if there is a WIN in the Taça Liga and a SECOND POSITION in the Taça de Portugal, then the first comes in first place OK?

Thank you (but i also say, on 13 JULY i leave everybody at peace, i will run away from here 100% sure) --AL (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about Rodrigo, did not notice it well (and +1 thank you, although this time i actually did something in Ivan Cavaleiro, undoing vandalism) --AL (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of AFC Ajax records and statistics may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

]]
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left"[th

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

1 - Luisão: in the infobox, it is customary to show only the city (in this case AMPARO, AMPARO, SÃO PAULO appears in the storyline); 2 - Petit (Portuguese footballer): intros are supposed to be kept simple, so he's not French-born Portuguese, he's Portuguese, his birth origins are explained in the storyline, in cases like Petit we either write "...is a Portuguese footballer..." because he played for Portugal internationally, or just "...is a footballer...". WP rules, not mine.

3 (not a rule now, but a matter of taste) - André Gomes: i repeat, but obviously you don't want to be bothered about it, some players are known by their first names (Josué, Liédson, Simão, etc) or nicknames (Nuno Gomes, Maniche, Cadú, etc). However, 99,999999999999999999% of them are known by their surname (Rooney, Casillas, Buffon, Klose, etc), Portuguese players should be no different. "Interesting" that you said yesterday you thank people when you find a good edit, and the thank you note you sent me about Gomes was for REVERTING me...

If you choose to revert me again on these points, an edit war can result only in negative things for both of us, per WP rules we can both be blocked. For me it's not that big a deal, i'll only be here for another 30 days more or less. Can't we reach a compromise? --AL (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's S.L. BENFICA in the storyline, BENFICA in the box or intro (box for compression purposes, intro is just to give an idea). If the name of the article should be just BENFICA, it would have been changed ages ago, it has not. --AL (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Kevin Friesenbichler) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Kevin Friesenbichler, Fixed4u!

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

You can add some information about his career in international football to make the article notable.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Not much i can do at the moment, the article was deleted because he has not played a fully professional match yet, FC Bayern Munich II, where he has spent his career so far if i'm not mistaken, is amateur for WP standards. Only WHEN he makes his debut for S.L. Benfica B can the article be re-created. --AL (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Various[edit]

1 - i would like to apologize for my summary in Nélson Oliveira, i did not insult you but it was clearly exaggerated. I know you understand the overlinking rule perfectly, it took me several months to also understand it but now i do. OK, Portugal alone is overlinking, but Barcelos, Portugal, or Santarém, Portugal or Santiago, Cape Verde are just one "word" not two, so if you leave the wikilink you are not overlinking there.

2 - may i ask, politely, that you don't send me any more "thank you" notes unless i have done something wiki-marvellous, or reverted a lot of vandalism, please? I am not feeling totally comfortable. This does not mean i have anything against you, i just don't feel at ease receiving gratification for things i have not done.

Attentively --AL (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please reach a compromise with me in this matter? Please leave just "Angola" in the infobox, then we have PORTUGUESE ANGOLA/MOZAMBIQUE/whatever in the body of article. After all, the country is the same (meaning the person was born in Angola or Guinea or Mozambique), it was just under Portuguese ruling.

Can you work with me here? If not, i give up, have it your way. --AL (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not wrong to write it, but not 100% necessary either. So, i would not bother reverting everything that contains that word but you are your own boss of course. I am leaving in 15 days, not really a priority for me now. --AL (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited S.L. Benfica (roller hockey), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page João Rodrigues (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Candeias[edit]

1 - When the player plays in his own country, as is the case here, we don't mention the country he is playing in, only the club and the position;

2 - no need to say "simply known as Candeias", it's his last name it's implied.

Thank you --AL (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this page, i'm only trying to be coherent, it's exactly the same to say "...plays for Benfica as a winger" or "...plays as a winger for Benfica". I'm only trying to keep coherence between all articles i edit, and i have seen good or featured articles that have the "...plays for X club as a Y" approach.

Please, let's reach a compromise. Then again, if you don't want to, i leave in ten days so after that i don't care anymore. --AL (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Léo Bastos[edit]

See:

All of them have wikilinks to his home countries in box. Is there examples enough for you?

MYS 77 ^✉ 16:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the vast majority uses City, Country. And now that I've shown these players to you, you simply do what you think it's right? This isn't the way we work here. Show me a discussion where this format is the correct one and I'll stop. For now, past consensus is City, Country. MYS 77 ^✉ 16:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see nothing of this in WP:OVERLINK. And if it's not there, isn't an overlinking. MYS 77 ^✉ 16:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make you see that if it isn't a "rule", then you shouldn't impose what you think it's good or what isn't. A bunch of articles actually HAVE links to country in box. You are so persistent that I'll leave this page as it is, just to end this. MYS 77 ^✉ 16:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to play "agree or disagree". You have your opinion as I have mine. MYS 77 ^✉ 16:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you shouldn't try to impose yours if there's nothing to use as a guideline. MYS 77 ^✉ 16:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. That's all I have to say. MYS 77 ^✉ 16:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piping[edit]

Any particular reason why you keep un-piping links at Jorge Rojas (footballer)? Please see WP:PIPE. Giant Snowman 18:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2012–13 Associação Académica de Coimbra – O.A.F. season may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|goals1=[[Lima (footballer)|Lima]]] {{goal|40||66}}<br>[[Alan Kardec]] {{goal|62}}<br>[[Carlos Jorge Neto Martins|Martins]] {{yel|90}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Segunda Liga[edit]

Viva. Acho que és português, por isso vou escrever em português para evitar más interpretações. Caso não sejas as minhas desculpas. A "fonte" apresentada para a minha edição (remoção de patrocínio), apesar de ter sido publicada num blog afecto ao fc porto, é uma transcrição completa de uma notícia do Jornal Record que saiu, a 13 de Julho de 2014. Contudo na edição on-line só está acessível aos utilizadores premium (http://www.record.xl.pt/Futebol/Nacional/1a_liga/interior_premium.aspx?content_id=894486). O site que citei faz uma transcrição completa do principal artigo (que diz respeito aos patrocínios), e se vires no canto inferior esquerdo indica lá que a fonte do conteúdo é o jornal Record. Não é uma boa fonte, mas é a que melhor explica o que se passa: neste momento não há patrocinadores para as provas da Liga. Ab, Rpo.castro (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Oblak[edit]

Yes it is official, if the OFFICIAL Atletico Madrid website confirms the transfer then it is official Matej1234 (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except you added 2 references that had anything to do with the official news. Fixed4u (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re[edit]

Stop you!-Gringoladomenega (talk) 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing Wikipedia, kid. Fixed4u (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes sir! Sorry finishes with the fun, but I have more important things to do-Gringoladomenega (talk) 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not playing around like you. Fixed4u (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

kiss!

Accidental block[edit]

Please accept my apologies. I was blocking a user whom you nominated, and carelessly blocked you instead. Obviously I immediately unblocked you. Once again my apologies. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Fixed4u (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

André Gomes[edit]

Please man, stop posting false informations at the player's Wikipedia profile. If you accept it or not, he is not just a loanee, he is the new player of Valencia CF, and yet, he hasn't got any kitnumber, that's why I wrote at his "club number" TBA", because that will be announced later. Thanks for your understanding, and stop vandalizing on Wiki. Creed7 (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If club number is unknown it's left blank. Fixed4u (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Left blank or 'TBA', 'TBC or 'TBD'... Creed7 (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not contacting you first, but i saw yourself and two other users were engaged in a very strong edit war, so i chose to contact an administrator to bring light to the subject, and he agreed with the fact you should not write Gomes (or any player in the world) is on loan from a businessman.

Regarding the accusations, it was not me who made them and i understand your approach (Lim holds Gomes, Lima and other players' rights, indeed) but it is wrong to phrase it like that from an encyclopedical point of view.

Sorry for any inconvenience, from Portugal --AL (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ezequiel Garay[edit]

Stop removing reliable sources from the Ezequiel Garay page, ta. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6 million, 2.4 million, 15 million, quite confusing. But i believe that we should go with Benfica's OFFICIAL website, that's the most reliable source even though not in Portuguese. I agree with Fixed. --AL (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really confusing. Benfica received €6m for their 40% share. Zenit paid a total of €15m. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly tip for both: your edit war may result in both of you being blocked, not a threat folks, i don't have the power to block anyone nor do i want it, WP rules. --AL (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm trying to avoid. And yes in this case the Portuguese references are more reliable. Fixed4u (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benfica, Independent and ESPN are more reliable than Record, whatever that is. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benfica doesn't mention €15 million. Fixed4u (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because Benfica didn't receive €15m. They received €6m, which they stated in one of the two sources currently there. If Benfica held 40% of Garay's rights, the total transfer is €15m, as explained by The Independent. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a guess. Fixed4u (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A) Benfica said they received €6m. B) It's journalism by a highly reputable source. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Fixed4u reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: ). Thank you. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your two best bets, individually, are User:GiantSnowman and User:Mattythewhite, admins that are involved in football. They are fair, always. But you can also try to "build a case" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. --AL (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe I will just leave Wikipedia. It's their loss. Fixed4u (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Introductions[edit]

Please man, can you leave the intros be in this display (example): "André Gomes is a Portuguese footballer who plays for Valencia CF in Spain as a midfielder", not "...is a Portuguese footballer who plays as a midfielder for Spanish club Valencia". It goes without saying that Valencia (in this case) is a club, it's unnecessary to write it.

Thank you, good luck with the discussion --AL (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many other articles use the previous way, ie Lionel Messi. Fixed4u (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to keep it coherent regarding my field of editing (Portuguese and Spanish football), and i repeat man, no one has ever reverted me but you, meaning the previous intros were not wrong (i am not saying yours are, i repeat i am just trying to keep it coherent).

If you choose to undo me again i give up, you/me/WP in general have enough edit wars on our hands ;) --AL (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there isn't 100% coherency in football articles. I wish there was so at the least the introductions would have the same format but as you can see even featured articles have their own way. Fixed4u (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, someone else reverted me in Gomes, i give up and leave article in peace. I also apologize again for not contacting you about the Gomes' article and its "particular situation". No one was seriously "harmed" fortunately and my actions were done in good faith i can assure you, let's move on. --AL (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murry1975 is after me now. Fixed4u (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mention, this is also an example of a personal attack. I see you are up a 3rr. You both should get a 24/48 block. Take this time to understand why you are there in the first place and come back with a clean and fresh out-look. Murry1975 (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack if it's true. You are stalking me. Fixed4u (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And another, you're on a roll. Show stalking please, you added my name here and it should up on my notifications, as well as the removal of my NPA warning to yourself. I have interacted with you on ONE article this is not stalking. Murry1975 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Ezequiel Garay. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fixed4u (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I tried to prevent other user from adding false information to the article by: reverting his edits, adding reliable sources, using the article talk page, using other users' talk page. Fixed4u (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

And yet you also engaged in edit warring, which you must not do even if you are 100% correct. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Intro display[edit]

I reverted you in Steven Vitória and know you will be notified of that, but i message you before that, i know that you will revert me again, i give up. Also, last time we discussed things in Daniel Candeias, you told me we had reached a compromise, i see it is not true: 1 - to say "simply known as Candeias" is 100% wrong, that is for when the player is known by the FIRST name not the LAST. You told me also you agreed with writing "Benfica" in box and "S.L. Benfica" in storyline, i see it was also not true because you have resumed doing that.

Also, if you only pipe Benfica's name in the article and leave the others in full (for example C.D. Nacional), it will be an incomplete job. I don't know what people have against writing the full names of clubs in the storyline, if the common name of the club was Benfica and not S.L. Benfica then the WP article would be named "Benfica", but is is named "S.L. Benfica". Of course, if you say "I won't reach any compromise with me, leave me alone and stop reverting me" i give up, and leave Benfica's articles in peace even though i am one of the most active editors in Portuguese football(ers).

Please be very precise in your reply ("Yes we can reach a compromise", "No, we cannot reach a compromise, let me edit like i want"). Sorry for your block --AL (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i have tried to reach a compromise with you in Vitória. --AL (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to reach a compromise between your version and mine in several other Benfica players, if you revert me i give up, sick of this (you may say the same about me). But please (like in Candeias' case), Lima (footballer) is not "simply known as Lima", that's not his first name! --AL (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for block evasion by using alternate accounts. Any further block evasion will result in indefinite blocks on all accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 14:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you return from your block, please don't contact me (in a positive or negative way), i have left WP forever because i am very tired, i should not even have returned after the World Cup. Thank you, goodbye --AL (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottywong: the block evasion continues - latest 85.240.133.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - time for an indef? Giant Snowman 11:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for evading your block by using sockpuppets and anonymous accounts to continue editing while your main account is blocked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 16:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottywong: :@GiantSnowman: the block evasion continues:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RoomZone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BartSmith85

User:Gringoladomenega Gringoladomenega 30 July 2014 (UTC)