User talk:Qed237/Archive 24
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Linking of Qualification articles
Per the MOS "The results section for each sport where the competitors of a nation take part should have an level two heading. The section should begin with a link to the main article of that sport for the Games in question, by means of the Error: no page names specified (help). template. If available, the article on the Olympic qualification for the sport can also be added." Secondly with each sport saying X country qualified so and so athlete, the link to these qualification articles becomes even more necessary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan 1234: Note the word can, in can be included. It is a matter of opinion and honestly these articles is about the olympic tournament, not the qualification. Also it says if available and most links I saw being added is redlinks. Qed237 (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- And so? If i added them, why remove them? Can you explain that? The lead of each sport mentions qualification!!! Open you eyes. Per MOS these are allowed so they should not be removed. All sports for Rio have qualification articles, I don't know where you are seeing redlinks. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan 1234: We already have discussed the fact that these very old MOS needs updating to reflect wqikipedia guidelines and it says "can" be included but they do not have to and there is no reason to display redlinks to qualifications there. Qed237 (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am sorry but other editors such as Basment12 agree that including qualification articles is not a bad thing. Including the qualification articles is necessary as pointed above, but you continue to ignore that. "is no reason to display redlinks to qualifications there." What are you talking about? I am not quite understanding you here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)As I've stated in my edit summary on the Nigeria page the qualification article should be linked. These nations articles are supposed to be more than tables of results. They should include prose detailing the athletes and their qualification, team funding and coaches, government targets for medals, etc.. This is why those qualification links are a relevant part of the story and why they are included in the WP:OLYMOSNAT. If the article is a redlink then a judgement needs to be made on whether the article should and will exist for example is there an equivalent 2012 article? If the answer is yes then the redlink should be added, it may just encourage someone to create it. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 15:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan 1234: We already have discussed the fact that these very old MOS needs updating to reflect wqikipedia guidelines and it says "can" be included but they do not have to and there is no reason to display redlinks to qualifications there. Qed237 (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- And so? If i added them, why remove them? Can you explain that? The lead of each sport mentions qualification!!! Open you eyes. Per MOS these are allowed so they should not be removed. All sports for Rio have qualification articles, I don't know where you are seeing redlinks. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@Basement12: completely disagree and this should be discussed at the olympics project without Sportsfan 1234 giving out warnings to everyone. Qed237 (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- You disagree without giving any valid reasons or points... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, everyone that dont agree with you have invalid points, while yours are the only ones being valid... Qed237 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- "completely disagree" without giving any reasons = invalid. I don't think you understand that. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, everyone that dont agree with you have invalid points, while yours are the only ones being valid... Qed237 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- You disagree without giving any valid reasons or points... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Europa League
If traslate this you know romanian teams in Europa League http://www.digisport.ro/Sport/FOTBAL/Competitii/Liga+1/Clasamentul+final+al+play-off-ului+Ligii+1+editia+2015-2016+Astr Ionel141 (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
That because NK Slaven Belupo is runner-up in Croatian Cup and Dinamo Zagreb in champion in MAXtv Prva Liga. Ionel141 (talk) 6:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ionel141: Also that source does not explain why Dinamo wont get a license. Do you have an official source saying that they wont get UEFA license? Qed237 (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Here is a source http://www.digisport.ro/Sport/FOTBAL/Competitii/Liga+1/Dinamo+nu+are+voie+sa+evolueze+in+Europa+Cainii+au+facut+recurs+ Ionel141 (talk) 6:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ionel141: You might want to read the rules, the rules changed years ago and runners-up does not qualify anymore. And an official source would be better and also we dont change teams until all appeals have been denied and Dinamo has appealed to CAS. Qed237 (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Greek cup
http://www.tovima.gr/en/article/?aid=798401 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:5407:9700:5934:F8A2:6546:30A5 (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- It clearly says "proposed" but not that any decision has been made. Qed237 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Dinamo București
Hi, Qed237. I noticed you reverted my edits on the 2016–17 UEFA Europa League article. However: 1) The reference no. 12, provided in the "Teams" section ("Qualification for European Cup Football 2016/2017". Bert Kassies.), does not include Dinamo București anymore in the qualified teams and mentions that it was not granted a UEFA license. 2) The fact that the club has made an appeal does not automatically grant it the license or the right to participate in the UEFA club competitions in the next season. It is the eventual result that may do that, but until the result the current status is that the club is not permitted to play in the UEFA club competitions in the next season. 3) I have provided a reliable source to support my edits (this one; I know you have come across it before, as I've noticed you post on the talk page of the article). Your argument that an appeal is in place is going against a reliable source that says the club is not eligible to play in the UEFA club competitions, and because there is no source supporting the opposite, in my opinion that might be considered original research. I will consider entering the discussion on the article's talk page depending of your reply to my message. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- @BaboneCar: Hi, and thank you for your friendly message. These days a lot of editors are to agressive, but I really like the way you discuss the content. With that being said I welcome a discussion about this. Previous discussions has led to the fact that we should keep the teams until the final appeal has been denied, because there has been cases where teams has been changed back and forth because they first have been excluded, then appeal approved, then UEFA appeals and they are removed again, and so on. Current consensus is now that until everything is clear, we should keep the team as "innocent until proven guilty" and they have the right to appeal. I reverted you to make an informative note instead (which I forgot a few days ago because I was very busy). I hope this note is good enough for you, but I am open for discussion. Qed237 (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you as well for your reply and for adding that note on the article. However, you did not reply to my points, which head mainly towards the fact that the so-called consensus goes against reliable sources and it might be considered original research. As I said, no sources claim that Dinamo București is qualified at this moment (on the contrary, they state the opposite), and that is including the reference on the article which I mentioned at point one in my previous message. According to the core content policies, "If it's not verified, it can't be in Wikipedia". My opinion remains that Dinamo București should be removed from the qualified teams, accordingly with the references. BaboneCar (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- @BaboneCar: I see your point, I really do, but at the same time it feels weird to say to teams like Viitorul "welcome to Europa league" and then remove them if Dinamo has their appeal approved. In that way it is better to keep dinamo and say that they might be removed. Also we are very clear with the huge yellow box that the list is temporary. It says The following list of qualified teams is provisional, subject to final confirmation by UEFA in June 2016, as each participating team must obtain a UEFA club licence. All qualified teams are included in this list as long as they have not been banned by UEFA or have not failed their final appeal with their football association on obtaining a licence. Previously we have always used final appeal (including CAS) but now it says "final appeal with their football association" which indeed would imply the removal of Dinamo. I would like to bring in an other editor with very good knowledge of these tournaments. @Chanheigeorge: what are your thoughts? Qed237 (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Qed237: @BaboneCar: Looking at the arguments from both of you, I am leaning towards BaboneCar. If an authority say, deduct points from one team, then we will immediately deduct points from that team in the standings, even though the team may be appealing and the ruling can be overturned in the future (e.g. Serbia v Albania in Euro 2016 qualifying), and we will just change the standings again when the appeal is successful. So I think at this point it is better to reflect what the "current" roster of European qualified teams, even though the list of teams may change in the future depending on appeal (of course we should add a note to say that some of these banned teams are aeppealing), where we can easily change it again when the final outcome is decided. We made that decision a few years ago to wait for the final appeal when there really were a lot of back and forth for this license rejected/appeal successful, but it seems nowadays the cases have gone down a lot, most likely because clubs know what they require to get a license. Chanheigeorge (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- @BaboneCar: I see your point, I really do, but at the same time it feels weird to say to teams like Viitorul "welcome to Europa league" and then remove them if Dinamo has their appeal approved. In that way it is better to keep dinamo and say that they might be removed. Also we are very clear with the huge yellow box that the list is temporary. It says The following list of qualified teams is provisional, subject to final confirmation by UEFA in June 2016, as each participating team must obtain a UEFA club licence. All qualified teams are included in this list as long as they have not been banned by UEFA or have not failed their final appeal with their football association on obtaining a licence. Previously we have always used final appeal (including CAS) but now it says "final appeal with their football association" which indeed would imply the removal of Dinamo. I would like to bring in an other editor with very good knowledge of these tournaments. @Chanheigeorge: what are your thoughts? Qed237 (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you as well for your reply and for adding that note on the article. However, you did not reply to my points, which head mainly towards the fact that the so-called consensus goes against reliable sources and it might be considered original research. As I said, no sources claim that Dinamo București is qualified at this moment (on the contrary, they state the opposite), and that is including the reference on the article which I mentioned at point one in my previous message. According to the core content policies, "If it's not verified, it can't be in Wikipedia". My opinion remains that Dinamo București should be removed from the qualified teams, accordingly with the references. BaboneCar (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello MR.
Hello MR.Qed.. Spain has announced their squad but I couldn't change it because the page is protected can you look at it please ? also.. I have changed before Jordi Alba number of international appearances but someone keeps changing it back.. it is 41 not 42.. even the source at this wikipedia says this http://eu-football.info/_player.php?id=27519 can you also look at it.. ? and I have no idea why someone keeps changing it as this . thank you again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1938:3105:12:3465:C9CE:3A96:3F30 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:2016 Summer Olympics women's volleyball pool A standings
Hi Qed237, on the template Template:2016 Summer Olympics women's volleyball pool A standings and the rest of related templates, I see that it includes footer notes about classification rules.
However one of the article page, particularly Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament and the men's page, already includes the classification rules under the Pool criteria procedure section. I think that the footer from the template makes it redundant to transclude into the article page.
I'd like to suggest that you could possibly modify the templates by having the option to not include the footer , if not completely eliminating it. TjBison (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@TjBison: That option already exists. Please see Module:Sports table/Volleyball#Footer options. Qed237 (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reference. One last thing, its seems that the template does not have the option to suppress the source citation footer - at least per the documentation. I was wondering if you know how to work around with it? Thanks a lot. TjBison (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Europa League
Hi. I respect you but please not start edit wars when you badly known European competitions regulations. This regulations changed almost every season, and I better known that it is. A three days ago you questionted about them who FC Krasnodar don't earned spot in Europa League third round, and won't add FC Sevilla to third round also. --Alghenius (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Alghenius: Trust me, I know the rules. You can always read http://m.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/article.160516-european-qualifying-places-explained.html if you dont believe me. Qed237 (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Lost battle?
Just saw the great level of idiocy at Germán Pacheco, an obscure Argentine player. Seriously, don't these idiots get tired of doing this? Oh, and page is now again unprotected...
Thanks for taking care of article while I was "gone", happy editing --Be Quiet AL (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Re: Sollentuna
Hi Qed237, I've made a reply on my user talk page. Feel free to answer whenever you can. Regards QubeCube (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
joe allen
Dont know who you think you are mate but everything i said about my wee joe is true. i dont need any sources as the word came from wee joe himself. If you were a true football youd understand. clearly youre just a fake fan that probably plays rugbyTheWelshXavi (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC) joeallen
- All content on wikipedia, specially WP:BLPs must be well sourced and notable, as well as free from editors POV. It is an encyclopedia and not a place for personal thoughts. Qed237 (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I have noticed that you reverted the page move from Dnipropetrovsk to Dnipro (city). Please note that this city was officially renamed today with immediate effect (see http://www.unian.info/politics/1349664-dnipropetrovsk-renamed-dnipro.html ), so from today on the real name is Dnipro, not Dnipropetrovsk. Please rename the article about the city accordingly. Thanks — NickK (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) NickK We use the common name for article titles, which may differ from their official name. If you want the page, moved, start a move discussion to get a consensus to move the page- it will likely be controversial, as in Kiev/Kyiv discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am well aware of common name policy. Still, this is not a common name question as this is not a dispute between two different romanisations like in Kyiv/Kiev, but a name change issue as we have a former name Dnipropetrovsk and a new name Dnipro. WP:P-NUK does have an exception regarding romanisation issues like Kyiv/Kiev but it does not have an exception for use of old, officially deprecated names instead of old names (e.g. we have articles Luhansk and Mariupol, not Voroshilovgrad and Zhdanov, Ukraine) — NickK (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not pro/against the move (I don't know enough about it), but I believe that a move discussion is the only way to settle this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Strictly, of course, there is no actual dispute as yet; merely various opinions on a talk page. When it gets moved, and everyone goes barmy: that'll be a dispute! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not pro/against the move (I don't know enough about it), but I believe that a move discussion is the only way to settle this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am well aware of common name policy. Still, this is not a common name question as this is not a dispute between two different romanisations like in Kyiv/Kiev, but a name change issue as we have a former name Dnipropetrovsk and a new name Dnipro. WP:P-NUK does have an exception regarding romanisation issues like Kyiv/Kiev but it does not have an exception for use of old, officially deprecated names instead of old names (e.g. we have articles Luhansk and Mariupol, not Voroshilovgrad and Zhdanov, Ukraine) — NickK (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@NickK, Joseph2302, and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: When I made the move, the only thing I have heard was that a decision had been made to change the name, not that the namechange has yet happened. It is interpretation of the sources. Since I moved it back, one editor decided to do a copy-and-paste move which is not allowed so now it can only be moved by administrators. The best way to move forward is a WP:RM and most likely the page should be moved. But this discussion is best at the article talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, @Qed237:, and I will say that although it probably will be moved (there seem to be WP:RS supporting it), you were right to revert such a major edit without any kind of source or discussion (or even indication) beforehand. Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
2015–16 Moldovan National Division
Sheriff Tiraspol in Europa League and Dacia Chisinau in Champions League. Thanks Ionel141 Ionel141 19:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ionel141: Any source for that? When I read the rules they stated it would be a play-off match between the two teams. Qed237 (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ionel141: According to Moldova Football Federation Friday, May 20, matches were played last stage of the Moldovan Football Championship Edition 2015-2016, National Division. Match Dacia - Sheriff Tiraspol ended undecided 1-1 at the end of the championship so both teams have accumulated the same number of points by 65. According to section. 10.5 of the Moldovan Football Championship Regulations, 2015-2016 Edition, National Division championship title for the establishment of Moldova, 2015-2016 edition will be played one extra match on May 29, 2016 at the Zimbru stadium, city Chisinau, at 20-00. (http://www.fmf.md/ro/news/read/meci_aur_29mai). Qed237 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
2014–15 Europa League
The regulations for that season (here) state "If the titleholder qualifies for the UEFA Europa League through its domestic competitions, the number of places to which its association is entitled in the UEFA Europa League does not change." This implies that, in this scenario, 3 teams from Spain still qualify for the Europa League based on their domestic performance, including Sevilla. Also, the regulation that discusses how the Europa League champion qualified for this tournament is worded almost identically to the regulation that awards the Champions League title holders a spot in that tournament (the title holder "is guaranteed a place in the group stage of the UEFA [Europa/Champions] League"). Yet, we list Real Madrid (here) and Barcelona (here) as having qualified for the 2014–15 and 2015–16 Champions Leagues based on their domestic performance, but not Sevilla in this case? Doesn't make sense, since the relevant regulations are semantically equivalent. Bmf 051 (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- As you say, the number of teams does not change so they are allowed three teams no matter how they qualify, but they qualified as cup winners, just like the league table states for that season. Qed237 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- UEFA says otherwise here. "Sevilla FC earned [a] group place by finishing fifth in Spain, ...". Here, as well. "Sevilla FC already have that spot from Spain as they were fifth in the Liga...". So both the league table and the Europa League article are wrong. All of this makes it clear that Sevilla vacated the spot earned as Europa League champions, and qualified based on domestic performance. Bmf 051 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- It could be seen different ways I guess, but the way I see it (and obviously others before me) is that they qualified as title holders. Qed237 (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Cite your source. It says it pretty clearly in the links I've provided. If you don't have a source, don't revert my edits. "It could be seen different ways": those are weasel words. Everything can be "seen different ways", including ways that are wrong. I've provided plenty of evidence that I am not wrong. You haven't provided any that shows that you are not wrong. Just meaningless statements like this.
- "Obviously others before me"? If it's so obvious, show me that others see it that way (with diffs, for instance). As far as I know, the only reason your preferred version has stuck for so long is because no one bothered to challenge it. Bmf 051 (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Any response? I just want a reason why you're reverting my edits. In light of what UEFA has said in the links I've provided, I don't think "because that's the way we've done it before" (which is not the same as consensus) is a good enough reason in this case. Bmf 051 (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have already explained to you that they qualified as title holders and no consensus will form by discussion on my talkpage, this needs a wider audience. Qed237 (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- And WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Qed237 (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- It could be seen different ways I guess, but the way I see it (and obviously others before me) is that they qualified as title holders. Qed237 (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- UEFA says otherwise here. "Sevilla FC earned [a] group place by finishing fifth in Spain, ...". Here, as well. "Sevilla FC already have that spot from Spain as they were fifth in the Liga...". So both the league table and the Europa League article are wrong. All of this makes it clear that Sevilla vacated the spot earned as Europa League champions, and qualified based on domestic performance. Bmf 051 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Ukrainian cup final
Hello, I don't understand why you reverted my edits on this page? EdmondCA (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- @EdmondCA: Because despite telling you how to edit in the past, you have no knowledge on how the template is updated and how {{goal}} works. Just look at other matches. Qed237 (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
@Qed237 I knew you seemed familiar, you're the guy who's been harassing me on here over these edits. I used the exact template as the 2014 World Cup Final, I didn't realize I was programming Google Docs over here. You're the only guy who's had a problem with me editing in the past, I just want to be left alone :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmondCA (talk • contribs) 23:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- @EdmondCA: If you want to be left alone, you should learn how to make proper edits. It is not my job (or anyone else) to clean up after your poor edits. If a player scores more than one goal, you dont need an extra goal-template and new players should be on new rows. Qed237 (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- @EdmondCA: You have not even been able to use the correct dash (en-dash) yet. Qed237 (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Alright I don't appreciate your condescending attitude towards me EdmondCA (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
And about the dash, it's called using a phone to edit, ever heard of it? EdmondCA (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
You really reverted my edit on Marlos for a competition he won and you had the nerve to give me a warning for it? I have no words to describe you. You don't even know how to fact check. See, now I'm being condescending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmondCA (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- @EdmondCA: You have to stop making unsourced edits to a WP:BLP. Qed237 (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Football Leage Championship Play-off - Hull v Sheffield Wednesday
Why were the play-off details removed? If I were reading an article on the 2016-17 Premier League, I would like info on the 20th team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.225.91 (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- On wikipedia, there is WP:CONSENSUS not to list "or" (i.e. scenarios), but only teams that have actually qualified. Qed237 (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I was unaware that Hull v. Sheffield Wednesday is "scenario" !
Template:2016 Summer Olympics women's volleyball pool A standings
May I ask the official link(s) you used for the groups distribution in this template? Leonprimer (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Leonprimer: Hi and thank you for your question. Honestly the answer is that I dont have any source. I just trusted User:Noncommittalp who added the teams. Qed237 (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Leonprimer: All I know is that Once all qualified teams have been confirmed - following the last World Olympic Qualification Tournament in May - the twelve teams will be split into two pools using the serpentine method. at the bottom of [1]. Qed237 (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, that link explains all. Thanks. Leonprimer (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Louis Van Gaal
But Louis Van Gaal is not Manchester United's manager anymore.He got sacked today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMamun84 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- So? It is manager for 2015-16 season and you can not remove him saying he was not there? He will not be manager next season though. Qed237 (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
David Luiz
You can clearly see he won the tournaments if you click on the associated pages, I don't get how it could be vandalizing the page if it's clearly true. I guess our conversation did nothing to convince you otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmondCA (talk • contribs) 15:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
You're given these special reviewing rights and you can't even be bothered to click on the page of the tournament to see if it's true or not? Why do you need to add a source for something so painfully obvious? It's funny how you're the only person who seems to have a problem with my edits. I might quit editing on Wikipedia because of you. EdmondCA (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- @EdmondCA: You have been told that all edits at WP:BLP MUST be sourced and you continue to ignore this. You can not use other wikipedia pages as source and you can not excpect me to do your work and find sources for your work. If you want to add things, YOU MUST provide sources. Qed237 (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- @EdmondCA: And I am sorry if you feel like you want to leave, but it is not only me who have given you warnings for different things and you have been warned about not using sources on BLP in the past. Qed237 (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I think I'm starting to understand what you want from me, but I just have one more question if I may. I was wondering why most of the honors are not sourced if this is a Wiki policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmondCA (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your help Qed, I am truly, and deeply sorry that I got upset with you, you didn't deserve it. I now realize that you were just trying to help me understand some of the policies, thanks for your help, and your concern. Hopefully we can get along better in the future once I source my material :] I hope to see you around on this part of Wikipedia :] Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmondCA (talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- @EdmondCA: That question has many answers. One reason is that in recent times there has been more focus to that section after discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, for example about runners-up not being an honour. Also that there are so many articles that many editors just dont have the energy to care other than remove them when they are added unsourced. When they have existed for a long time they are often tagged first and then removed after a month. But it is not a valid argument per WP:OSE to add unsourced content just because other articles has unsourced content. Qed237 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Leicester City honours
Hello, I have re added the info about Leicester City being runners up in major competitions. I have given a description of Leicester's cup success and also being runners up, so that it is clarified. Runners up is on many other club's wiki pages, and it is dates which are very key in Leicester's club history. Please keep this as it's important information about Leicester in major competitions. Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexMlcfc (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- @AlexMlcfc: Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football there is a WP:CONSENSUS that runners-up is not considered as a notable honour. And you can not use other articles as argument per WP:OSE. They will be removed. Qed237 (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Could I input a new title in the section with it titled 'runners up' and list all the competitions where Leicester were runners ups? So that it is distinguished between honours. I just think they ought to be mentioned, as they are key dates in the club's history. I'm so sorry if I've caused any inconvenience, I was only trying to share my knowledge. All the best. Thank you. AlexMlcfc (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- @AlexMlcfc: Sorry these are not notable in honours. They could be added in the text (prose) if they are well sourced, but not in that section. In general, text is good, list of stats and awards less good. Qed237 (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
So to confirm, I understand that I cannot add to the honours section, I understand that. However, may I create a new section entirely called 'Runners up in competitions?' It would make me much happier and I just feel it should be included somewhere on the page, as it's still a part of the club's history. So it's not confused with an honour, it would be in a separate section entirely, so is this ok? Thanks again. If not, I appreciate your help and I apologize again. AlexMlcfc (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- @AlexMlcfc: It is not notable enough for its own section but they could be mentioned in the already existing prose. For example in "Post-World War II"-section it says Leicester reached the FA Cup semi-final in 1973–74 which is an achievement. Much more than that they are not needed to be mentioned. Qed237 (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Arsenal
Arsenal's Twitter account is an official outlet of the club and is most assuredly an reliable source for Aaron Ramsey's number changing. Please let me know if you need any other assistance. Thanks! Wicka wicka (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Wicka wicka: Yet there is nothing abouit this on the official page and he has no.16 at the source for the squad (http://www.arsenal.com/first-team/players). Qed237 (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Wicka wicka: Thanks, but that is not going to go anywhere and is very premature. Try and discuss this first. The source for the section says one thing, and yes he will get no.8 next season so they tell fans to not by with no.16, but until Arteta contract expires no.8 belongs to him. Qed237 (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am not going to discuss this with you further. The edit is correct and it will be made. Please stop your attempts to make this page outdated and false, I don't see what your goal is. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Wicka wicka: That is your choice but discussion is how consensus is formed and now we obviously have difference between sources and the official source saying Arteta is having no.8. It might be a good idea for you to discuss. Qed237 (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- There is no confusion here. The club has many official websites. The newer, more up-to-date, more accurate sources, all include Ramsey's new number. Arsenal.com simply hasn't been updated yet. This is simple, obvious, and true. This is not a discussion and never has been. I do not understand your motivation for reverting correct edits but I would certainly like ti to stop. I hope our paths never, ever, EVER cross again. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Wicka wicka: It is interesting how you not see the point, now if you dont have anything useful to say discuss at the proper page and leave my talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- You are not making a point, you just refuse to admit you were wrong. Silly. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Wicka wicka: It is interesting how you not see the point, now if you dont have anything useful to say discuss at the proper page and leave my talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- There is no confusion here. The club has many official websites. The newer, more up-to-date, more accurate sources, all include Ramsey's new number. Arsenal.com simply hasn't been updated yet. This is simple, obvious, and true. This is not a discussion and never has been. I do not understand your motivation for reverting correct edits but I would certainly like ti to stop. I hope our paths never, ever, EVER cross again. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Wicka wicka: That is your choice but discussion is how consensus is formed and now we obviously have difference between sources and the official source saying Arteta is having no.8. It might be a good idea for you to discuss. Qed237 (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am not going to discuss this with you further. The edit is correct and it will be made. Please stop your attempts to make this page outdated and false, I don't see what your goal is. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Wicka wicka: Thanks, but that is not going to go anywhere and is very premature. Try and discuss this first. The source for the section says one thing, and yes he will get no.8 next season so they tell fans to not by with no.16, but until Arteta contract expires no.8 belongs to him. Qed237 (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I probably shouldn't be interrupting but I'm sorry that I'm about to do so. If Arsenal's official twitter account is tweeting these - https://twitter.com/Arsenal/status/735865128919420928 & https://twitter.com/Arsenal/status/735847979647705088, I honestly have no idea what more proof do you need. I feel the need to interrupt as I think we shouldn't scare away new editors with genuine desire to make contributions to Wikipedia. Do take some time to read - http://time.com/4180414/wikipedia-15th-anniversary/ Truly sorry for interrupting. Blckbrr7 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Blckbrr7: No problem, your views are welcome. It is just that arsenal official page says an other thing. By changing we go directly against source existing source for that section and wikipedia relies on sources. Qed237 (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Blckbrr7: And I would not call Wicka wicka being new, being registered in 2008. Qed237 (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Qed237: @Wicka wicka: That's hardly any reason to not consider what their official Twitter account state. It'll be most likely be updated on their official website a day or two. I just think we'd rather gain a potential Wiki contributor than to lose one over little things like this. Again I apologize for interrupting! EDIT: Ah. I didn't notice. He just seems new. That's all. Blckbrr7 (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
UEFA Euro 2016
Hey, will the matches be on the main article with the footballbox or just the results (without the box, just a wikitable) like it was in previos tournament? Kante4 (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Kante4: Not thought about it, but I would probably follow previous tournament. Qed237 (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Kante4: Just took a look and am I starting to hesitate. I kind of like the footballboxes, but I am very openminded for comments from other editors. I see no problem in keeping the football boxes as it is used as standard in so many other places. Qed237 (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Liga I promotion/relegation
All matches begin with 0-0, what a big mistake, incredible... Rhinen
Re-directs
Hi, although those edits at the various Fittipaldi cars are by our long-term disruptive (former) IP, it is conventional for re-directs for F1 cars to be placed into categories. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Eagleash: Yes, you are right, and this is the reason for reverting myself a few minutes ago. I trust that you know what is best in these articles, I just have a bad habbit of reacting against socks and/or returning discruptive editors doing same old thing again. Qed237 (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I got an (edit conflict) whilst saying thanks. This guy is even more of a pest now he has an account. I can't keep up with his general disruption. As for knowing best haha, well maybe (possibly not!) Cheers Eagleash (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Reverting for no reason
Undoing someone else's edits without having the courtesy to explain why is highly disruptive. What was your reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.212.99 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Participation of Kosovo in UEFA competitions
Hello. It seems to me that both champion and cup winner of Kosovo are allowed to enter the 2016–17 UEFA Champions League and 2016–17 UEFA Europa League: [2] [3]. Both pages are protected, that's why I can't edit them. Are you going to edit them? -- Thermicien (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Thermicien: We are waiting for confirmation from UEFA. Qed237 (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
- Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Britannia Stadium
You do realize that Britannia was a sponsor name?--Add92 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Add92: Yes, but it is also the first name and a well established name for the arena just like Emirates Stadium, so it is an exception to the rule. However other stadiums such as City of Manchester Stadium is not moved to "Etihad Stadium". This is a controversial move and should not be done without WP:RM on the article talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
This is similar to when Walkers Stadium changed name to King Power Stadium.--Add92 (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Add92: I can not answer for every move, but in that case I would say "King Power Stadium" is the commonname used by almost everyone, while I am not sure that will happen for Bet365 and it is speculation. Feel free to make a move request if you want the article moved but it is not an uncontroversial move. Qed237 (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Volleyballbox2 revision
Hi Qed237, I recently made an edit to your Template:Volleyballbox2. I added a trigger function to automatically add bold format to the winning team based on the score result. You can see some test trials from my sandbox or you can edit on it as well. Let me know what do you think of it.TjBison (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- @TjBison: Hi, and thank you for your message. I think automatic bolding should be discussed first before being added. In cases where teams are already manually bolded the automatic bolding you added destroyed that and these kind of things needs discussing. Perhaps teams should not be bolded at all? Qed237 (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how many have used the template considering it is relatively new and the Olympic VB match templates have not been manually bolded. Also on the WP Project Volleyball talk page you were involved in the discussion of bolding the winning team, so I wonder re-discussing the same issue again. TjBison (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- @TjBison: Yes it might not have been used much yet, but it still should be discussed more and be compatible with manual bolding. Qed237 (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's exactly the point of the proposal -- to eliminate/lessen manual encoding for editors. Here's the transclusion count of the template. So far, the only event that uses the template is the volleyball tournament in the Olympic, which has not started yet. So if the concern is to the pages that have included manual bolding, I don't think there is no need for such. If the concern is for the future transclusion to other pages, there is the template documentation to inform editors of manual editing. TjBison (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- @TjBison: Dont forget the fact that there might very well be situations where bolding is not preferred and should not be done. Qed237 (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am aware of possible situations. But the only possible situation in the sport of volleyball that I can think of is when a match is overruled by technical committee to be a)a void match, b}reverse the result of the match due to a team penalty incurred (25-0, 25-0, 25-0 is usually the standard scores given when such happen), c) win by default to which manual bolding can still be done without forcing an input to the parameter
scoreTjBison (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am aware of possible situations. But the only possible situation in the sport of volleyball that I can think of is when a match is overruled by technical committee to be a)a void match, b}reverse the result of the match due to a team penalty incurred (25-0, 25-0, 25-0 is usually the standard scores given when such happen), c) win by default to which manual bolding can still be done without forcing an input to the parameter
- @TjBison: Dont forget the fact that there might very well be situations where bolding is not preferred and should not be done. Qed237 (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's exactly the point of the proposal -- to eliminate/lessen manual encoding for editors. Here's the transclusion count of the template. So far, the only event that uses the template is the volleyball tournament in the Olympic, which has not started yet. So if the concern is to the pages that have included manual bolding, I don't think there is no need for such. If the concern is for the future transclusion to other pages, there is the template documentation to inform editors of manual editing. TjBison (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- @TjBison: Yes it might not have been used much yet, but it still should be discussed more and be compatible with manual bolding. Qed237 (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how many have used the template considering it is relatively new and the Olympic VB match templates have not been manually bolded. Also on the WP Project Volleyball talk page you were involved in the discussion of bolding the winning team, so I wonder re-discussing the same issue again. TjBison (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics
Colour being an issue for the visually impaired is an issue across all articles, not just the NOC pages. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan 1234: Yes, but you are missing the point. The lines are preferred when separating matches at NOC's as they are on differenty dates and it is the better to separate using lines than colors for those with color issues. However, in the main sports articles the lines are between days as standard and in those cases it does not hurt to separate the matches using colors. To sumarize, matches on different days/rounds use lines, matches on same day add color. For those with color problems, the color does not hurt it is just that lines are better if possible, but the color does not have to be removed. Qed237 (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan 1234: When the colors are this weak we could use both colors and lines (lines for dates/rounds and colors for all matches). Qed237 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Your requests at WP:RFP
If you have not done so, would you be so kind as to read our protection policy? The goal of Wikipedia is not necessarily to have stable articles, but to stay the Encyclopedia that everyone can edit. Kind regards. Lectonar (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Lectonar: Are you refering to my requests on a lot of BLP's from yesterday? The articles have been subject of many disruptive edits from dynamic IPs (and a few sock accounts) and after trying an ANI report (at which no admin even bothered to respond) I thought that protecting the articles would be the best idea. I am very familiar with our protection policy (and some admins have come to my talkpage saying they would support a potential RfA as my help is needed). I am just losing faith in the lack of response. Qed237 (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Lectonar: Just want to add that, when looking at BLP footballers I often see transfer rumours for a player and then immediately two or three edits per minute for hours with pure vandalism and disruption without any response at RFPP so trying to find an active admin is required. Nothing personal against you, sometimes the lack of response when needed is frustrating. Qed237 (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but the pages you requested protection for yesterday were far from being heavily edited, let alone vandalised. Some of them had just one vandalism edit yesterday, most were not edited at all for 10 or more days; rest assured frustration is very much part of an admins job here. Lectonar (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Lectonar: I see your point, but all requests yesterday was not for this problem I had. For example look at Jonas Hector which was heavily vandalised after transfer rumours before I took controll over it and it was not protected for 16 hours. Qed237 (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is the number of admins clerking the page. I would say there is no more than 10 regulars, perhaps 15. And...we are all volunteers. Lectonar (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Lectonar: Yes, I understand that, and as I said it is nothing personal it is just frustrating sometimes. A while back several admins (I think four) all came to me within two months asking me if I wanted to run for adminship and they said my reports at ANI, AIV, RfPP and so on was good and that I showed good knowledge of policies. Also I had a personal RfA page created by inexperienced editors (they did not even ask me first), so I guess there is a shortage of admins and that more are needed to help at this kind of places. However at a Optional RfA candidate poll there was concerns about my habbit of reverting with twinkle (I am very active in vandalism hunting using my watchlist) so I put that thought for rest for a while. However in these transfer periods between football seasons and a lot of rumours and vandalism to BLPs, it would be good to be able to protect some pages quick myself and most important help others. Qed237 (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but the pages you requested protection for yesterday were far from being heavily edited, let alone vandalised. Some of them had just one vandalism edit yesterday, most were not edited at all for 10 or more days; rest assured frustration is very much part of an admins job here. Lectonar (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Sweden National Football Team
Yes, I should have used the sandbox but I do like to just mess around with pages from time to time. Just thought a bit of Zlatan humour would have been appreciated. Use wikipedia everyday so it'll be useful to edit something that it incorrect and editing it correctly. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.39.156.97 (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Arsenal Transfers
I was unsure why you removed both the summary on Granit Xhaka's transfer, and the release clause activation for Jamie Vardy. I notice you mentioned the Vardy news was a rumor, but it was made official by Claudio Ranieri. 50.98.164.35 (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Đurđević
Why are you reversing my edits for Đurđević? I put source where is stated that he signed for Red Star Belgrade. I don't see what's wrong now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igoreurobasket (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Igoreurobasket: I reverted because you added incorrect image format of a possible copyrighted image. The other content was restored. Qed237 (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct about image but why you reversed info that he signed for this team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igoreurobasket (talk • contribs) 20:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Igoreurobasket: As I said, I reverted you as soon as I saw the image which also made some of the other content also be removed, but you can also see that I restored the good part. Qed237 (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
World Cup 2018 qualifying -centralized friendlies with Russia in group H
Where did you learn that these will not be played? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrey Rublyov (talk • contribs) 21:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Andrey Rublyov: I read it at http://tass.ru/en/sport/876439 and it make a lot of sense since their opponents are now occupied with matches against Gibraltar. Qed237 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
UEFA Euro 2016
Oh whoops, I checked the PDF when making the lineup, I must have mixed the two up. It seems like PeeJay2K3 fixed the image though, so it should be all good. And if you are ever need to create/adjust a lineup image, a program like Inkscape works well to edit SVGs. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have a few basic lineup outlines that I use to help speed up the process, which I usually do not alter too much for reports. But for the France match yesterday UEFA gives much more detailed lineup images, so I tried to follow that by slightly adjusting the general outlines by moving around a few of the kits. The bottom bar of Inkscape has a lot of colour varieties to choose from, so you could just eyeball it, but you can also see what hex code the Wikipedia kits use, and then use that. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay thanks for your help. Qed237 (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also, you may want to upload lineup images to the Commons, as it makes it more accessible and lets other language Wikipedias use the image easily. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Whoops, seems like I left you a message right after you left one for me. The file redlink on Wikipedia will just automatically link to the local page unless it is found on the Commons. So if you use the upload wizard to upload files right to the Commons, Wikipedia will use that file. Although if there are two identical file names on Wikipedia and the Commons, the local Wikipedia file will take precedence. So technically the local "WAL-SVK 2016-06-11.svg" file is being used on the Group B article, until an admin deletes the image since you added {{Now commons}}. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- You have to go to commons:Special:UploadWizard, and from there it should be pretty similar to the Wikipedia upload wizard. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Whoops, seems like I left you a message right after you left one for me. The file redlink on Wikipedia will just automatically link to the local page unless it is found on the Commons. So if you use the upload wizard to upload files right to the Commons, Wikipedia will use that file. Although if there are two identical file names on Wikipedia and the Commons, the local Wikipedia file will take precedence. So technically the local "WAL-SVK 2016-06-11.svg" file is being used on the Group B article, until an admin deletes the image since you added {{Now commons}}. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also, you may want to upload lineup images to the Commons, as it makes it more accessible and lets other language Wikipedias use the image easily. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay thanks for your help. Qed237 (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
please save goals and attendance on the main page of EURO 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramirez2387 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)