User talk:Namdor67

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Namdor67, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! GiantSnowman 21:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman 21:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Released players[edit]

In the English system, contracts end on 30 June (so players leave clubs on that date) and begin on 1 July (so players join new clubs on that date). Please wait until those dates before editing. GiantSnowman 21:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's officially departing in 2023, and will be leaving in 2023 as stated by LFC Football club, an undisputed fact.. Namdor67 (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - but not until 30 June. GiantSnowman 10:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Firmino[edit]

Dear Namdor67, Congratulations on joining Wikipedia! I wish you all the best of luck. I was just wondering whether you believe this edit (Special:MobileDiff/1158347218) to be justified, and whether you believe there should be section titles in the Roberto Firmino article.

All the best, Scientelensia (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kindly, learning the ropes.
Yes, after researching Messi, Renaldo, Salah, Steven Gerrard, Harry Kane, Neymar, Kylian Mbappé to name a few. I believe you are correct and well within your rights to put in section titles if you wish. As how can it be possibly disputed outrightly considering all the above big names on Wikipedia? I feel this top contributor statiscally may feel they have some ownership of Roberto's page..lol
Kind Regards Namdor67 (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Current Liverpool players as well as Salah have section titles. Darwin Nunez, Diogo Jota, Luis Diaz, Alisson Becker, Fabinho, Jordan Henderson, Thiago Alcântara, Trent Alexander-Arnold...I feel it adds depth and reads much better..I can't possibly get my head around why your section tiles were removed. Also you stated "I an very open for you to change any section titles to different ones with different phrasing or wording". Namdor67 (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are very right, let’s see what can be done. Perhaps I will ask some other top contributors to give their opinions.
Thank you again, Scientelensia (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do, as a truly feel Roberto's page would be much better, as it does add more depth and dynamics..After looking at those many with, and those few without..The Messi and Ronaldo template let's say is the best for footballers in general..Even retired ones such as Gerrard.
I am learning here but you probably are aware you can ask an administrator a question, seek advice, etc., place {{Admin help}} on your talkpage.
All the best and Kind Regards. Namdor67 (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! Thanks 🙏
Do you think I should put this template on the Roberto Firmino talk page where I asked a question?
Thank you, Scientelensia (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a novice her, best perhaps to ask for Admin help, or someone with a depth of experience..I just feel you are correct and the changes made Roberto's page better. Namdor67 (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good plan :) Scientelensia (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He had to revert it, or she..
I put my opinion on Talk, I believe that is a consensus..
Page is very shallow. For such a flamboyant high profile footballer you would think he was on the bench for stoke the way snowball is handling this.
I still feel due to the said editor being the statistically highest contributor. It is more a case of entitlement, over Firmino's career.
Kind Regards Namdor67 (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
😃 Yeah, perhaps you’re right. Scientelensia (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, It seems that the individual in question, who has made numerous edits to Roberto Firmino's page, has developed a sense of ownership over it. He's determined to impose his own preferences, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. It is challenging to dispute the fact that the majority of highly respected editors on Wikipedia include section titles for high-profile footballers. Pulling out a rule book in this situation is quite insulting, considering that it is evident that the vast majority of high-profile footballers' pages, and the large majority of LFC first team players do have section titles. Therefore, these rules appear to be unnecessary, and abit of a insult to brandish in such an off handed way.
Nonetheless, I appreciate your efforts to ensure that Roberto's page receives the same level of respect as other football greats. He is a charismatic, highly skilled, and deeply appreciated footballer among Liverpool supporters. Even opposing fans hold a great deal of respect for him. It seems that this individual fails to acknowledge that the primary audience for Roberto's page consists of Liverpool supporters. Instead, his view it as his personal page, solely for the minorities viewing pleasure.
We fought the good fight Scientelensia.
Onwards Namdor67 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate all your efforts too, thank you. GiantSnowman hasn’t really responded to anything properly and definitely feels a sense of ownership over the page. Like you say, it’s even more of a shame because of who Firmino is, an icon. Let’s see what we can do, but if as it seems nothing can be done then we should perhaps wait for an opportune moment to make the changes.
We did indeed fight the good fight. Scientelensia (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even as a very new editor I have found many mistakes, he even spelt his name wrong. For someone obsessed about Roberto's page, he seems fixated on the page, and is more inclined to dismiss suggestions rather than genuinely striving to make the page accurate, relevant, and well-presented. Upon reviewing other Liverpool pages dedicated to players of even lesser stature in terms of impact and time spent, it becomes evident that those pages have been edited more effectively and professionally.
So we kept the heat on the Snowman😊 Namdor67 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, other pages are of a much higher quality. I think I may remind GiantSnowman of WP:TASTE, as it’s clear that it’s needed(!) Scientelensia (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's why I started on this Roberto quest. I watched his farewell then looked at his page and thought "this looks like he sat on the bench for Everton", sparse and sterile. Not much effort put into this page considering he's pretty much one of the main catalysts to Liverpool's success over recent years, and really one of a kind.
I do like that it sums it up..Overzealous deletion#Personal taste..lol
Best to you. Namdor67 (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed. Do you think we could make a list of unnecessary and wrongful reversions that were made in the past (by GiantSnowman) so that we can contest them seek to improve the page?
Best to you, as well. Scientelensia (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I need your help.
I updated the citation needed, but it is showing up with an error, I can't get my head around. The official Club I felt was bullet proof as not to be undone by Snowman, he can't resist otherwise.
Problem.
In Early career at the end it shows an error I am struggling to resolve.
-As Figueirense FC returned to Série A after a two-year absence.[15]
{{cite news}}: Empty citation (help): line feed character in |title= at position 9 (help)-
Asking if you may in your experience, resolve the issue. And perhaps do the Portuguese thing, as in the references above, in that section. And amend for me.
I would appreciate your skill on this.
Kind Regards Namdor67 (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think I’ve done, is it ok? Just if you wanted to know, the error was due to the title not all being on one line.
Kind regards,
From Scientelensia (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what you’re trying to do there (it’s hard!), but I have to say that we must stay in the right at all times if what is right is to be accepted. Let’s let GiantSnowman revert edits, and not provoke an edit war – if not, our position (of adding section titles) may be compromised. I don’t mean to be rude, I’m just saying. 😊
Kind regards,
From Scientelensia (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very much appreciated Scientelensia, perfect.
Now it's bulletproof.
GiantSnowman reverts edits, he doesn't even read or check, then walks away leaving sources that are clear errors.
I tried, and you have tried to be informative and polite, respectful. But he just walks over people obviously suffering from form of editorial narcissism, and won't quit.
He will never bugge on adding section titles, I would be in shell shock if he did.
So, it's a case of.
He who makes peace impossible makes war inevitable.
But I will refrain, let him trip up on his own issues.
Again thank you kindly for your assistance. Namdor67 (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Thanks for your good work on the article. Let’s wait for now and see if he replies: if he once again ignores my replies, I will ask another opinion.
Best wishes,
From Scientelensia (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added one edit that GiantSnowman reverted a while back, otherwise, I’ll wait for something to happen.
Best,
From Scientelensia (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good, he udid all mine yesterday that were correct. He ended up coming around in the end to facts, over ego..Mostly.
He thinks a website that is correct, to be unreliable, but that was 10 years ago where he and ONE another came to that consensus.
He changed it but has messed up putting in a reference to 2021-22 stats instead of 2016/17. Also It's a site that only list goals/appearances in all comps. Not domestic only, so another blunder.
I sent him a polite email asking him to change it to another reference of his choosing that he feels is "Reliable" , see what he does.
Yes wait and see, but I feel you will need another high ranking Editor to jump on board, or admin to have Roberto's session titles added.
Thanks again. Namdor67 (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman has done some great stuff over the years, such as creating the page. However, I 100% agree the edits made by Giant Snowman are sometimes wholly unreasonable. It’s interesting how different people have different definitions of consensus.
Thanks again,
From Scientelensia (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but, but Snowball had a lot of errors this far in and the page is sparse.
I think you should prepare for 2 minutes before the 30th when Roberto's contract expires, as to change everything needed and get the Jump on our lord of Editors..
I was, but feel you may do it better, so I hope you do.
I would appreciate you doing it, as like Roberto you are a good soul.
Thank you for your time and assistance. Namdor67 (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
😳
Ok, I will take credit for limbering him up for you..😊
Well, fought the good fight Scientelensia, bravo.
Onwards. Namdor67 (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo to you too! It took a long time to get the article changed for the better but finally it is done!! Scientelensia (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an error in "Style of play" It looks ok on the page and refers to an article so I left it, but you may know why the error is present and amend it.
Cite warning: <ref> tag with name echo cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all.
Kind Regards Namdor67 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Namdor67,
I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to and want me to change. Would it be possible for you to make it more clear to me?
Best wishes,
From Scientelensia (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to "Style of play" then edit section and preview.
Scroll down you see the error.
But reading the section the Echo article seems fine, in that section.
So I'm not sure why the error, or if it needs sorting.
Thought you would know, and sort either way.
Onwards, page is looking accurate and much better. Namdor67 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sure I’m missing something but I still can’t see an error in preview… what kind of error is it and where is it? Scientelensia (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<ref> tag with name echo cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all. Namdor67 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Style of play Namdor67 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I think. Scientelensia (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo, article was fine, you sorted it. Namdor67 (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
😊 Scientelensia (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another I will remove it, as it's not relevant and it's in same section.
number 4
Cite warning: <ref> tag with name NFT cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all. Namdor67 (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh you just cited the Echo article there to fix it, I see..😊 Namdor67 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had to..
"BigSnowmnan"Seriously - stop your nonsense. Your 'countryman' makes less grammatical sense than 'fellow Brazilian', so I am unsure why you reverted. GiantSnowman 17:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Snowman, let's be truthful. You have obnoxiously undone many things on numerous occasions concerning Roberto's page, going against reason without making any effort to see beyond your mindset. Eventually, you used common sense and accepted that there had to be some relevance to the assist for the full spectrum of people who will read the page. However, due to your own ego, you decided to swap it out, which is okay by me as long as we have clarity. I just wanted to enlighten you on how it feels to be on the receiving end of nonsensical behavior. 'Fellow Brazilian' reads just fine. So let's leave it at that. I respect the massive effort you have put into the page, but please drop the attitude and replace it with respectfulness.
The page looks spot on and in order. Thank you.
Kind Regards Namdor67 (talk)
[To]Scientelensia, [(This and the above message was not sent by Scientelensia)]
Thank you so much for the section titles and your determination too implement them, and your other editing work.
The good fight was won.
Roberto's page now, looks well in order and a fitting for such a great ambassador, and player of the beautiful game.
KInd Regards Namdor67 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Firmino, again[edit]

Seriously - stop your nonsense. Your 'countryman' makes less grammatical sense than 'fellow Brazilian', so I am unsure why you reverted. GiantSnowman 17:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Snowman, let's be truthful. You have obnoxiously undone many things on numerous occasions concerning Roberto's page, going against reason without making any effort to see beyond your mindset. Eventually, you used common sense and accepted that there had to be some relevance to the assist for the full spectrum of people who will read the page. However, due to your own ego, you decided to swap it out, which is okay by me as long as we have clarity. I just wanted to enlighten you on how it feels to be on the receiving end of nonsensical behavior. 'Fellow Brazilian' reads just fine. So let's leave it at that. I respect the massive effort you have put into the page, but please drop the attitude and replace it with respectfulness.
The page looks spot on and in order. Thank you.
Kind Regards Namdor67 (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear both,
To be honest, with this, both versions make sense and it is not worth fighting over it.
Best, Scientelensia (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scientelensia I don't fight, in all honesty.
What made sense was putting in a clarification for all readers, who may not understand the relevance of "an Assist". A simple clarification of Roberto's close friend and Countryman was appropriate, for all.
Snowman has to use reason, be respectful on behalf of Roberto and readers, and think wisely over edits instead of taking the blanket dismal approach, which is not the first occasion this has happened.
Again.
Page looks well laid out, balanced and thank you for your section title determination. Namdor67 (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Firmino, again, again[edit]

Sigh. It is well established that players leave the club on 30 June. We do not have to wait until midnight. Your edits are disruptive and go against standard editing practices. Please therefore leave the article alone. GiantSnowman 17:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh!!!
It is a fact.
In the Premier League, the contracts of players typically expire at the end of the day on June 30th. Unless stated otherwise.
Therefore, you are incorrect.
You are therefore disruptive and impatient in your editing processes. Namdor67 (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong, as you have been constantly on this article, but I'll wait. GiantSnowman 18:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm, wrong?
As a reference. Do you want others?
https://inews.co.uk/sport/premier-league-deadline-day-willian-cedric-contract-loan-chelsea-arsenal-453979 Namdor67 (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

To avoid edit warring, please see the talk page of Sam Kerr. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Kerr[edit]

Stop archiving the thread. That's an incredibly bad faith move. Alyo (chat·edits) 22:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a bad faith move, at all.
You just made a bad faith move undoing it!! Namdor67 (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Namdor67 (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FOR the record it was an "Avoiding edit warring" directed at myself personally.
I have had a discussion and choose not to go in never ending circles.
I will not Discuss any further, therefore it is archived.
There needs to be a separate Discussion dedicated "To one of the best female footballers, and strikers, in the world"
or "One of the best footballers, and strikers, in the world" Namdor67 (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue to archive the thread in order to dictate your personal end to the discussion, you will likely be blocked. I repeat, stop archiving the thread. That's absolutely not how we do things on Wikipedia. Alyo (chat·edits) 02:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull up on the word DICTATE. The "Avoiding edit warring" was directed at myself personally.
My only intention was there to be a separate dedicated discussion on SAM KERR, not on Edit Warring and a discussion between myself and someone else filling up the talk page into eternity.
And to end the discussion over "Edit warring" directed at myself.
I shall take your advice nevertheless, and simply not continue the discussion.
But.
"Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users."
"The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes), or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. Namdor67 (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Sam Kerr shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

FWIW I think you might be right on this, but that does not excuse your conduct. Unfortunately you have a habit if edit warring. Please use the talk page. GiantSnowman 19:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kindly GiantSnowman.
I will refrain from making the same error again.
The other editor has made the same change, twice previously, which have been reverted.
So not so much back to how I think it should be, but rather a consensus "female" is correct.
Again thank you for your input and time.
I appreciate it. Namdor67 (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed this Giant Snowman.
Endeavoring to resolve the matter in a civil manner.
"Kerr is recognized for her remarkable "speed, skill, tenacity," and backflip goal celebrations, solidifying her as one of the world's highly regarded footballers, and strikers in the world, and one of Australia's greatest athletes."
I'm proposing this compromise as not to take away from Kerr's incredible achievements, skill, athleticism and being a highly regarded ambassador of the game.
And as not to open up the pandora's box of natural occurring biological advantages men have in certain sports by removing "female'.
Remove "female" in the way you propose then you include men, and biological advantages, that are widely scientifically proven, and why Transgender athletes are banned from elite international track and field events. https://www.espn.com.au/olympics/story/_/id/35925450/track-organizers-ban-transgender-women-elite-competitions
As It's more than just testosterone levels.
Men tend have a higher proportion of Type II muscle fibers, which are associated with explosive power and speed.
Larger lung capacity, men often have larger lung volumes, which can facilitate increased oxygen intake during intense physical activity, leading to enhanced endurance performance.
And a differences in skeletal structure which provide mechanical advantages.
Not opinion, just biological proven factors when it comes to why women and men's "sports" are seperated. It's not fair to compare women and men due to biological advantages men are naturally born with. Or to take away from the exceptional ability and athleticism women display in sports.
It's not opinion, just science. And again I'm not using any personal research for a wikipedia article.
You have removed "female" three times and it's been reverted due to incorporating men's scientifically proven natural advantages.
It has not been reverted due to misogyny, or any lack of respect towards Sam and her incredible contribution to the game. I for one have watched every game she has played in ever since she started showing such great skill..Also an Australian Icon that will have her named etched in history.
The compromise, I feel is accurate.
If you decline the compromise, then seek further assistance advised by Mitch.
As I stand by the long standing "best female footballer" as nothing has changed since 2021, and even before she signed for Chelsea, in my book she was one of the best. Namdor67 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has declined the compromise, and stands with the first of 3 reverted changes.Period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Kerr&diff=prev&oldid=1145052288
I shall refrain from having an eternal back and forth discussion filling up the talk page, and leave it to Helpfulwikieditoryay to take seek assistance. Namdor67 (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anfield capacity[edit]

Hi Namdor67. Thanks for your email. Personally, I think the current capacity (c. 54,000) should be given until the new stand is completed, inspected and licensed for occupation. Only then will the stadium's capacity reach 61,000. Adding a bracket or footnote saying that the new seating will be available in late 2023 or early 2024 provides useful elaboration (otherwise, a casual reader might see the 61,000 figure, then read that 7000 seats are being added and believe the future capacity will be 68,000). Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually read on the BBC news awhile back that all work being done was halted due to contractors, so I casually had a look at the Anfield page and for whatever reason people are getting well ahead and it creates confusion. As for a minute I was thinking the stadium would be seating 68 000 thousand odd when work was completed. But being a Liverpool supporter I woke up reasonably fast.
So I changed it to be coherent, factual, while leaving in work was being done and expected capacity should be around 61 000. Yet people want to jump well ahead and it was changed to a projection again.
So you are %100 correct on the casual reader will be confused aspect, way more so than I was.
So we agree, it really must be kept at around what the official capacity actually is, until at least it's basically completed. But "Inspected and licensed for occupation Completion" as you say when it should be changed, not before.
I guess we best check occasionally for the eager beavers upping it to expansion completed number..
Thank you kindly Paul, Namdor67 (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Namdor67&oldid=1173963831"