User talk:Qed237/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

Please consider the way you act on Wikipedia

Hi QED. I appreciate what you're doing, with the whole "reverting any edits where the editor hasn't fully updated a template" thing, but with the best will in the world - you need to stop acting like you are the headmaster of Upper Wikipediashire Grammar School. Your constant reverts aren't really teaching anyone anything, as evidenced by the number of times you've continually reverted my work, but what you are in fact doing is angering and alienating users and making this website a hostile and aggressive place to come. I can honestly say that more than half the times you have reverted my work I haven't then gone and corrected it, what I've done is given up and said to myself "I can't guarantee that my next exertions won't be changed back, so what's the point even trying?" Even where I can see I only needed to correct a date, your edits literally sap my drive to keep contributing to this community and I find myself just saying "let someone else who wants to put themselves in the firing line correct it for me". What makes this behaviour most aggravating is the fact that half the time, you could've just fixed the mistake in less time than it took to revert the edit.

You've got to understand that Wikipedia is not a prize-winning novel. It's never going to be perfect, and trying to impose publication standards of perfection is simply impractical. Bear in mind instead the human factor of what you are doing - to an experienced editor like me, what you are doing is sticking two fingers up at my contributions, whereas to a new editor who has only just joined in, you will give the impression that the entire community is dismissive of peoples' work and or actively antagonistic to those who aren't part of "the clique". In both situations, you're far more likely to actively drive members away from the website than you are to encourage more accurate content. Please at least give this a think for a few hours. I apologise if the tone of this message seemed aggressive - it undoubtedly must read like it in places, though it was not supposed to be - but please note that your constant reversions have rubbed me up the wrong way a few too many times to the point where it's getting beyond a joke. Heck, the fact that I even felt the need to come here and write this message should give you an indication of my current mindset. Thanks. Falastur2 Talk 18:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Up the West Ham eh  :) LOL!!! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Message recieved. Qed237 (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Was it? Because I've tried to have this talk before, and you ignored me, and looking at your edit history you are STILL reverting correctly updated apps/goals with passive-aggressive "When?" comment, when you should instead be correcting the timestamp. Eightball (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:DROPTHESTICK and please stop following me around. Qed237 (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not "beating a dead horse," the horse is still alive. It's clear I am not the only person who has a problem with your method of editing. I don't understand why you don't just take this for what it is: constructive criticism. Put your efforts to better use. Same team, dude. Eightball (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
And you have been told to stop following me around and harassing me. Either you stop or you get stopped. Qed237 (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I have now created User:Qed237/live, User:Qed237/time, User:Qed237/infobox and User:Qed237/player to easier add messages to inform users. Qed237 (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I "get stopped"? What does that mean? Is that a threat? Be a more positive editor and I won't have to follow you around and clean up your messes. Eightball (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Not a bigger threat than I will not rest until you have been punished or banned. You have been told before not to follow me around like that and if it continues I may request that you are blocked. Now get of my talkpage if you have nothing to say, I am here to edit and not to argue. Qed237 (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Falastur2... it would be better if you took the time to "fix" any issues you notice rather than revert on sight. JMHamo (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh my God that Falastur2 guy is so right... OlJa 23:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Falastur2 and the others as well. Outright reverting when there is a simple fix staring you in the eyes is a bad attitude. Also, you really need to make a good reading of WP:Vandalism. I have noticed you posting vandalism warnings on other users' talk pages, while there wasn't any clear intention of intentionally damaging wikipedia. So made honest calculation errors, others made good faith attempts to clarify information. Tvx1 14:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

QED, why is it I have to come back here? This is ridiculous. I came here and wrote a lengthy message about how your actions are actively harming this community and yet it has achieved nothing. What makes this worse is that your only response to my words were "Message received". Did you have a single word to say in your own defence? Do you even believe that you are doing the right thing, or do you privately know that what you are doing is damaging this website, but you simply wilfully ignore the knowledge? I mean, I told absolutely no-one that I posted this message here and I never added any further comments, and yet my comment provoked three weeks of extra comments and nearly half a dozen other users have come in here and commented that they agree with what I'm saying. That's just the people who have happened to look at your talk page by coincidence and seen my comment and felt like they have to pipe in themselves. Did that not provoke the slightest pang of disappointment in you? Did it not make you for one second think "maybe actually I'm doing the wrong thing?" Can't you see how little good you are doing and how much you are angering people? Do you not care, or is it that you actively want to upset people? Maybe it makes you feel like a bigger person? This has got to stop and I've had enough. Falastur2 Talk 22:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF, do you really think that I would have been here for two years and never been blocked if my goal was to actively want to upset people? I am more quality over quantity (it is an encyclopedia!). As Template:Football box collapsible/doc#Parameter says "report - An external link to an official match report or box score. It is important that match information be referenced, so please use this parameter! (See also: Verifiability and No Original Research)". I have been told my self earlier that the report works as source, and wothout it the information is unsourced. I just go by what I have learnt here on wikipedia. So please AGF, because your accusations has got to stop and I've had enough. Qed237 (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Also the previous message I mainly interpreted was about not updating timestamps, which I have currently formed a messaqge for and started doing myself, but I cant be expected to go out on my own to find sources. Qed237 (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Ohh, and by the way Can't you see how little good you are doing? Are you serious? That just made me laugh, I do hell of a lot of good work. The time I spend here (way too much), it is no surprise sometime I will step on someones toes (unfortunately). Qed237 (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Just because you have been here for quite some time does not mean you have any seniority over other editors and certainly not that you bully them. I have been here for over two years as well, yet I do not consider myself better than "less experienced" editors by default at all. I have found you to post unjustified vandalism warning on other editors pages on multiple occasions, so your AGF complaints are pretty hypocritical. It really seems that often you want to do things too well. Listen to the advice others give you, don't be offended.Tvx1 18:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Olivier Giroud

I don't see why it was removed. All I did was added season stats for Olivier Giroud for the 2015/16 season so far, because no one else had, and it is listed on the pages of other Arsenal players. 108.180.241.236 (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC) ¨

The content added to biopgraphies must be sourced and neutral. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and relies on sources. Also, we can not write like with a spectacular bicycle kick, who says it is spectacular? That is WP:POV and this is an encyclopedia for reporting neutral fact. Qed237 (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to add the reference links but you can find all the listed results below if you can source it yourself. You shouldn't delete information that should be listed. The Premier League is nearly three months in and nobody had listed it. If you disagree with the writing style, you can change it.

I'll leave it to you, because you clearly know what you're doing better than I am. 108.180.241.236 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You can't leave it blank, unless you plan on leaving all the other player pages blank in the 15/16 section. Now it's locked, thanks to you, I can't do it. I've left the info there for you. If you won't do it, I'll talk to your administrator next time round. 108.180.241.236 (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You can not tell me what to do and you can not add unsourced content to a biography. It is very simple and there is no reason to threaten with administrators. I am very busy and will take a look when I have the time, but I dont have to. Qed237 (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Place after matchdays

Hello,

Why did you revert my edit on IFK Norrköpings league places after certain match days? I typed in the right place after the matchday is over, not just after Norrköping's game is over. As other seaason articles, this should be the correct method. // Psemmler (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Psemmler: I guess we have different definition of "matchday". I edit a lot of Premier League articles and there we use the definition "position at the end of the day the team played" for these tables and the tables are "results by matchday" and not "results by round". Also stats on articles should be sourced and it is not a coincidence that the source for the table uses the numbers I reverted back to. Do you have a source for your numbers or is it WP:OR? Qed237 (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: "matchday" is an old expression for rounds, since all the games usually played on the same day. I've seen Eurosport used "matchday" instead of rounds during eurogoals, even though the matches were on different dates. My numbers comes from the regularly updated matchday-for-matchday section on 2015 Allsvenskan // Psemmler (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

MAN UTD

Please explain on what basis you made that revert on man utd wiki? All comments backed by well established and credible sources. Davefelmer (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You've received a Star!

The Writers' Star
Hej! Thank you very much for creating and supporting the page of IFK Norrköping in English this year.

Together (I did it all year in Swedish), IFK received wonderful pages in Wikipedia! Hoping to see you again for the next season! Niles :) אנדרסן (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Arsenal Seasons add injury table

Please add the injury table as Aston villa have it on their season pages. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.119.45 (talk • contribs)

I dont think it is a good idea to add it now, some injuries will probably be missed. Also I am not sure it is notable. Perhaps something to consider for next season. Qed237 (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Coeff. TBD in 2016–17 UEFA Champions League and 2016–17 UEFA Europa League

Hello, Qed237.
Now in 2016–17 UEFA Champions League and 2016–17 UEFA Europa League wrote only TBD. For example, BATE Borisov Coeff. TBD.
But maybe better write TBD with current coefficient. For example, BATE Borisov Coeff. TBD (current coeff. 31.800)? So it will be easier to track the order of teams. And after each matchdays need will update current coefficients if they changed. GAV80 (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:GAV80, I think it is a good idea as long as the numbers are updated (which I think they will as either you or me usually update fast). Perhaps just the number is needed and not current coeff. For example "BATE Borisov Coeff. TBD (31.800)". User:Chanheigeorge what do you think? And what does both of you think about the expanded table above? The calculations of maximum has been verified manually for some nations and the "highest" and "lowest" possible rank is just comparing the numbers, so can it be used in 2017-18 articles or should we wait? Qed237 (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with just the number, so better. Will you add this numbers in pages?
About table. In my opinion, all table is right. Let's wait matches next week, and will see how this table change. And then choose: use or wait. GAV80 (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, I will wait a little while do see if User:Chanheigeorge has anything to add, if not then I will add it later (no rush). Qed237 (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Qed237, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal talk 21:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

revert to Template:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round

Hi there : after the next round in a fortnight , there's going to be sometimes three sets of notes below the tables, and while this is fine to be separated by a semi-colon for the main articles, its going to get quite ugly and messy on the summary page at 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification; if theres a way to align the AFC tables in groups of 2, as you have just edited for the UEFA tables, and space them or properly justify them then that's going to look a whole lot better. Can you justify them or space them wider, and also for the UEFA ones? Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it look okay now? I could try and look at the module code, if this can be solved better. Qed237 (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is definitely going to be better. Check it out again on 13th November after the next AFC matches, as there will be some groups with 3 sets of comments, which will be when the crowding occurs. Thanks. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Matilda Maniac: I have added this to my todo list. I will check the module code to see if anything can be done and I usually always follow all matches. Qed237 (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac: Okay, I have now added a parameter in the module sandbox to fix this issue. The parameter stacks the footer so everything starts on a new row. You can check it out in User:Qed237/sandbox5, and hopefully it can be implemented soon (it must be tested first and an other editor will check it first). Do you think it will work and was it what you wanted to be done? Qed237 (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It is the section on Small table issue with stack_footer which i specifically thought needed addressing, and this solves it perfectly !!! Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers

Top goalscorers by seasons - This section does not cite any references. Can you add references ? Here you have : [1] Thanks.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

About Albania in 2017–2018 UEFA CL and 2017–2018 UEFA EL

Hello, Qed237.

Now Albania has coefficient 6.125. After matchday 3, Skënderbeu has a maximum of 12 matches (3 in GS, 2 in Round of 16, 2 in Round of 8, 2 in QF, 2 in SF, 1 in Final). If Skënderbeu will win all matches: 12*2+3(bonus)=27 points. 27/4=6.75. Max coef.=6.125+6.75=12.875.

Bulgaria (29th place) and Slovenia (30th place) have coefficicient 13.125 each. Then max place for Albania maybe 31nd.

Are my calculations correct?

In 2017–18 UEFA Champions League and 2017–18 UEFA Europa League wrote "... association ranked 29th–39th (TBD)".

Can you edit the pages if needed?

GAV80 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: You may very well be right (it looks like you are), but I have not made any calculations on it (thought it might be original research). But I will look at it and then update article, and also leave a note to explain at the article talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Chanheigeorge: Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you have made these calculations in the past? I can not see anything wrong in the math from GAV80, but thought you might wanted to triple check. Is the math above correct? If so, I consider making a table for this with a the current and max for each team. Qed237 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks correct for Albania. Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Chanheigeorge: Great, thanks. Then I will update the articles based on calculations from GAV80. As I said, I consider making a program/code for making these calculations fast and easy. Qed237 (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, GAV80 and Chanheigeorge, I have now created a program that calculates all maximum coefficients (not minimum as that is often same as current). The return from the program is a wikitable (the code for it) which can be seen below. It was a lot of hard work that took some time because there is a lot to consider, for example if a team can benefit from moving from CL to EL and also how many points they lose in current CL group stage compared to gaining in EL knockout stage. I have not verified all numbers, but the Albania nunmbers are correct and I will take random checks on some other countries. I plan on updating this in one of my sandboxes so we can update situations like the one for Albania (with manual calculations as control). The current table is

Current
Rank		 Lowest
Rank1		 Highest
Rank1		 Association 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Current
Coeff		 Min2
2015-16		 Min
Coeff		 Max2
2015-16		 Max
Coeff		 CL3
Teams		 EL3
Teams
1 1 2 Spain 20.857 17.714 23.000 20.214 7.785 89.570 8.500 90.285 30.928 112.713 5 2
2 1 6 Germany 15.250 17.928 14.714 15.857 6.571 70.320 6.571 70.320 29.857 93.606 4 3
3 2 7 England 15.250 16.428 16.785 13.571 5.750 67.784 6.375 68.409 23.750 85.784 4 2
4 2 7 Italy 11.357 14.416 14.166 19.000 5.166 64.105 5.166 64.105 25.833 84.772 2 3
5 3 10 Portugal 11.833 11.750 9.916 9.083 5.833 48.415 5.833 48.415 26.500 69.082 2 3
6 2 11 France 10.500 11.750 8.500 10.916 5.583 47.249 5.583 47.249 29.583 71.249 2 4
7 2 11 Russia 9.750 9.750 10.416 9.666 7.100 46.682 7.100 46.682 31.900 71.482 2 3
8 5 14 Ukraine 7.750 9.500 7.833 10.000 4.600 39.683 4.600 39.683 20.400 55.483 2 1
9 5 14 Belgium 10.100 6.500 6.400 9.600 3.000 35.600 3.200 35.800 19.000 51.600 1 2
10 5 15 Netherlands 13.600 4.214 5.916 6.083 3.083 32.896 3.250 33.063 19.416 49.229 1 3
11 6 16 Turkey 5.100 10.200 6.700 6.000 3.800 31.800 3.800 31.800 19.400 47.400 1 2
12 8 16 Switzerland 6.000 8.375 7.200 6.900 3.100 31.575 3.100 31.575 13.500 41.975 0 2
13 8 18 Czech Republic 5.250 8.500 8.000 3.875 4.100 29.725 4.100 29.725 18.500 44.125 0 3
14 8 20 Greece 7.600 4.400 6.100 6.200 4.000 28.300 4.200 28.500 20.000 44.300 1 2
15 15 24 Romania 4.333 6.800 6.875 5.125 2.250 25.383 2.250 25.383 2.250 25.383 0 0
16 14 25 Austria 7.125 2.250 7.800 4.125 3.000 24.300 3.000 24.300 8.400 29.700 0 1
17 13 25 Croatia 3.750 4.375 4.375 6.875 4.500 23.875 4.500 23.875 11.500 30.875 1 0
18 14 26 Cyprus 9.125 4.000 2.750 3.300 3.000 22.175 3.000 22.175 9.750 28.925 0 1
19 10 26 Poland 6.625 2.500 3.125 4.750 4.750 21.750 5.000 22.000 17.750 34.750 0 2
20 15 28 Sweden 2.900 5.125 3.200 3.900 4.750 19.875 4.750 19.875 11.250 26.375 1 0
21 11 28 Belarus 3.125 4.500 1.750 5.500 4.125 19.000 4.625 19.500 17.875 32.750 1 1
22 15 28 Israel 6.000 3.250 5.750 1.375 2.250 18.625 2.250 18.625 9.250 25.625 1 0
23 16 28 Denmark 3.100 3.300 3.800 2.900 4.750 17.850 4.750 17.850 11.500 24.600 0 1
24 13 28 Norway 2.300 4.900 2.600 2.200 5.750 17.750 6.000 18.000 18.750 30.750 0 2
25 18 28 Scotland 2.750 4.300 3.250 4.000 2.750 17.050 2.750 17.050 9.500 23.800 0 1
26 15 28 Azerbaijan 1.375 3.000 2.500 3.625 3.875 14.375 4.125 14.625 16.875 27.375 0 2
27 20 28 Serbia 2.125 3.000 2.500 2.750 3.750 14.125 3.750 14.125 10.500 20.875 0 1
28 20 28 Kazakhstan 1.625 1.375 3.125 3.375 4.125 13.625 4.125 13.625 10.625 20.125 1 0
29 29 29 Bulgaria 1.500 0.750 5.625 4.250 1.000 13.125 1.000 13.125 1.000 13.125 0 0
30 30 30 Slovenia 2.250 3.250 2.625 4.000 1.000 13.125 1.000 13.125 1.000 13.125 0 0
31 31 32 Slovakia 2.375 1.500 1.625 2.750 3.750 12.000 3.750 12.000 3.750 12.000 0 0
32 32 33 Liechtenstein 2.000 0.000 1.000 2.500 5.000 10.500 5.000 10.500 5.000 10.500 0 0
33 33 34 Hungary 2.250 3.000 0.875 2.125 1.625 9.875 1.625 9.875 1.625 9.875 0 0
34 34 35 Moldova 0.500 2.250 3.375 1.750 1.250 9.125 1.250 9.125 1.250 9.125 0 0
35 35 36 Iceland 1.375 1.250 2.500 2.500 1.125 8.750 1.125 8.750 1.125 8.750 0 0
36 36 37 Georgia 2.875 1.500 1.875 1.250 0.625 8.125 0.625 8.125 0.625 8.125 0 0
37 37 38 Finland 1.500 2.000 0.500 2.400 1.000 7.400 1.000 7.400 1.000 7.400 0 0
38 38 39 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.125 1.250 1.500 1.750 1.500 7.125 1.500 7.125 1.500 7.125 0 0
39 31 39 Albania 0.875 0.750 2.000 0.875 1.625 6.125 2.125 6.625 8.375 12.875 0 1
40 40 40 Macedonia 1.625 1.250 0.500 1.125 1.500 6.000 1.500 6.000 1.500 6.000 0 0
41 41 41 Republic of Ireland 1.500 1.000 0.250 2.000 0.700 5.450 0.700 5.450 0.700 5.450 0 0
42 42 42 Latvia 0.625 1.250 1.625 0.250 1.625 5.375 1.625 5.375 1.625 5.375 0 0
43 43 43 Luxembourg 1.125 1.375 1.500 0.500 0.750 5.250 0.750 5.250 0.750 5.250 0 0
44 44 44 Montenegro 0.500 1.375 1.250 0.750 1.000 4.875 1.000 4.875 1.000 4.875 0 0
45 45 45 Lithuania 1.000 1.125 1.250 0.500 0.750 4.625 0.750 4.625 0.750 4.625 0 0
46 46 46 Northern Ireland 0.500 1.000 0.875 1.375 0.750 4.500 0.750 4.500 0.750 4.500 0 0
47 47 47 Estonia 0.375 0.375 1.000 1.500 1.000 4.250 1.000 4.250 1.000 4.250 0 0
48 48 48 Armenia 0.125 0.875 1.125 0.375 1.625 4.125 1.625 4.125 1.625 4.125 0 0
49 49 49 Faroe Islands 0.500 0.500 0.875 1.375 0.375 3.625 0.375 3.625 0.375 3.625 0 0
50 50 50 Malta 0.833 0.875 0.875 0.125 0.875 3.583 0.875 3.583 0.875 3.583 0 0
51 51 51 Wales 0.625 0.500 0.750 0.125 1.500 3.500 1.500 3.500 1.500 3.500 0 0
52 52 52 Gibraltar 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.750 1.000 0.750 1.000 0.750 1.000 0 0
53 53 53 Andorra 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.500 0.166 0.999 0.166 0.999 0.166 0.999 0 0
54 54 54 San Marino 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.000 0.333 0.000 0.333 0 0

1 The highest and lowest rank the association may have in coefficient ranking (not the rank for max and min coefficients).
2 The minimum and maximum number of additional points for rest of the season for the association.
3 The number of teams currently participating in Champions League (CL) and Europa League (EL).

  Indicates active countries which have teams still competing in this year's UEFA Champions League or Europa League.

Hope this is correct. Enjoy. Qed237 (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Qed237: The coefficients do not match the countries starting from "Macedonia". Chanheigeorge (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Chanheigeorge: Thanks, I will take a look at it tomorrow. Qed237 (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Chanheigeorge: Actually I looked at it now and I just made a simple mistake of the order in a vector. Initially I had Macedonia after Republic of Ireland because the flag sorted it that way in the UEFA coefficient article. I corrected that in the article so now Macedonia is above Malta, but I forgot to change at one place in code. Now it should be okay. Also I manually calculated some countries (Spain, Sweden, Norway) and the max numbers seems to be correct. Qed237 (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Qed237. Nice table! Please, check coefficient for Russia. Current 46.682, but Max 71.881. GAV80 (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay I have now done the calculations for Russia and they seem to be correct, when I count. I spotted a rounding issue with float numbers making it 71.881 instead of 71.882 but that has now been fixed. I will give you the calculations do get the Russia numbers.

There are 5 Russian teams left in the competition (no team has been eliminated), CSKA Moscow and Zenit in CL, and Rubin Kazan, Krasnodar and Lokomotiv Moscow in EL. Since you get slightly more points in CL knockout stage than EL (2 extra matches in EL is 4points, but there is 5points extra bonus in CL) there is no need for any team to transfer to EL on purpose so all teams will take max points in group stage. For every team:

  1. CSKA MOSCOW has a maximum of 10 matches they can win in CL (3 in GS, 2 in Rof16, 2 in QF, 2 in SF, 1 in Final) and they can get 8 bonuspoints (5 in Rof16, 1 in QF, 1 in SF, 1 in Final). So the total maximum points for CSKA is 10*2+8=28 points
  2. ZENIT can not win Final (as CSKA did above) so they can only win 9 matches in CL (3 in GS, 2 in Rof16, 2 in QF, 2 in SF) and they can get 8 bonuspoints (5 in Rof16, 1 in QF, 1 in SF, 1 in Final). So the total maximum points for Zenit is 9*2+8=26 points
  3. RUBIN KAZAN has a maximum of 12 matches they can win in EL (3 in GS, 2 in Rof32, 2 in Rof16, 2 in QF, 2 in SF, 1 in Final) and they can get 3 bonuspoints (1 in QF, 1 in SF, 1 in Final). So the total maximum points for rubin kazan is 12*2+3=27 points
  4. KRASNODAR can not win Final (as Rubin Kazan did above) so they can only win 11 matches in EL (3 in GS, 2 in Rof32, 2 in Rof16, 2 in QF, 2 in SF) and they can get 3 bonuspoints (1 in QF, 1 in SF, 1 in Final). So the total maximum points for krasnodar is 11*2+3=25 points
  5. LOKOMOTIV MOSCOW can not win in semifinal and reach Final (as Rubin Kazan and Krasnodar did it above) so they can only win 9 matches in EL (3 in GS, 2 in Rof32, 2 in Rof16, 2 in QF) and they can get 2 bonuspoints (1 in QF, 1 in SF). So the total maximum points for lokomotiv is 9*2+2=20 points

Note that the order of team does not matter, if Zenit win they get 28points and CSKA Moscow 26points so the total is the same.

The total amounts of possible points are 28+26+27+25+20=126 to be divided over 5 entering teams, to get 126/5=25.200 extra coefficient points. The current points are 46.682 and the maximum is then 46.682+25.200=71.882 so it seems correct to me. Or have I made an error in my mind or math somewhere? My program calculates in a slightly different way, taking round by round and not team by team above, but it is the same result.

GAV80 and Chanheigeorge you are both free to check if the numbers I wrote above are correct, but they seem okay to me. Qed237 (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Qed237: Thanks. The calculations are too complicated for me, especially for those where CL teams can transfer to EL, so I will probably only check after the group stage is finished. Anyway, can you add the following so it is a bit easier to check: 1. Highlight (e.g. in green) the countries still playing in Europe. 2. Add columns for how many teams are left in CL and EL. Chanheigeorge (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Chanheigeorge Yes, they are more complicated than I thought when I started, that is why it took a lot of time to make the code. The additions are very easy (I think) so I will definately look to add thos things. I was also considering adding columns for 'lowest possible rank','highest possible rank' and 'MinCoeff'. Currently the minimum coeff is same as current, but when teams from same association meet, the minimum will be higher as one of the teams must win... Also the highest and lowest possible rank could be useful, then for example we could have seen that Albania could not be higher than 31st. It is only to take the max value and compare to the current value of the other nations and see if they can pass the other nations. The 'highest possible rank' would even be a harder limit than real limit since all of the other nations can not stay at the current coefficient so the limit should be higher. Qed237 (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

As a side note, User:GAV80 and User:Chanheigeorge could you also take a look at Talk:2016–17 UEFA Champions League if you have the time? I added Liepaja section and accesslist section and you maybe have something to say about those?. Qed237 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I checked table. There is error for Czech Republic. Now CurrentCoeff=29.725 and MaxCoeff=44.125.
And about Spain. I doubt in MaxCoeff=112.999. Please, write max points for every Spain's teams.
Other countries are OK. GAV80 (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I found error in my calculations about Spain. 112.999 is right coefficient. GAV80 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I have corrected the czech error, just a mistake when I put in numbers and no error in code. Will add more columns very soon (tomorrow). Qed237 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, User:GAV80 and User:Chanheigeorge, I have now updated it with a lot more information. I added colors and number of teams left in CL and EL as requested and I also fixed a minor error for czech republic (a typo). The most interesting perhaps is the lowest and highest ranking. It shows that Albania can at best be 31st, which User:GAV80 calculated above (so it seems to be correct). But it also shows that Spain has already secured top2 and a pot1 seeding in CL Group stage. With this info we should be able to add a lot of associations to different rounds. Or is it to much OR?

If I am not wrong, User:Chanheigeorge did these calculations manually last year after group stage, so perhaps we should wait until then. If we wait and make the calculations manually later, then we can use this as "confirmation"/control and if no errors is spotted, it may be used for upcoming seasons.

Anyway, please let me know if you spot something wrong or if you want more or less information (it got a little big). Qed237 (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

From now on I will keep this table in User:Qed237/sandbox3 (below the tables I monitor), and then we can see after group stage. Qed237 (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Why does "Q" have to mean another tournament?

I added a section on Template talk:2015–16 UEFA Champions League Group A table. I'd like to get your thoughts regarding the logic for reverting my edit. Thanks. LarryJeff (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:2015 Veikkausliiga table

Hi, I put it that way to be like the other national league tables. Maybe we should do the inverse? The Replicator (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure, but yeah often the Q are removed. Qed237 (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

Why do you keep reverting everything I do, could you please explain, because it took me a lot of time to do it? HankMoodyTZ (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@HankMoodyTZ: Several reasons, incorrect wikilinks, we should avoid to link nation, the teams play in multiple competitions... and more. Look at the high profile article like Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo and other big names. Messi says an Argentine professional footballer who plays as a forward for Spanish club Barcelona and the Argentina national team. Qed237 (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Walters

The last sentence can be removed to provide a neutral and balanced page entry!Kenneg22 (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kenneg22: Sure but there was also a lot of other issues, like it being completely unsourced and not appropriate for the lead. Qed237 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

<br />

Hi, I would like to ask a litte bit. I always use <br> because it is shorter and these two codes seem to display identically. Would you explain what happens when I do not use <br />? Thanks :) Centaur271188 (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Centaur271188: To be honest I am not sure exactly about the difference it depends on HTML and XHTML versions, but in Wikipedia:Line-break handling is says Wikipedia currently renders HTML5 where <br> and <br /> are both valid, but <br /> is preferred as it will be rendered correctly in all circumstances, including strict XHTML. Normally HTML Tidy will convert <br> and other valid forms like <br/> and <br > to <br /> including some of the invalid forms like </br>, <br,> and <br.>. This conversion does not work in a number of MediaWiki interface pages and can cause invalid HTML and problems rendering the page. Other wikis may not have HTML Tidy enabled, thus exported pages using an incorrect break tag will result in invalid HTML. (my bolding). So for that reason I have always used <br /> and when it has been used before in the article it is always more "good looking" when we have the same linebreak everywhere for consistency instead of mixing them. Qed237 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism on 2015–16 La Liga

Hi Qed, it's me again, just wanted to ask you if you can send a warning message to 202.78.166.180, he keeps on adding nonsense to the page and it's getting quite annoying. I await your answer at my talk page TheSoccerBoy (talk) 13:37, 24 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) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

About the Live Updates

Hi, I saw your message on my talk page. Thanks for the advise TheSoccerBoy (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League

Do you have a source to show me that the list does not include qualification round ? It was a misatake that is why I correct it.Alexiulian25 (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)--Alexiulian25 (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

We always try and not show qualification, the stats are for main tournament. Qed237 (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I believe you, I also found on newspapers that Barcelona has 1030 goals in all European competition games, after last night, and Real Madrid 1026, do we have articles on wikipedia about this?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I dont know that. I dont think we have article for that (and doubt it is notable). Qed237 (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

FC Barcelona in European football and Real Madrid C.F. in European football but is not updated and probably has mistakes.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

IP AIV report

109.246.13.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) doesn't appear to be blatant vandalism -- more like changing the record of various players without a citation. Is the issue that they're not providing a citation or do we know they're intentionally introduced factually incorrect information? Mkdwtalk 23:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mkdw: They keep on editing disruptivly by not updating timestamps despite multiple notifications. Qed237 (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems like they update them sometimes such as this edit unless its a different time stamp? Mkdwtalk 00:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
This issue would probably be best dealt with at WP:ANI than WP:AIV. Mkdwtalk 00:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

AFC World Cup qualifying

In this edit you marked Kyrgyzstan with status X (assured at least 3rd round of Asian Cup). Was it because their 5 pt (adjusted) minimum is sure to qualify as one of the 4 best 4th-place teams, or because you thought they have clinched 3rd place? I have not yet checked the possible points for all 4th place teams, but I'm sure they have not clinched 3rd. Tajikistan can still tie them for 3rd with the tiebreak being overall GD. LarryJeff (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@LarryJeff: Hi. First of all thank you for your question, it is always best to ask before editing if you are not sure. For a few months ago I created a computer program (in c++) to calculate possible scenarios, and it has been verified by manual calculations so it should be correct (a lot of testing). It calculates the highest and lowest (current) possible points, highest and lowest possible position and also highest and lowest possible points in runners-up and fourth-place table (both excluding fifth-placed team). It can also calculate a lot of different things. The result can currently be seen in User:Qed237/sandbox5. There you can see that Kyrgyzstan can be 2nd, 3rd or 4th in their group and if they are 4th they will have between 5-8 points in ranking of fourth-placed team. Looking at the table at the bottom, we can see that 5 points (the lowest for Kyrgyzstan) will be enough to be before Group A, C, E and F as they can not reach 5 points. I hope this answers your question and feel free to verify with your own calculations, even though I am pretty sure I got the correct numbers. If you have more questions dont hesitate to ask. Qed237 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Question

Are you going to delete those articles ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexiulian25: No, why should I? Qed237 (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Why you do not do something to eliminate that from those pages ? everyone here on wikipedia try and find problems, but who is going to help resolving them ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and you can not tell me or others what to do, we are all volunteers that do what everything we can to improve wikipedia. Qed237 (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

I said I m sorry for what I said, he really annoyed me. NOW - why do you let him to delete around Wikipedia ! Please do something !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexiulian25: Please read WP:VANDALISM and he was completely right to remove it as it was WP:OR and not notable. Per WP:BRD you should not have re-added without discussion and consensus and definately not have started with personal attacks. If User:GiantSnowman would not have been a very patient editor you would probably have been blocked by now and you are walking on a very thin line. Qed237 (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

List of Macedonian football champions - why about this ??????????--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you own wikipedia ??? why you act like this ???--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexiulian25: Dont be like that, try and listen to what everyone has to say. I dont own wikipedia and you know it. There is community guidelines for everyone to follow. Qed237 (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I did add the reference there ? Why did you report me ? Honest !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

List of Macedonian football champions

You keep on reverting and adding without any consensus despite the fact we have been trying to tell you it is not even notable, and you insist on warring against multiple people. Qed237 (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Qed237 (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand. It is not reapiting ! show me where it is reapiting ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, I dont understand the word "reapiting"? Do you mean repeat? You are still reverting content and need to stop. Qed237 (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You start it to revert the contents, I did add references ! :( --Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I do not understand this rule ??!! What is this for in my case ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not about reference, it is not notable, and you still should not have kept on without consensus. Also the reference does not say how many titles there are for each city, only where the teams are located. Qed237 (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
It means that just because the content exists on other articles does not make it right. It could be wrong on the other articles. Other article can not be used as an argument. Qed237 (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I understand this but I did add the reference above the article when I saw the Snowman keep deleting my stuffs. I am looking for references now, for everything he deleted. Can you revert it back here : List of Macedonian football champions - there is a reference. Thank you!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: We're working on a draft of List of Macedonian football champions over on a sandbox here - could you help me out by explaining why the "by city" list was not acceptable? Ta -- samtar whisper 14:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Samtar: It is create that you try and help this editor so that the arguing can "come back to a normal level" without wars and personal attacks. There are some reasons as to why the list was not acceptable. First of all it might not even be notable, why would we need that list? Secondly the source used did not list the "titles by city", only what team plays where, and the number of titles per city is still WP:OR. Qed237 (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Samtar: Also, I forgot to mention there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Macedonian First Football League about this matter. Qed237 (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

TW

What is twinkle ? What is the reason ? And I will not add back !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:TWINKLE. Qed237 (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Please leave me alone. I had to do my duty in ensuring that you gain no further power on this site but otherwise I want no interaction with you. Eightball (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eightball: Then please do so in a normal way, without personal attacks for something that happened months ago. If you keep on with personal attacks you run a high risk of being blocked. Qed237 (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Administrator nomination


@333-blue: Hi, and thank you very much for the nomination. It makes me happy that editors like my work and believes that I can become an administrator, but today I must respectfully decline. I think it is still a little bit to soon and I still have some things to learn and improve before being an administrator. Also I would like to take the opportunity to inform you that next time you want to nominate an other editor you should ask them first. But as I said, thank you for the nomination and believing in me. Qed237 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Half Barnstar
Glad I could help you with that! If you will run for adminship, I'll be more than glad to support you! Dat GuyWiki (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

RfA thoughts

Hi Qed, I would personally advise you not to run for Admin unless you can get somebody (respected) to co-nominate you. I think 333-blue has good intentions but his reason for nominating you is very weak and it's not a good start to your RfA. Also, you should be prepared to answer questions about your content creation experience (or lack of) with Good and Features articles, even though in my opinion has nothing to do with becoming a good Admin, but the community seem to think this is important. This is just my view, if you decide to run then best of luck. JMHamo (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Thank you for giving me your point of view. It is always good to get comments from other editors and I appreciate that you took your time to give me your view. I currently lean towards withdrawing the nomination. Qed237 (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you would make a good Admin, but be prepared and have a plan on how you'll answer the questions asked of you, also get a better nomination opening statement than "He has done a lot of great jobs, creating articles in football articles." (no offence 333-blue) JMHamo (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@JMHamo: I have decided to withdraw the nomination. Qed237 (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
If you want, you can submit your name at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll to get input and advice on how ready you appear for an RfA, even if you're not considering running soon. clpo13(talk) 21:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@Clpo13: Thank you for the hint, I might try that. Qed237 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Tips on stacking people

Hey Qed237, I hear you're offering lessons on how to stack people correctly. Where do I sign up!? Seriously though, I'm a contributor of the page which you left the remark on, and I'd just like to say that if there is any problem with how I, or any other contributor maintains a page, then it would be helpful to contact us directly or perhaps even leave a remark in the talk page as to how we can improve what we're doing. I get that it's frustrating having to tidy up the same mess over and over again, but you're only going to have to continue doing it if people don't realise there is an issue! :) Anyway, thanks for making the edits to the page, and I know that I, at least, will make sure that I stack correctly in future! Exxy (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Qed237! And thank you for the link, I'll be sure to take a look at it when I get a moment :) Hope your day gets better! :D Exxy (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Dan Gargan

Thats his nick name why did you remove it??? I sourced it correctly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaxy Guy 69 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in that source say anything about that nickname. Qed237 (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Joel Campbell

You are wrong about Joel Campbell. He is not on loan any more. He played today with Arsenal F.C. against Olympiacos F.C.. Maybe you should double-check before reverting other users' edits. SoSivr (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a closer look at what you were doing? We already have a row for Arsenal (with 2011- ) which is used as he has been a gunner ever since. There was absolutely no need to add a second row and also it was incorrect, we dont put "summer" or space before dash, and you did not wikilink. A lot of errors in your edit unfortunately. Qed237 (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237:1.another Hasty action of yours was removing the external link with Campbell's profile on the Arsenal websiteSoSivr (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237:2.since you don't like the word Summer how do you propose designating that he was on loan at Villareal for the second half of the Season 2014-15 and after this period he returned to Arsenal? This issue may arise in the pages of other players too.SoSivr (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
3. I did not wikilink because there was already a link to Arsenal F.C. close by. This is a common practice in Wikipedia and not an "error".SoSivr (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@SoSivr: Exactly what months he was on loan is not an information to have in the infobox, we list only years, and as I said we already have a current Arsenal spell. I do a lot of work in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football so believe me I know. The reason I removed the external links is because it is only temporary and when the player changes club (ort retire if he is in Arsenal for long) then that link wont work. Qed237 (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I did not say that the exact months matter; but it probably matters that he was not on loan the whole 2015: the piece of information as it is read now (in 2015 he was on loan) is partially incorrect (since for example he played yesterday 9 December 2015 with Arsenal against Olympiacos). Also if you had written some of that stuff in the edit summary most of this discussion would have been avoided. Good luck in the wikiproject.SoSivr (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The info on the loan can be read in the body of the article, infobox is just a summary. Qed237 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Lazar Markovic & Erik Lamela

Hi QED, are edits actually reviewed by admin users before being reverted? for example with markovic and lamela's wiki pages, the career total numbers were not accounted for under 'career statistics' simple mathematics correction and that gets reverted? if you wont accept my edit could you at least do it on my behalf? Wardgattitriology (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wardgattitriology: No edits are not reviewed by admins. But there was a lot of errors on your edits. On Lamela you used a source that is not reliable and on Markovic you added a date that has not yet been (31 December). Qed237 (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Wardgattitriology: you have been issued with a final warning, if you continue to edit disruptively again then you will be blocked again. GiantSnowman 14:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you guys don't review edits speaks volumes, how can you guys have idea that an edit is disruptive or not? Wardgattitriology (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wardgattitriology: The editors that reverts an edit reviews it, but that has nothing to do with admins. You dont have to be admin to have rights to revert. Qed237 (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Your RfA

Are you going to answer the questions in your RfA? I am between opposing or supporting you, and think the answers will help me decide. Also, seems like you're getting a lot of inactivity on it, you might want to withdraw it. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dat GuyWiki: Hi, and thank you for informing me. I got a surprise yesterday when I got a message (see thread above) that an other editor nominated me, so I spent the day today reading all information about what it means becoming an administrator. I was not aware that it had "gone live" but thought I had a few days either to accept or decline the nomination and decide if I am ready to become an administrator or not. I wanted to be fully informed about what it means to be an administrator before accepting the nomination. Qed237 (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
No problem! Just a reminder, it is Scheduled to end 17:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Dat GuyWiki (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@Dat GuyWiki: Okay great. I see it will update to end a week after my decision, but I will decide as soon as possible. Qed237 (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@Dat GuyWiki: I have decided to withdraw the nomination. Qed237 (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I have deleted the page. It hadn't gone live. When you do accept a nom, read the transclusion instructions carefully (there's no need to manually update timestamps). --NeilN talk to me 20:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: Okay, my bad. Well, back to anti-vandalism we go! Dat GuyWiki (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qed237/Archive_20&oldid=1085987074"