User talk:Qed237/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Help

Excuse me.i am lijianxing（李建兴）What is 42? why is 42 for universe answer. Adsafe (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw a tv《The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy》Chinese cant know that... I have to ask English men you.Excuse me very much

I am sorry but I am not sure exactly what you mean. To me the number 42 is nothing special and does not stand for anything special. And I have not seen the move you are talking about. How is this related to wikipedia? If you have wikipedia related question I will try and help you, but this is not a forum. Qed237 (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thank you very much I have to find you here(Are you have Emeil outwiki , my emeil is 954837423@qq.comAdsafe (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not have an email outside wikipedia that I wish to share here. Qed237 (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) lol spot on QED, WP:FORUM here we come! ;) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

ok. and help add time zone in some match schedule（up and down） it is convenient to view There are only one time zone display, and the top and the bottom are far away.Really inconvenient to see.Always need move Webpage. Adsafe (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but I dont understand what you are trying to say. Qed237 (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)Do you agree with how similar their styles are, Qed? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Yes, indeed similar. If you want, look at my latest contribution. Qed237 (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: And now I just saw your SPI.... Qed237 (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Great minds think alike, eh! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: People say so! ANyway weird that I could create my Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/李建兴 while you already had Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ 李建兴, probably because you had a space in your name? Qed237 (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Never even noticed- cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the page should be moved later in case of future reports. Qed237 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


You are right the page should be moved.so I do that.if I wrong, please undo. Adsafe (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

if I right.please delete all about "help".and excuse me again,thank you for help,I am happy and thanks. Adsafe (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

say to administrators:I am not to make trouble.I just contact Qed237.and Get Needed help，I don't want to break the rules of wiki.please give the wrongdoer a way out. Adsafe (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove messages on my talkpage, they will be archieved later. IF you want your old account unblocked, you should make an unblock request for that account and motivate why you should be unblocked. Creating a new account to edit while being blocked is not okay. You have currently not shown that you are able to communicate with other editors in english so I suggest that you edit wikipedia in our own language. Qed237 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

ok,I do not remove again.Adsafe (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Great. Qed237 (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks to God.Adsafe (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

...not for very long, perhaps... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

yes.not for very long and Jesus loves you and thank you Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Adsafe (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If you have nothing to add, please leave this discussion now so it can be archieved. Qed237 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I just to be thankful，thanks to God.mayby “thanks God haha”is wrong mind，so I change，please forgive me，and Fortuna misunderstand my mind.say “...not for very long, perhaps...”so I delete，that is it. Adsafe (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Just stop now, you are just disruptive and clearly dont have the WP:COMPETENCE to edit english wikipedia. All you do is clogg up my talkpage and talkpage history. Further edits will be removed. Have a nice day. Qed237 (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the end of that, Qed. This will finlly archive if nothing else! Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes it will. Qed237 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

List of [Insert Indian Team Here] seasons or something else

Hey mate, thanks for the nomination of List of United S.C. seasons for deletion. I have nominated the article for speedy deletion as the creator and merged the right information with United. If you find any other article like this in the future though about an Indian team, just tell me on my talk page and I will merge and speedy delete instead of just having to go through AfD. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@ArsenalFan700: Okay great. Thanks for the information. Qed237 (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Welcome mate. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Geoffrey Kondogbia

If you notice, this user has a vast array of IPs (all starting with 79), and he never updates one single time, EVER. At least here, in Fredy Guarín, Martín Montoya and Jeison Murillo, which are the only Inter players I edit in.

Continue the good work, cheers --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2016

Hi,

I'm sorry but the capacity of the stadium of Lyon is: 59,186. cf the official website of the french football league : http://www.ligue1.com/club/olympique-lyonnais — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oromis 33 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Oromis 33: Please read the note under the venues, it says Note: Capacity figures are those for matches at UEFA Euro 2016 and are not necessarily the total capacity that the stadium is capable of holding.. Do you have any source that full capacity will be used? Qed237 (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

FA Cup

But Carlisle United will be playing Everton at Goodison Park because it says so on the BBC Sport website — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMamun84 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @AMamun84: Where exactly? Because [1], [2], [3] all say the game is in Carlisle. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
As does the BBBC Sport website. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@AMamun84 and Joseph2302: Before reverting I looked everywhere and could not find any source saying that they will play on Goodison Park. When making such changes a link must be provided so the information can be verified. Qed237 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for fixing all those also wills! bonadea contributions talk 17:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Superleague Greece

Hello Qed237. The official proclamation of 2015–16 Superleague Greece, says clearly (article number 10) that 1. The teams will fill the two (2) latest posts immediately go to the second division; 2. The number one and two places of this year's second division promote for the 2016–17 Superleague Greece; 3. The 2016–17 Superleage Greece will take place including 16 teams. Thank you, 2A02:587:5410:D200:A454:EB12:C070:D003 (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay great. I have two questions. Where did you find those rules? Why remove soccerway? Qed237 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The official site of 2015–16 Superleague Greece (here it is the rules, in Greek: http://ad78b57024136e3657c1-14621d44fda2de1b7e1bfdf7734d3121.r41.cf3.rackcdn.com/gFnO38AAkRzajE02GeneWgtYQmUAnvje.pdf) is much more reliable than any other source. Why all this edit warring and confusion for something so clear? 2A02:587:5410:D200:A454:EB12:C070:D003 (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
It was not clear at all since the rules was not present at the table and I still dont know where they can be found. Also I still have not been given any explanation why soccerway was removed? Qed237 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
All we had was http://www.epo.gr/media/files/KATASTATIKO_KANONISMOI/KAP_EPAGGELMATIKON_OMADON_2015.pdf Qed237 (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
After more investigation you got it from http://www.superleaguegreece.net/el/download-zone I would think. Qed237 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Allsvenskan/Swedish Champions

Arguments or sources for any Allsvenskan "title" (note: "title" not top finish) being given the years that the competition winner was determined by playoffs. As long as we have no such official ruling we should go by what is given by the rulings of the Swedish football association regarding the main title of the Allsvenskan competition.

We should still present the stats for finishing top of the league table. But we should be accurate in not describing it as a title. Since it was not for some years.--Mvhtnb (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Addition: To clarify the official statement says exactly this regarding counting of Championship wins for stars above crest. Naming no such thing as a Allsvenskan Champion:
"Stars for Championship wins may be printed/sown above the club crest. One star per 10 Championship wins, what is counted as Championship winner is the officially recognized Swedish Champion."

//SvFF 2015--Mvhtnb (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Take it to article talkpage for discussion and consensus, until dispute has been resolved, per WP:BRD the old long standing revision should stay. Qed237 (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Soccer8295

 Done GiantSnowman 12:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

El Shaarawy

Hi there, I'm having a situation with User:Misiunea10 as he states that Stephan El Shaarawy's date of exit from Monaco should be written as 2015-2016 in the infobox. Even though he left the club in January 2016, he hadn't played since 2015. So shouldn't it just be written as 2015 in the infobox? I remember seeing an example of this with Alessandro Nesta and Miami FC since he signed as coach in 2015, but the infobox says 2016 since play doesn't start till then. (Then as soon as I reference him to Nesta, he takes it upon himself to change it on his page too without further discussion.) Who is correct here? He also is correcting a date in the national team infobox for the U19 team to 2010-2011 from 2010. He tells me Transfermarkt says it says this, even though Trasnfermarkt isn't technically a reliable source. The Italian article says just 2010 like how it was before as well. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: From what I can remember, we should put the year the player left/signed for winter seasons, so when a player leaves mid-season in January like El Shaaraway we should put him as 2015-2016 as he left in 2016. However, for some leagues like the American league, they play spring-fall seasons (i.e. 2015 season, 2016 season etc instead of 2014-15, 2015-16 and so on) and for those leagues it is okay to say he left 2015, since he left after the previous season. But when a player leaves mid-season like shaaraway he had a contract in 2016 so it was then it ended. About transfermarkt, you are right, it is not a reliable source. Qed237 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
So the conclussion is that we should put 2015-16 for El Shaarawy but keep it as 2016- for Nesta since he is for Miami in the MLS even though he signed in 2015? Or should that be changed to 2015- ? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@Vaselineeeeeeee: If I remember previous discussions correctly, that is what I would go with. 2015-16 for El Shaaraway and 2016- for Nesta. Qed237 (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Edits to MCFC 15/16 Season page

Hi. Can you please tell me what was the reason you had for reverting all of the edits I just made to this page. Thanks. Ratchet8865 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Poor articles

If you don't have the time or inclination to expand what should be a notable topic, then why not simply redirect them to the main article? GiantSnowman 14:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably worth gauging the opinion of WT:FOOTY to see what should be done. AFDing a notable but incredibly outdated/poor article that nobody can/will work on seems strange. GiantSnowman 11:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2014–15 Premier League PFA Team of the Year

Template:2014–15 Premier League PFA Team of the Year has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GreenCricketTALK 14:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@GreenCricket: Okay, but notification not needed. Be aware that "shopping" is not allowed. Qed237 (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I did not create that so not sure why I got the notification. Qed237 (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Volman92

Here is the source I used for the FA Cup replay matches [4]. They do seem to be subject to change so thanks for fixing that.

Volman92 (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverting

Stop reverting things you have no right to revert. The comment about the greatness was settled in the talk page, and it merely describes the sources given. Your argument prior about not EVERYONE seeing him as the greatest doesnt hold water as the sources merely imply many do, which is true. Our job is not to say what we want to say but what the sources say and all the sources say he's the greatest. The second part was a factual quote from the Guardian which supports a point that was agreed on on wikiproject football weeks ago.Davefelmer (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It has been settled on the talkpage? No, not what I can see. Now please start listening to me and other editors. Qed237 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the other editor made note about sticking EXACTLY to the sources when I referenced another piece of info so I countered that that wasnt what was currently being done with existing sources since they described AF as the greatest and we had it down as one of the greatest. He didnt reply. Secondly, this is not how consensus works. Editors can't "decide" that for this article, you won't use the information from the sources and say something different from what the sources say instead. the fact that three have done so is ridiculous and makes me wonder whether outside factors are at play. Thirdly, the part about the guardian and other media quoting him as the most successful manager is also factual, sourced and was agreed to be added on wikiproject football (on top of the fact it shouldnt need to be as its sourced by the flipping Guardian). Davefelmer (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't keep senselessly reverting or I'll report you. The sources say something not corroborated in the text which I've attempted to fix and the part about the guardian was agreed and is archived on wikiproject football and in any case its a quote from a very reliable paper in the guardian. There is absolutely 0 reason to keep changing, as I've gone through all the right channels and quoted only reliable news sources. You can't revert something because you don't like it. Others may have done the same but that doesnt make it any more right. All you are doing is edit warring now. Consensus cannot decide to not match the information of a source with the written text. Davefelmer (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Report me if you like that is you right but I warn you about WP:BOOMERANG. First you say yourself No official distinction of major or minor trophies. Total count listed. for United and then you add "Minor" section at an other article? Your bias has been clearly shown and other editors have even warned you. Qed237 (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2016

Bias my arse. I phrased it poorly and explained what I actually meant in the talk page. This has nothing to do with this article. And I'd say you are at risk yourself seeing as I have explained my point on the talk page to no response, reached consensus over another on wiki football and am doing what wikipedia is about; having the text reflect the sources which it does not do at present. Davefelmer (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, report me if you want. Qed237 (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

But that's the thing - I don't want to report people. I'd rather either you either explain your stance or accept that all I'm trying to do is reflect source content in the actual text. Davefelmer (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you know my stand (and others), he is one of the greatest managers. Qed237 (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

But its not about your stand or anyone else's. Its about the sources, and they say he's the greatest. There's nothing wrong with saying some people view him as the greatest. I'm not saying EVERYONE does, but the info stated has to be what the sources say. This is an encyclopaedia based on sources, not our opinions.Davefelmer (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You can find a lot of article for different managers saying that they all are the greatest, but everyone can not be the best and who is best is just an opinion. Qed237 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. But thats not what I (by way of the sources) am saying. Nobody ever said to write he explicitly is the greatest of all time or is seen as that because of exactly that point, other sources exist claiming others are the greatest (although I am not sure about 'a lot'). The fact is that many do see SAF as the greatest, that is indisputable and is exactly what the sources show, which is what should be reflected as anything else is interjecting our own opinions into the article. Other managers who have been referred to as the greatest can and should (and maybe even do) have similar statements of fact stated if the sources are found and used as that is what we are; an encyclopaedia of sources. why should we not acknowledge that many see someone as the greatest in their profession if that is what people have said and the sources show this? Who are we to deny them that distinction?Davefelmer (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why you keep writing here, we will never agree. This is a discussion for the article talkpage and you need consensus. Qed237 (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I need consensus to agree to use the information of the sources in the actual article? when I post on the discussion page, I don't get replies. Or there is a reply with an avoiding of the point, as you just did. So what would you recommend I do then if nobody answers directly to the question? Davefelmer (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Uluğ Kaçaniku

 Done GiantSnowman 17:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest requesting a range block. GiantSnowman 09:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Tom Lawrence

He has joined Cardiff City on loan, please don't change this back. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 18:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Skitzouk: If you use sources, I dont have to revert. Qed237 (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
NONE of the loans on that page are sourced so delete the lot or leave them, check the news its not hard. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 19:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Skitzouk: You dont have to add source in the article, but it would be lovely if you could use the edit summary. Qed237 (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Why the revert?

Hello. Why the revert? Part (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Part: Read the edit summary. If you look at the bottom of infobox it says "as of 24 January" and Vardy had not scored those goals at that time. When all sources has been updated, the entire infobox and timestamp will be updated, to avoid errors. Qed237 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Libra Legends ‎

Not sure, not enough for DUCK yet. GiantSnowman 18:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the AFD as malformed. GiantSnowman 21:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI. GiantSnowman 21:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

About the deletion nomination for List of international goals scored by Gonzalo Higuaín

Hi Qed, I've seen your message at my talk page, I just want to say that I created the article because it was on the requested articles list at the wikiproject football thingy. TheSoccerBoy (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@TheSoccerBoy: Okay, thank you for the explanation. Qed237 (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

re bogdan edit

Hi Qed237

Thank you for pointing out the issues around the Bogdan edit. This isn't the first time that someone me from Wikipedia has pointed out to me edits they feel were inappropriate, and the reason this concerns me is that I'm 100% sure, 1000% sure if you will, that I didn't make this and several other of the edits ascribed to me. I've literally no idea who this guy is, or why anyone around me with access to computer would make such a change as there are literally no football fans in this family of four (me, my son, my ex-wife, her 6 year old son) can you help at all? Why have these edits been ascribed to me?

Thanks,

kieron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.107 (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I am afraid that there is not much I can do. Someone with your IP adress made two disruptive edits 3 days ago and that is all I can see. Without too much information about networks, I would say this can have several reasons.
  1. It could actually have been someone in your family (or friends) editing on your computer, but let's rule that out.
  2. It is also possible that someone has access to your network (like a neighboor) if it is wireless and not secure.
  3. I am guessing you have a dynamic IP since I can not see that you have edited and had this issues before so most likely your IP adress has changed. If that is the case I guess it is possible for you to have an IP adress that has belonged to an other person before, but that is not likely.
  4. It could also ber that you edit through a proxy server.
But as I said these are just guesses from me. I suggest you create an account instead if you want to edit. I hope it all works out. Qed237 (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello,

Is there a way to stop editor FkpCascais from editing the name of the country that was known as "Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" into only "Bosnia and Herzegovina"? It is really annoying since he is erasing a very important historical fact.HankMoodyTZ (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC) HankMoodyTZ (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@HankMoodyTZ: First step is to try and talk to him at his talkpage (or the article talkpage if it relates to only one article). If you can not agree you could try WP:DRN or in worst case WP:ANI. Qed237 (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

219.64.178.76

No, I don't think so, wrong location - though it could well be the same IP from Libra Legends. GiantSnowman 18:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Men's qualification

Good evening. You cancelled my correction, because it hasn't sourse. I can cite the source: http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/championships/olympics/ . Section Final Olympic Qualification. It says that Group D will be in Minsk and Group E will be in Riga. City in Norway at the moment isn't defined This is the official website of the IIHF! I think this is the most reliable source. Although I may be wrong in this. Андрей Козлов 123 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the source, now that it has been provided we can change the content. Qed237 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Antony1821

 Done - thanks for the heads-up! GiantSnowman 18:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Masters Champions League merge proposal

Following an AFD that was recently closed as "keep", I have proposed that 2016 Masters Champions League be merged into Masters Champions League. I am sending you this notification as you participated in the AFD discussion. Discussion of the proposed merge is here. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Amir Hadžiahmetović

Hello from Bosnia.

I was wondering should I make a page for aforementioned player, since he recently went to Turkish Konyaspor and is now playing in a professional league? HankMoodyTZ (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@HankMoodyTZ: A footballer should not have a article until they have actually played in a fully professional league (being in club is not enough, they must have played on the pitch), and from what I can see he has not played yet? However I think that a cup match between two clubs from a FPL is enough for notability and he did play in the cup against Besiktas? If he did I think it is enough to make the footballer notable. However you also need reliable sources and those seems hard to find. A WP:BLP without reliable sources risk being speedy deleted. Qed237 (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@HankMoodyTZ: The article looks good, well done. I just wanted to let you know that it would be could if you could find an external link with his profile, or an other reliable source, with the caps and goals used in the infobox and other info like date of birth and place of birth. Currently a lot of the information in the infobox is unsourced. Qed237 (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
So I did. If you want to change anything, just let me know. I have never done external links before, and therefore don't know if I did it right. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

TryYourBest88

 Done, thanks. GiantSnowman 16:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

IP editor

He's had two warnings already today...he probably won't see that one as he rarely edits after 8PM. Tomorrow we start again with another IP address. Eagleash (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If so WP:RFPP might be a good idea. Qed237 (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The IP edits far too many pages for that to be practical. Tvx1 21:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Eagleash and Tvx1: today as 92.21.251.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Qed237 (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear God. Eagleash (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, I have to ask.... why blank the draft talk pages? Eagleash (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Eagleash: I did that because the IP added a template that indicated it was a "start-class" article, but it is a draft and not an article. Qed237 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
He always adds 'start'. Article classes are something else he has no concept of. SoP would be to change it to 'draft'. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Eagleash and Tvx1: today as 88.106.224.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Qed237 (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Added to the list! He's not been showing up on my watchlist lately. I'll have to add the recent pages. Eagleash (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
That change at templates for discussion...that was his own comment under an earlier IP...you probably knew that already. Eagleash (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, figured it out afterwards but could not be sure. Qed237 (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Louis van Gaal

Hi umm i added the news about the petition because it is big news. It is on metro.co.uk, on mirror.co.uk and was mentioned by the BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catabolicsuperstar (talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Fans not liking their manager is nothing special unfortunately. Qed237 (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

About "Paris Saint-Germain" in page User:Qed237/sandbox4

Hello, Qed237.

Page User:Qed237/sandbox4 is very good. Thank you. I found mistake about "Paris Saint-Germain". You wrote "TBD since Norwegian clubs are still playing in 2015–16 European competitions". GAV80 (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@GAV80: Thank you, both that you like it and for finding my mistake. Since it is a "sandbox" I am a bit to sloppy sometimes and I just copied it from a similar case currently in CL (for Rosenborg) and forgot to change the nation. I always double check those things before adding to the real article later (if needed). My main goal is to update it during the weeks to have all scenarios completed to the matches the following weekend and also see that the tables has been updated. This so it is easy to see if any team qualifies for Europa League. Of course with a lot of numbers and nations it could easily be some misses and mistakes, but it should hopefully work well. Qed237 (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Two questions

Hey Qed, its me again, I wanted to ask you two questions: first one is, would I be allowed to create a list of CLUB goals scored by Lionel Messi? or Cristiano Ronaldo or any other famous footballer? I'm looking forward to create an article like this in the future, just wanted to know if it would be approved by the wikipedia football community. The second question is, can you please search for my name in the wikipedia football project member list? I've checked like 5 times already and I can't find my name, was I kicked out or haven't I looked well? I don't know, but can you please do me the favor and prove to me that my name is in that member list, Thank you. I await your answers at my talk page TheSoccerBoy (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

2015/2016 Premier League

Hi Qed I wanted to talk to you about the changes of Bournemouth and West Ham stadiums. Bournemouth's stadium is originally called Dean Court, but as from now due to sponsorship purposes it's called the Vitality Stadium and that's its name from now. For West Ham it is referred on Sky Sports it's referred to as Upton Park, never Boleyn Ground and for that reason its present name is Upton Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerjoker (talk • contribs) 16:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Omerjoker: As someone else said in a earlier edit summary we avoid sponsornames and the real stadium name is Dean Court, which is also the name of thast article. Upton Park is an area around Boleyn Ground and a nickname for the stadium but the real name is Boleyn Ground. What sky sports "says" does not matter. Qed237 (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, just wanted to thank you for your help, thanks for finding my name on the list, I think I would do good with a better eyesight, Lol. But anyways Thank you once again Qed, for your good help :) TheSoccerBoy (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Kolo Toure page

Hi, I changed it because Yaya joined year after Kolo. I admit that I was a little lazy do rewrite it properly, but still thought that it is better to delete erroneous part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.14.232.7 (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now. Thanks. Qed237 (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Broadcasting rights

With the 2015 FIFA corruption case, transparency is needed. It's the 21st century and people have the right to know where they can watch football matches.--Abiete900 (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Abiete900: There is absolutely no reason to add empty sections and sections with only one nation. Qed237 (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I can see how adding empty broadcasting rights sections can be disrupting and I apologize for that. I won't add empty ones again. But my edits were done in good faith and you went a little trigger happy by reverting sourced content time after time that had nothing to do with broadcasting rights. Please be a little more careful when reverting edits, thank you.--Abiete900 (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Player heights

Why have you reverted my edits to player heights? The addition of "precision=0" to the height template removes the rather odd looking 1⁄2 inch. This is a rather spurious level of accuracy. Please explain your logic, or was it simply a knee jerk to an edit n=by an unregistered user? 2.96.236.37 (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason for adding a very low precision. There is a standard for that template for a reason and it has been well established. Qed237 (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
As I thought - another registered user who thinks he is somehow superior to IPs 2.96.236.37 (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
How did you come to that conclusion, was it because you did not like my motivation? Looks like you have a problem with registered users. Please stop making false accusations. Qed237 (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

My sincere apologies - I withdraw my stupid comment. I'll explain further later today. Best wishes. 2.96.236.37 (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I was a bit cross earlier because you reverted all my edits back to the incorrect ones by User:Neiliog93 and then reverted those edits of his on other articles which I had not changed, such as Rio Ferdinand. To be consistent, surely you should have also reverted his initial edits, such as that on Ivan Rakitić. Before his edit, the code was {{convert|1.84|m|ftin|0|abbr=on}} which gave the output 1.84 m (6 ft 0 in). His edit was to change this to {{height|m=1.84}} which gives the output 1.84 m (6 ft 1⁄2 in). I altered this to {{height|m=1.84|precision=0}} to give the output 1.84 m (6 ft 0 in) (i.e the same as the original) but you reverted me (and not User:Neiliog93) to show the current {{height|m=1.84}} giving 1.84 m (6 ft 1⁄2 in). Apart from the 1⁄2 inch being disproportionate with the rest of the text, as I said above this is a rather spurious level of accuracy. You say that the use of the half-inch is standard for the conversion template – are you sure? The template documentation suggests the use of the precision parameter. The documentation for the Convert template implies that the default precision is to the nearest inch.

Ignoring Wikipedia conventions and templates for a moment, I am not aware of any website or database in the UK which includes the half inch in height measurements. On a personal note, my height at a recent medical was recorded as 1.79 metres or 5 ft 10 in; I would never refer to my height in imperial as 5 ft 10 1⁄2 in.

Incidentally, you also reverted my edit on Stuart Green which had nothing to do with his height. UserSrednuas Lenoroc has changed many articles to replace "sent on loan" with "on loan" which completely alters the meaning. I have reverted you and hope you will accept this. Best wishes 2.96.236.37 (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand your view, but I looked at Template:Infobox football biography which uses {{height}} in their examples and in the section about "Style guide" there is no use of precision and the "TemplateData" section states "The {{height}} template should be used for automatic formatting.". I dont see what is wrong with 1/2 it looks perfectly fine to me and as I said, I see no reason to use the precision parameter. Qed237 (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree, but can I request that you revert back to the pre-Neiliog93 edits, to restore the status quo. Cheers. 2.96.236.37 (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
You are being rather disingenuous when you say that "Template:Infobox football biography ... uses {{height}} in their examples" - it might do, but the documentation referred to {{convert}} until your recent edit. 2.96.236.37 (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
It referred to convert template in one section and height in the others (someone had obviously missed it in the past) so yes I correctedc that. I also looked at the articles, they are now fixed. Qed237 (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Where can I start discussions on the WikiProject Football page?

Do you know where I can start discussions on the WikiProject Football page?

--PerelmanMorales (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Just open a new section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football (at the bottom of the page). Qed237 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. May I ask you why you are so much against my and others proposal of making a distinction between official titles (those recognized or organized by The FA, UEFA or FIFA) and unofficial trophies? I think that you know what I am referring to here.--PerelmanMorales (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Earlier discussions I have been involved in have all lead to the fact that we should only list honours and not determine what is major or minor. That is not for wikipedia to decide, we are neutral. Qed237 (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Álvaro Pereira

Again, I have to apologize for jumping the gun (not waiting until game is over before updating stuff). You are following the guidelines, I am not, but we BOTH want to help and improve I am sure.

Don't worry, when MARCA has the reference for his Getafe debut available i'll add it. Cheers --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. Have a nice day! Qed237 (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

2016–17 Premier League

Hooo boy. Aren't you going to be glad you asked me to explain this when you see my response. The answer is not exactly straight-forward, but it is mathematically definite.

First off, I will start by saying I disagree with your interpretation of WP:OR, and this is a sticking point I have had with users of this website for many a year. WP:OR was implemented to prevent people from going to an article such as this PL season article and adding what looks like reasoned arguments but made up of massive leaps of logic or misuse of source data, such as saying "the twenty-five yellow cards Newcastle United received all came in the first sixty minutes of a game, showing that their tactics revolved around deliberate foul play intended to injure their opponents". Pure mathematics, on the other hand, is empirical - it is either correct or not correct and simple numbers are not interpretable. Therefore, the calculation of a club's mathematical safety cannot be Original Research as a club is either safe or not safe, it is not arguably safe. What I research about mathematical safety is the exact same conclusion you would have to reach if you used the same method, and it would be the same 100 times out of 100.

As a second point, I don't think the source is a decent point of reference. It's talking about probability, which is a far more subjective methodology, especially as they haven't determined what system they are using to determine which team will win. You can also see that their rating for whether teams are safe or not gives different answers based on whether you use the weighted method or 50/50. I think you'll find that their "No" rating comes from when the numbers become sufficiently close to zero to become not worth reporting, rather than a genuine zero rating.

To answer your actual point, however: being a mathematician by both training and by trade, I decided to investigate a more rigorous definition. I found a predictor chart which has the current status of the league and has the ability to calculate the league table based on entering hypothetical results to the remaining league games (namely this one). I then came up with the following scenario, which I won't go into the methodology of because I don't want to write a response so long you won't read it. If you want the full explanation, I can provide it if necessary.

Here is the full list of results I selected to engineer Spurs' relegation:

The end result is thus: Image

It should go without saying that if Spurs win today, they become mathematically safe too, as it would be impossible for all the various teams above them to gain a further three points each in order to stay above them. It's very hard to say if a draw would be enough - it might even partially depend on other results tonight - but I'd suggest it is probably also enough.

Either way, on their current points total, Spurs are not safe, and the likes of United are a million miles from. Falastur2 Talk 20:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Joe Riley (footballer) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Joe Riley (footballer). Since you had some involvement with the Joe Riley (footballer) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016 response

We meet again, again i spend time on editing current sports things, and again u delete them, are u stubborn to change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arni777 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I gave you explanation. You can not create duplicate templates just because you dont like the name. If you dont like it, then discuss and the templates might be moved. No need for two templates that are exactly the same. Qed237 (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

i didnt know there is an option like this, never the less, its better that the old temples will be erased rather than the new ones, because they are up to date with all the matches and all the teams, while the old ones has nothing. will you do it or shall i? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arni777 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Arni777: The older templates should stay, perhaps with a new name, and the newer deleted. This to keep history and creator, otherwise people will create duplicates and keep claiming that they are the creator. Now lets discuss the names of the templates at the talkpage of the main article, Talk:2015–16 Israeli Premier League, in a calm way without personal attacks (which I removed, but I gave you a chance and did not give you a warning for that). Qed237 (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

i you feel offended from the personal attacks, maybe you should, its not the first time i spend hours to make a good thing to the community and u using your "powers" and just terminate everything so you can be in charge.. euroleague 2014, uefa champion league 2015 etc ring a bell? Arni777 (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Arni777: I do not "use my powers" and you know very well I was right and supported by others both those times. Now please stop moving and renaming things while there is an ongoing discussion or you risk being blocked from editing. Qed237 (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

excuse me, but except you, no one was on your side, and as i recall it, in past times it wasn't only me that changed things, but others as well and guess what, u were against them as well. Arni777 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Arni777: Last time I even pointed you to consensus at Talk:2015–16 UEFA Champions League#Seeding so how you can think it was only me wanting something is weird. Qed237 (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Appropos country of birth

Hi Qed237. Is it OK to write SR Croatia, Yugoslavia to people born in Croatia from 1945 to 1992? Since SR Croatia was part of Yugoslavia till 1992.I think it gives people a bit more clarity as to the peoples background and in light of the fact that the country no longer exists. Sorry I dont know how to get the tildes onto the computer screen also. Can you tell me how to get them to appear on the sign off. Thanks. OK I think i just worked it outStevesmith215 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Current SHL season

I feel like the article gets cluttered with constant links to teams. Looking at previous seasons (and other leagues), links to the playoff teams are included in the playoff bracket but aren't used excessively elsewhere. However, links to the stadiums are useful information, in my opinion, and those links are fine. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ho-ju-96: Links to teams are just as useful as links to teams. Perhaps this is a case of me being used to football project were teams in matches are linked but I dont see any issues with it. Qed237 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qed237/Archive_22&oldid=1085987087"