User talk:Qed237/Archive 27
 | 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Invitation to the African Destubathon
Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Template:nfa
Hi, I see you reverted 2 edits in 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round with a note "do not use nfa directly". Is it because we did not use nfa for earlier matches in that page? If so, I think we had better change them into nfa, which is shorter. Thanks :) Centaur271188 (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Centaur271188: Hi. I just follow template documentation at Template:Nfa that says This template should always be substituted (i.e., use
{{subst:nfa}}) and the example is with substitution. Qed237 (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Centaur271188: I think it has something to do with how the template is built and categories, but in general wikilinks are always preferred. Qed237 (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- So, the right way to use this template is subst:nfa|SWE (for example), isn't it? I will remember this because I also use nfa a lot. Thanks again :) Centaur271188 (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Centaur271188: Yes exactly, that is correct. Qed237 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Um, ya.....
I fail to see where I was being 'disruptive' on Template:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Runners-up table. Sure, I failed to notice where it said "matches against the sixth placed team do not count", but this is far from disruptive. GAV80 reverted the change with a simple edit comment & I left it alone. I feel you are being more disruptive by your over reactive post on my talk page. #FF9600 talk 07:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
citation placement
Regarding 2016–17 EFL Trophy or any other article for that matter, WP:CS tells us the correct formatting to place inline citations at the end of the sentence or paragraph. So when you moved the citation back to the middle that was considered bad formatting. And there are two badly placed citations in the leading paragraphs at the article. Perhaps you can fix them please. Govvy (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Govvy: In the very first sentence of WP:CS they add an example source after the comma. And further down in the section How to place an inline citation using ref tags they write As in the above example, citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods and commas. For exceptions, see the Punctuation and footnotes section of the Manual of Style. Note also that no space is added before the citation marker. (my bolding). After commas are perfectly fine. Qed237 (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Govvy: Also take a look at WP:PAIC. Qed237 (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
ORCP
Hi, Qed237, I’ve just been having another look at your entry at WP:ORCP. It may well be time for you to start a new poll and see what happens. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: Hi. Thank you for your message, but I think I will wait a little bit longer. I have been blocked twice recently (April and July) for a short period and even if I was unblocked both times I think it is better to wait. Qed237 (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Or do you think I should start a new poll anyway as I have learnt from my mistakes? Qed237 (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see. Unfortunately blocks like that could force you to wait at least another 12 months for the dust to settle. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Club World Cup
To say the Club World Cups prestige is perceived differently in different parts of the world is IRRELEVANT and PURELY A BIAS OPINION that has NOTHING to do with the tournament itself. There is ONE fact and that is that it's the world title. Its matter of importance is self-explanatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.253.62 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is fact and sourced further down the article, also saying "unfairly" just shows your own bias. Qed237 (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I jsut posted something here and it is no longer showing. What happened? If I post something and it doesn't show here, then what's the fking point???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.253.62 (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- That is weird, because I see no evidence of you editing my talkpage (except the post above) when I look at the page history. Qed237 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Did you recieve an edit conflict notification? If so we both edited at the same time which caused an error. Qed237 (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
UEFA coefficient
Hello, Qed237. What do you think about Psmither's edits on page UEFA coefficient? Is this info need or not? GAV80 (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @GAV80: No, I dont think it is needed and it was not very good added if you consider format. If he wants it, it is a discussion for the article talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hello both,
- I think this information is critical to understanding the impact of the coefficients. Otherwise it is not clear at all that there is a big difference for a country improving its ranking from, say, 13th to 12th (direct entry to group stage for both CL and EL) or dropping from 17th to 18th (much worse entry phases in EL). If I am a Dane or a Romanian and I look at this page without that information, I would conclude that nothing is at play this season in terms of coefficient - yet it very much is.
- It is suggested on the undo that there are other articles for that. I am only aware of this information on the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Europa League pages, where it takes some considerable study of both articles to extract the information. Please direct me to somewhere where this information is clearly presented, if I'm missing it.
- I quite understand that the formatting was so poor as to be unhelpful. It needs reverting to white and centre aligning at the very least. If I had thought the edits were in danger of being rejected, I would also have used a smaller font, thought of a clearer code for each phase, included a key, etc. I had hoped that someone better skilled than I would do this. As I explained in my edit summary and on the talk page, I'm afraid that I do not know how to edit table formatting in the source editor, nor could I see how to control cell colour or alignment in the visual editor (it does not seem that these options are available). Nevertheless, I mentioned that I was aware of these weaknesses - maybe I should have been clearer that I needed assistance.
- I did open a discussion on the article talkpage.
- I hope this information can be incorporated. I think it's vital for the strength of the page. I should add that I'm extremely grateful to you both for all the work you've done on the page, which is a great resource. paddler (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Rollback
Kindly stop using rollback on good faith edits. The edits in question were correct. The issue was that the editors did not notice that the date was not updated from April to October. Rather than continuously rollbacking good faith edits, it makes a lot more sense to simply change the date, as the edits were correct in substance. Enigmamsg 22:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Enigmaman: Well sorry about that, but if you have any history with football articles you know the frustration. And you can not seriously decline List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers with a lot of factual incorrect statements. Just look at the article protection log here. Qed237 (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I will take another look. I declined it after seeing all the rollbacks on the hat trick list which you were keeping out of date. Enigmamsg 22:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Enigmaman: That, I can understand. It is just very frustrating with these football stats (which many involved can testify for), so I was frustrated and made a bad decision to revert on the hat-trick article as well. Qed237 (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more with Enigmaman more, just update the date as opposed to continually using rollback. It is causing disruption where users make good faith edits, and is beginning to be obstructive. I say justthink before rolling back and undoing. Update the date, don't undo factually correct updates to articles. Sport and politics (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Sport and politics: I reverted your factually incorrect update as you changed team position despite being told about it the past. Qed237 (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- You are arguing a team currently second and changing that to say second in the main info-box is factually incorrect, just look at the table today before the matches kick off, Arsenal are second and not first, this is not a factual inaccuracy this is stubbornness to a point. Sport and politics (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- The edit can be seen here, you have undone the league position in the top info-box to an inaccurate version, all over the date. Just update the date, don't go back to inaccurate versions. Sport and politics (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not factually incorrect, they were first on 22 October when the page was updated after that matchday. Qed237 (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is clinging at vanishing straws, just change the date, this is not something which is a unique issue to just this point. This is putting off the making of good faith edits, and is straying into ownership violations. The edits were good faith, and you are tieing up time and claiming they are malicious, this is where the issue, lies, perhaps assuming good faiht and not assuming they are not as has been done here would be a refreshing step. This were in good faith you have not assumed that, you are a bad faith assumer, and that is why i am in all honesty angry with you here. These were good faith, just CHANGE A DATE. Sport and politics (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- As you know the main isssue and reason for the revert were your disruptive edit to the result by matchday section, not the infobox date. Qed237 (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Will you please stop with accusations of being disruptive, you are assuming bad faith. Stop assuming bad faith, stop making accusations of disruptive editing. Assume good faith, and just change a date, also just look at the league table on the article when the editing in question was made. You are just being a stubborn and blind editor here, claiming bad faith. just assume good faith always, you have really wound me up here with these false allegations, and unfounded claims. just assume good fat=uth, and just be far more open to other doing things. A simple way to have avoided all this would have been to say consensus (link here) states this. You have not you are being blind over the date on an article. just change that here. You have caused so much rubbish, over a date, buried at the bottom away from where edits are being made. Stop being so confrontational here and a bad faith assumer. I hope you change, then maybe you and I can edit without you and I ending up with these discussions. Sport and politics (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Being told about that particular section before and then make the same edit not once, but twice, is disruptive. Qed237 (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- And in my opinion your are the confrontational editor. As soon as you are told you have been doing something wrong you always go on the attack. Just let it go and stop repeating the same thing. Qed237 (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- You and I clearly do not get on, but I am not the only editor who has complained of you and date updating. I do though have to thank you for conducting these discussions on user talk pages and not article talk pages, editors who do that I think we can both agree are disruptive. I think neither one of us are disruptive. I just think you need to assume good faith in my editing . I have not in my opinion done anything that you have claimed (but of course I am going to say that, and of course you will disagree). Just lets move on and if I do make an update, and you have a head explosion, think of this, i am not doing it to piss you off or be disruptive. My life is to short , and I have to many other things to do to be that ridiculous. Lets just move on and lets both just start again and both assume good faith. You and I have both used language the other dislikes. lets end now, and moe on, that way life can move on and so can the editing of wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Will you please stop with accusations of being disruptive, you are assuming bad faith. Stop assuming bad faith, stop making accusations of disruptive editing. Assume good faith, and just change a date, also just look at the league table on the article when the editing in question was made. You are just being a stubborn and blind editor here, claiming bad faith. just assume good faith always, you have really wound me up here with these false allegations, and unfounded claims. just assume good fat=uth, and just be far more open to other doing things. A simple way to have avoided all this would have been to say consensus (link here) states this. You have not you are being blind over the date on an article. just change that here. You have caused so much rubbish, over a date, buried at the bottom away from where edits are being made. Stop being so confrontational here and a bad faith assumer. I hope you change, then maybe you and I can edit without you and I ending up with these discussions. Sport and politics (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- As you know the main isssue and reason for the revert were your disruptive edit to the result by matchday section, not the infobox date. Qed237 (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is clinging at vanishing straws, just change the date, this is not something which is a unique issue to just this point. This is putting off the making of good faith edits, and is straying into ownership violations. The edits were good faith, and you are tieing up time and claiming they are malicious, this is where the issue, lies, perhaps assuming good faiht and not assuming they are not as has been done here would be a refreshing step. This were in good faith you have not assumed that, you are a bad faith assumer, and that is why i am in all honesty angry with you here. These were good faith, just CHANGE A DATE. Sport and politics (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not factually incorrect, they were first on 22 October when the page was updated after that matchday. Qed237 (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- The edit can be seen here, you have undone the league position in the top info-box to an inaccurate version, all over the date. Just update the date, don't go back to inaccurate versions. Sport and politics (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- You are arguing a team currently second and changing that to say second in the main info-box is factually incorrect, just look at the table today before the matches kick off, Arsenal are second and not first, this is not a factual inaccuracy this is stubbornness to a point. Sport and politics (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Sport and politics: I reverted your factually incorrect update as you changed team position despite being told about it the past. Qed237 (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more with Enigmaman more, just update the date as opposed to continually using rollback. It is causing disruption where users make good faith edits, and is beginning to be obstructive. I say justthink before rolling back and undoing. Update the date, don't undo factually correct updates to articles. Sport and politics (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Enigmaman: That, I can understand. It is just very frustrating with these football stats (which many involved can testify for), so I was frustrated and made a bad decision to revert on the hat-trick article as well. Qed237 (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I will take another look. I declined it after seeing all the rollbacks on the hat trick list which you were keeping out of date. Enigmamsg 22:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Request for creating needed pages
As in the headline. Because there is a gap. So would you like to create articles that are needed:
- 2016–17 Belgian Cup (sources from Dutch or French Wiki)
- 2016–17 Magyar Kupa (sources from Hungarian Wiki)
- 2016–17 Bosnia and Herzegovina Football Cup (find sources)
- 2016–17 Albanian Cup (find sources for example FSHF website)
These articles are needed but for Gibraltarian Rock Cup and Andorran Copa Constitució should be created after first draws before first matches which will be held in Winter 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.248.158.170 (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information, I will take a look when I have some spare time. Qed237 (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
FC Dnipro
Please, look at uk:Дніпро (футбольний клуб, Дніпро). --Mapsed (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Mapsed: Then make a new requested move. The consensus at the artcle talkpage is to not move. Note that also the city is still at Dnipropetrovsk. Your edits are very disruptive and you should never make the same edit a second time without discussion and consensus. Qed237 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Mapsed: What is on ukrainian wikipedia is not important. This is English and we follow what is most commonly used in English language. The article is at Dnipropetrovsk and not Dnipro (disambiguation). Qed237 (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Kyiv is the Ukrainian name of the city Kiev (like Moskva the Russian name of Moscow etc.). Quite different is, what stands in the article of the English Wikipedia concerning the Ukraine's fourth largest city: "In 1926 the city was renamed after Communist leader Grigory Petrovsky. Hence following the 2015 law on decommunization the city had to be renamed." Have You not seen the List of Ukrainian toponyms that were changed as part of decommunization in 2016? --Mapsed (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
November 2016
Hello, what do you mean disruptive editing? What was wrong with it? --Skyblueshaun (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to reiterate the aforesaid solely with regard to the article being the North London Derby. I merely added wiki links and referencing to such and hence sought to allay the concerns illustrated in the tags via the article's overall improvement. As well, I was only endeavouring towards soon adding content with cited sources to ameliorate such as a whole. Can you please indicate these adverse editing issues fully and in detail or the lack therof? --Silverfish4 (talk), 7 November 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| You are a user that I admire and we edit similar things. Spike789 Talk 20:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC) |
Alexis Ivanov at ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Alexis Ivanov. Thank you. Katietalk 10:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @KrakatoaKatie: Thank you for the notification. I just added a header so it is clear to everyone that I am not the subject of this ANI thread and just have been mentioned in the discussion. Qed237 (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @KrakatoaKatie: After doing some thinking, I am not going to comment unless someone request my comment or I find it necessary at the time. If I would say something I am afraid it will just be putting more fuel on the fire, no matter how I write, as Alexis Ivanov seems to take everything as an attack. Just look at User talk:Kouhi#Just a respectful question where the other editor explained himself and he offered no understanding, just telling the other editor to "Next time be careful" after he in the edit summary said We already know that it was an Islamic city, in Arran for hundred years that was known as Bardha'a, an Important center in that region., which is not obvious for me not even after reading the article. Qed237 (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Qed237: Mr. Qed237, I hope you don't misrepresent my view, but I never took Kouhi's edit as an attack, instead of instigating a fight I commented RESPECTFULLY to get an understanding of his edit, it seems while I was blocked someone removed a HUGE chunk of the city's name etymology, while I was blocked I was doing some reading on the city in 8th century Islamic-Khazar war, I had no idea of the edit history on Wikipedia. Yes I have read the page but I was not following it, and I was logged of Wikipedia 90% of the time I was blocked, after I came back I added the city's name based on the name of the Arabic wording which was based on an Armenian wording, Kouhi just removed all that and restored an excellent chunk of the removed part with it's source, he didn't mean anything negative and I didn't mean anything negative and at the end we resolved quickly by having both edits. Just be careful is not a threat or any ill towards kouhi, it just means what it means. And the information I gathered came from here. Just making sure you understand before you misrepresent my view. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Qed237: Another thing I noticed is you say is "which is not obvious for me not even after reading the article", sometimes Wikipedia articles are in a poor state, and sometimes editors know more information behind the scene, that is what me and Kouhi had. He know what I meant, anybody not acquainted with the history of the city will not understand, and may take my words as negative, which happened to you, the city acquired an Arabic name for hundred years because it was "chief town until the 10th century of the Islamic province of Arrān, the classical Caucasian Albania.". It acquired it's name in mid 7th century. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Alexis Ivanov: You have been strongly advised at AN/I to 'drop the stick' for your own sake- can I just point out that that does not mean just dropping it at that noticeboard, but in general. And that means, here too. Please don't let discussion spill over into harassment. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 14:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I'm being as respectful towards other users as much as possible. This discussion here is to protect my image and not being painted as someone who thinks they are being attacked as QED is saying but rather a person who thinks respectfully talking to another editor they know and reach a fast conclusion in an edit that doesn't have to escalate to a conflict, that is what I achieved exactly, as I had good faith with my partner. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: There is nothing wrong with this discussion, he is allowed to talk to me and explain his view and I can not see any "attack" in this section so far. Qed237 (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent: the system works. Carry on! Muffled Pocketed 15:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Alexis Ivanov: Okay, I understand your point and as long as this discussion remains friendly and respectful (which it has so far) you are very welcome to talk to me and discuss. I guess it has to do a bit with our history, but also when I see someone being very short they are often masking aggression and writing only "Do you have a problem with me ?" and "Next time be careful." is very short and could sound aggressive. Had it been me, I would probably had said "Hi. Is there a reason why you removed my edit as well when reverting the IP?" as it was very clear in his edit summary why he did it. Anyway, I could not see anywhere the name Bardha'a, but only Barda'a, in the article and not even in your link you gave me (only "Bardhaʿah") so saying "We already know..." is a big assumption and for example I had no idea about it. Qed237 (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Alexis Ivanov: And saying "sometimes editors know more information behind the scene" is true, but if there is no source for it inside the article it is not wrong to tag it or remove it, and I consider doing it myself but thought I should talk to you first, but I was scared you would be to aggressive to talk to if I complained about it. Qed237 (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Qed237: Fair enough, on the matter of dh and d, I can explain it. If you notice the page the d has an underline. Iranica is utilizing it's own form of transliteration of Persian and Arabic words which can be seen here.. This might confuse English readers. If you go down the page to see the list of the words and corresponding Perso-Arabic letters, you will see this letter "ذ". In my sandbox I have utilized different forms of transliteration that different "people use" and I have reached the conclusion the best system is the Cambridge system, that is what I call it, it is the most modern one and the ones that historians use nowadays. Instead of an underline d the Cambridge makes it dh. So that is what I do. The part of h and ah. It is the same and there is no difference. You can tag if you want, I have no issue.Alexis Ivanov (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Alexis Ivanov: Okay, thank you for that explanation. I knew you had a good reason, it is just something not in my area of expertise (I am not a native english speaker) and to me it was weird not to see that spelling anywhere in the article. Qed237 (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Qed237: Fair enough, on the matter of dh and d, I can explain it. If you notice the page the d has an underline. Iranica is utilizing it's own form of transliteration of Persian and Arabic words which can be seen here.. This might confuse English readers. If you go down the page to see the list of the words and corresponding Perso-Arabic letters, you will see this letter "ذ". In my sandbox I have utilized different forms of transliteration that different "people use" and I have reached the conclusion the best system is the Cambridge system, that is what I call it, it is the most modern one and the ones that historians use nowadays. Instead of an underline d the Cambridge makes it dh. So that is what I do. The part of h and ah. It is the same and there is no difference. You can tag if you want, I have no issue.Alexis Ivanov (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: There is nothing wrong with this discussion, he is allowed to talk to me and explain his view and I can not see any "attack" in this section so far. Qed237 (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I'm being as respectful towards other users as much as possible. This discussion here is to protect my image and not being painted as someone who thinks they are being attacked as QED is saying but rather a person who thinks respectfully talking to another editor they know and reach a fast conclusion in an edit that doesn't have to escalate to a conflict, that is what I achieved exactly, as I had good faith with my partner. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Alexis Ivanov: You have been strongly advised at AN/I to 'drop the stick' for your own sake- can I just point out that that does not mean just dropping it at that noticeboard, but in general. And that means, here too. Please don't let discussion spill over into harassment. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 14:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Qed237: Another thing I noticed is you say is "which is not obvious for me not even after reading the article", sometimes Wikipedia articles are in a poor state, and sometimes editors know more information behind the scene, that is what me and Kouhi had. He know what I meant, anybody not acquainted with the history of the city will not understand, and may take my words as negative, which happened to you, the city acquired an Arabic name for hundred years because it was "chief town until the 10th century of the Islamic province of Arrān, the classical Caucasian Albania.". It acquired it's name in mid 7th century. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Qed237: Mr. Qed237, I hope you don't misrepresent my view, but I never took Kouhi's edit as an attack, instead of instigating a fight I commented RESPECTFULLY to get an understanding of his edit, it seems while I was blocked someone removed a HUGE chunk of the city's name etymology, while I was blocked I was doing some reading on the city in 8th century Islamic-Khazar war, I had no idea of the edit history on Wikipedia. Yes I have read the page but I was not following it, and I was logged of Wikipedia 90% of the time I was blocked, after I came back I added the city's name based on the name of the Arabic wording which was based on an Armenian wording, Kouhi just removed all that and restored an excellent chunk of the removed part with it's source, he didn't mean anything negative and I didn't mean anything negative and at the end we resolved quickly by having both edits. Just be careful is not a threat or any ill towards kouhi, it just means what it means. And the information I gathered came from here. Just making sure you understand before you misrepresent my view. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @KrakatoaKatie: After doing some thinking, I am not going to comment unless someone request my comment or I find it necessary at the time. If I would say something I am afraid it will just be putting more fuel on the fire, no matter how I write, as Alexis Ivanov seems to take everything as an attack. Just look at User talk:Kouhi#Just a respectful question where the other editor explained himself and he offered no understanding, just telling the other editor to "Next time be careful" after he in the edit summary said We already know that it was an Islamic city, in Arran for hundred years that was known as Bardha'a, an Important center in that region., which is not obvious for me not even after reading the article. Qed237 (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Spain national football team (13/11/2016)
Hello When I edit this page, you delete my edit why? I I will give you proof of the health of my edits http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminaries/match-centre/index.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medo9 (talk • contribs)
- To me it looked like you just restored a previous version, including reduced image size, without any explanation. Qed237 (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Danilo Pantic
Danilo Pantic played against Montenegro U20. Information can be found at this link Football Association of Serbia [1]. This is on Serbian, but i not found on English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djene94 (talk • contribs)
- Then add it to the article. No one can know where you get information from and adding something without source to a BLP is pretty serious. Qed237 (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Live updates
Hi there, from Portugal,
i apologize for yet another mixup created by my live updates, i trust all is OK with you now that the game is over (England 2 - Spain 2). Regarding the case of Iago Aspas (who SCORED, just check Soccerway please http://pt.soccerway.com/matches/2016/11/15/world/friendlies/england/spain/2287005/?ICID=HP_MS_05_08), i have already added the fields for a ref, just waiting for BBC to finish their net coverage.
Happy editing --85.242.133.151 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is alright. As soon as the matches has ended you can update the articles, but at Iago Aspas you actually wrote 2-0 loss, which is incorrect final score (very bad). Also you can not add empty references so please wait to add content until after you have a source. Have a nice day. Qed237 (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, very wrong as far as WP is concerned (adding a completely different match score), not the first time i do that, but i ALWAYS correct it should the score be altered. The question is, why am i so stupid that i can't wait until the end of the match like a normal user :) Have a nice one too. --85.242.133.151 (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Dont worry, you are not stupid and I know that from experience. You are a good editor, you where just a bit too fast this time, thats all. Qed237 (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I was going to add the ref as promised, but page is now protected. I wonder why, is was not subjected to any vandalism, big or small. --85.242.133.151 (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Referee Articles
Hi Qed
We are clashing a bit on referee articles so I thought I would drop a personal note here as well as on the the talk pages. Basically I am going around cleaning up referee articles so they conform to WP:BLP. I have done all the rugby, rugby league and cricket ones. I am almost finished with the football referees now (just got the USA down to go from List of association football international referees). After this I will start on the American sports and then the less popular ones. I have found this to be a problematic area where, usually drive by fans, load the articles up with criticisms when the team they are supporting lose. I am taking cleaning these articles up pretty seriously; my watchlist has passed 1500 and most are referees, I am writing an essay User:Aircorn/Sandbox/REF and trying to start a Wikiproject. Most articles I have edited fail WP:BALASP, as any referee notable enough to be here has had a long career, but the articles generally just pick out, perceived or otherwise, wrong decisions. My personal baseline for adding criticism is that it has to have effected their career to be mentioned in their biographical article (FIFA does stand refs down for poor performances), with other criticisms fitting in better at the game article. AIRcorn (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Aircorn: Thank you for your time and for giving me this message. I should have opened a discussion myself, but lack of time made me make an (incorrect?) decision to skip that. In general I agree with you and completely support your case. It is not to far away from when fans write "He scored twice in match X on 45 April 2015" for every goal players in their favourit team scores. Instead of being an encyclopedic article about the footballer, it just becomes a diary of when they scored. On the other hand, when they lose they write about the referees instead and a lot of that material does not belong on wikipedia. However, there is one small thing that bugs me, and that is when all controversies are removed. There are still some that should stay without being undue. For example the handball of Thierry Henry at Martin Hansson has become very famous and recieved tons of international coverage. There is even a separate article about this called 2009 Republic of Ireland v France football matches and the handball has been called "Le Hand of God" and by TIME magazine listed as top 10 cheat in football history. An event like that is definately worth mentioning in the Martin Hansson article. Qed237 (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- To clarify, it is not only a discussion about the referee being wrong, but it sparked a more general fair play discussion and led to extra referees. Qed237 (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- I know it looks like I remove all criticism as I probably remove about 90% of it. This is because 90% of what is added to these articles is inappropriate. I maybe get a little cynical due the amount of crap that gets added to these articles over the years. If I never have to read another quote from Ferguson laying into a referee I will die happy. However I agree that sometimes it is necessary to add it in, and there is probably a case with the Ireland vs France one if it lead to changes at a high level. As I said on the talk page of Martin Hansson the main problem I have is the volume of criticism directed at him in the article. The whole life and section is written as if to paint him as the worst ref ever. The second, third, fourth and fifth paragraphs are completely devoted to crticising him. There is even a passage that criticises a decision, then later admits that the decision was right. This is a referee who officiated at the world cup, putting him among of the best referees around, yet our article on him is a hit piece. I am happy to discuss any specific changes at the talk pages of Hensson and Jonas Eriksson (referee). AIRcorn (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- To clarify, it is not only a discussion about the referee being wrong, but it sparked a more general fair play discussion and led to extra referees. Qed237 (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Jermaine Defoe
You keep un-doing edits to the scorers of over 100 premier league goals page and reverting back to incorrect information. Maybe instead of undoing 6 or 7 edits if you're unhappy with the way its edited you could fix it rather than leave incorrect information up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.1.250 (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Information is not incorrect, he had scored 149 goals before this gameweek. After this gameweek the entire table will be updated again. Qed237 (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
He's scored the goal, if the match had to be re-scheduled for some reason it could be weeks till the gameweek is finished? Would you really wait till then to update the stat? Has he currently scored 150 goals? Yes, even if the premier league folded right now before the gameweek ended he would have scored 150 goals. If this gameweek never gets completed he has still scored 150 goals so there is out of date and incorrect information sitting there and one of them benefits of wikipedia is that it can be updated in real time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.1.250 (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- It is updated after each weekend and then timestamp and all players are updated. It is very poor updating to update only one player and not the rest. And wikipedia is not a newsticker and does not support live updating. Qed237 (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Curious.
Why not? Betlewetly (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- By consensus we dont list team medal templates in infobox for individual players. It is their personal stats that belongs there. Qed237 (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Betlewetly (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Qed237. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
UEFA Group stage tie breaker
Please look back at what you say because I believe you are wrong.
As I type this Tottenham Hotspurs are elimated from UEFA, but based on your rules they would not be considered out.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.13.228 (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- Just look at the source and official rulebook. Head-to-head points is the first tiebreaker. Qed237 (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
UEFA European Championship matches
Is there any need for a dedicated article to list the matches? The dates and times are already on the main tournament article, it seems unnecessary. I think a better way to do it is like on the page 2014 FIFA World Cup#Match summary, which uses a collapsible Wikitable. That was done after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2014 FIFA World Cup matches. I thought this set a precedent, which is why I redirected these articles in the first place. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Secret Agent Julio: Okay I see. I was not aware of that AfD and the FIFA history and looking at your edit summary I thought it was your own personal decision. Perhaps it is best to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football first. Qed237 (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should've left a better summary. As far as discussion goes, is that really necessary? The AfD seems like a good enough consensus for me, and several FOOTY members contributed. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Premier League
can you elaborate on why you had reverted the change to go back to an incorrect one? the link provided as citation also has the correct number (7) that I updated so it's not like the changes I made were incorrect or misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by I king (talk • contribs) 14:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- @I king: Just look at the Infobox timestamp after your edit. It says "All statistics correct as of 21 November 2016" (at the bottom of the infobox) and Chelsea had not won 7 matches at that time, so you actually made an factually incorrect edit. Also you can not update just part of an infobox, if you had updated the timestamp along with your edit then all other stats would have been wrong. For that reason the entire infobox is always updated after all matches has been played and all sources has been updated. Wikipedia is not a newsticker and there is no rush to update. Qed237 (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
why do you keep reverting my changes? all sources have been updated and I have stated so in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediocre Legacy (talk • contribs) 13:10, 4 December 2016 (EST)
- @Mediocre Legacy: No, all sources was not updated and for example you added incorrect attendance figure. Wikipedia is not a news ticker and we should wait, it is better to be slow and correct than fast and wrong. It is an encyclopedia. Qed237 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Mediocre Legacy: I actually reported you, but now I just removed the report (diff) to give you one final chance. Qed237 (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see what I've done wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediocre Legacy (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 December 2016 (EST)
- @Mediocre Legacy: As I said above, all sources had not been updated and for example you updated incorrect attendance. It is best to wait until next day to update (or until after weekend matches). So wait until tuesday. Qed237 (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Mediocre Legacy: If you cant update properly, there is always the alternative and do like before and dont show stats in the infobox during the season, only after. Qed237 (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
VisualEditor
Hello, Just a quick question. I was wondering do you use the VisualEditor to edit sections? Thanks --Skyblueshaun (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Skyblueshaun: Hi. No I have tried it, but I dont like it. After trying it a few months ago, I have always used the regular edit window. Qed237 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
'Warning'
Sorry mate but Diego Costa and Alexis Sanchez are both now on 11 goals in the Premier League, so in what way am I vandalizing the page? I also find this threat incredibly offensive since I have been an active and helpful contributor for several years and have never been accused of such 'vandalizing' in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownBrick22 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- @UnknownBrick22: The warning might have been harsh, but first of all you did not update the timestamp so it said "as of 27 November" and neither player had scored 11 goals then. Secondly, if you had updated the timestamp then the rest of the information would have been incorrect. Always when updating an infobox, the entire infobox should be updated, including the timestamp. Qed237 (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll bear this in mind in the future — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownBrick22 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Several users vandalizing Heisman Trophy page
There are several users vandalizing the Heisman Trophy page, putting ridiculous things on there very rapidly. As soon as I undo one vandalizing edit, there's another one up. I'd like to request that they be blocked permanently from Wikipedia, though that is your judgement. The three users are here, here, and here.
The first of those people I mentioned makes misleading edit summaries, sometimes blanking sections and marking it as a "typo".
It would be appreciated if you informed me of your final decision.
Thank you. PCN02WPS (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- @PCN02WPS: First of all, I am not an administrator so I can not block people or protect pages. All I can do is report the editors at WP:AIV and pages to WP:RPP. Looking at the situation, I see that someone has already semi-protected the article which is a good idea since the vandalism came from different IP's. About the editors, they are all IP so wikipedia will not block them permanently as people may move and someone else (a good editor) may get that IP adress. However the first editor has been blocked for 31 hours, and the second has been given warnings and will be blocked if they continue. Qed237 (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Qed237: Thank you - I wasn't sure if you were an admin or not, but you've left some messages on my talk page so I figured you'd be a good person to talk to about it (you know more about Wikipedia than I do, for sure). I was also very fed up at the time (as soon as I reverted one of their edits, they'd do it again). Thanks again. PCN02WPS (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Frank Lampard
Hi there, can you explain why you removed the valid Frank Lampard record which was added today?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.136.53 (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- First time the sources got messed up (you gave it same name as earlier source?) and also I was not sure it is notable. Qed237 (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi
Why did you make this edit? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: I removed them because they were redlinks to categories that should not exist. If you think I made a mistake I am happy to consult with an administrator to see if I did something wrong. Qed237 (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- I just put them there because they were funny, and they were on my userpage. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: I know it is your userpage but that does not mean that you can have anything you want on it. Qed237 (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Drmies has some on his, I think they're permitted. ThePlatypusofDoom Talk Happy Holidays 21:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: I know it is your userpage but that does not mean that you can have anything you want on it. Qed237 (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- I just put them there because they were funny, and they were on my userpage. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: What do you think of the categories at User:ThePlatypusofDoom? Did I make a mistake removing some of them? Qed237 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you shouldn't have made that edit - respect the other user's talk page. GiantSnowman 22:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- GS is right, as he frequently is. However, if the categories aren't funny... Drmies (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman and Drmies: I can not see Wikipedians who are being investigated for abuse of categories or Wikipedians who only have imaginary friends or Wikipedians that something is wrong with. The first is just wrong, there is no "investigation" at all and the other two can be seen as personal information that does not belong on wikipedia. Others like Wikipedians who add far to many categories to their user page or Wikipedians who are zombies I see no problem with. Qed237 (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- But if you say it is allowed, I will of course not edit the userpage anymore. Qed237 (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry, that's sort of how it is. I'm (still?) categorized as a Wikipedian sex worker, which is valid even if red-linked. Those aren't really very valid and I don't find them funny--but then some people, inexplicably, don't find my jokes funny. But you don't have a problem with the zombies one? I hate fucking zombies! Take care QED, Drmies (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- GS is right, as he frequently is. However, if the categories aren't funny... Drmies (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Then when a comment is directed to the same conversation, but this one does not contain a outdent. Then put such a template.? Just say. --186.145.98.162 (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- There is no need for outdent and you should not modify talkpage posts of other editors. Qed237 (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Honours
Almost every player in the section of honours appears an award that they were runners up I don't se the problem you might have to check other players pages to see. Ale236 (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
So if you do that then do it on every's players page that appears the runners up in the section of honours. Ale236 (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Sergio Aguero
Why did you remove my update to an error in the page because I did not cite the source when the original statement didn't have a source? Are you on a power trip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanGregg (talk • contribs) 11:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @JordanGregg: First of all I did not update to an error, because Ruud Van Nistelrooy has never scored 100 premier league goals (he scored 95 in manchester United). The source you provided is for how many goals they scored after 100 matches, not how fast they reached 100 goals. Also the lead of an article is the summary of content in the article and if you read the 2015–16 season section you get the information (with the source I wrote in edit summary). Finally please do not turn to personal attacks. Qed237 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Kosovo national football team
I think that will be better if you'll put Kosovo logo and kit on Kosovo national football team page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KG Designer (talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- @KG Designer: Kits with logos and the team logo is not allowed per copyright laws so you should never add that again, especially when it has already been removed several times in the past. Kits are okay as long as they are without logos. Qed237 (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Timestamp and infobox
Hi, only a "methodological" (o better to say - "terminological") question. I know, what it means "infobox", but "timestamp" Ligue table or top goalscorers table etc? And you said, that better to update bouth together? If I understood well, I agree, that you are right--Noel baran (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
sorry
Sorry, it was a mistake as I edited my last comment.Josepolivares (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your apology is accepted. Since it was an mistake, I have already removed the warning at your talkpage. Just be more careful next time. Qed237 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's right. Greetings.Josepolivares (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Xhaka controversy section
May I know the reason for reverting the controversy section on Xhaka's BLP page? Vagarwal10 (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- First of all it is not really a controversy, and secondly at this point it is mostly speculation without facts and in these circumstances people are innocent until proven guilty. Qed237 (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
Do you remember this SPI case, from just under a year ago. Subsequent investigations have lead me to think this may have been a new sockmaster. Do you happen to remember why you thought this was a sockpuppet of Antony1821 specifically? Unfortunately your SPI report from last March sheds little light on the matter. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Sir Sputnik: I am sorry, but my memory fails me a bit here. I am not nearly as active now as I was before so a lot of these things that I used to keep in mind, have "disappeared" to make room for other things in my head. What I remember is that the username had a similar name as previous socks and the edits where at the same places in similar (or even the same) articles, but I can not remember any details. Sorry. Qed237 (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
User talk:Eemiratess
Where is the legal threat? GiantSnowman 19:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah I missed that - I've sent him a warning, doesn't merit a block (yet). GiantSnowman 19:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Iniesta
Andres Iniesta was not in the 2009 supercup of spain or supercup of europe squads because he was injured. It is not an honour for him Aavelarx (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have to agree. Kante4 (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Aavelarx and Kante4: Sorry, I might have been to quick to revert that after checking edits like this where you add 2008 FA Community Shield for Cristiano Ronaldo when he was not in squad. And it is not the first time (diff). To me the interest to add content for Real Madrid players and remove from Barcelona was obvious and made me move to quickly in this case. Qed237 (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
CSS styling in templates.
Hello, Just heads up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document here to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
CSS styling in templates
Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
can 2017 Egypt silver medal
Dear respected! You can "citation needed" tag rather than reverting my hard worked edits. what type of source do you want rather than squad final list?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albicelestes (talk • contribs) 19:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Albicelestes: What we need is a source that confirms that they won the honour. Being in final squad is not enough because people can get injured before first game and miss the tournament, and then they have not got the honour. Qed237 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Kennwes32
Tag as copyright violations if applicable, though not all are credited to that one source, and some of the people are certainly notable. GiantSnowman 18:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Messi
Hello Qed237. I have explained it in the talk page of the article. Kindly refer it. I was editing the article to mention the notable importance of these goals when you reverted my edit. So first discuss it before reverting.Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- There is a consensus-seeking discussion at Talk:Lionel Messi#Free Kick Goals Record. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Rahul Dhanwani: There is no consensus at article talkpage and we do not need goal detail. I have the right to revert your persistent addition as there is no consensus for its inclusion and multiple editors has already removed it, yet you insist on adding again. When I have the time I will respond further at the article talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- I will respond on article talk-page and in future try to continue this conversation there.Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Liverpool
Hi , Currently Liverpool is standing on 5th position , Liverpool was on 4th position in between gameweek , when matchs are going on. you can refer premier league site to check Liverpool position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaval 9989 (talk • contribs)
- @Dhaval 9989: Exactly. Since matches gets moved around a lot in the UK due to bad weather (luckily not this season so far) and/or cup fixtures, there is consensus that there are no such things as rounds. For that reason there is no "position by round"-table at main 2016–17 Premier League article and in the individual club articles we display result by matchDAY and not matchWEEK, i.e. the position at the end of the day they played. This is also what the source for that section uses. Please follow the source. Qed237 (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Upcoming events
Next month 2018 FIFA World Cup qualifying will return after 5-month hiatus. --5.172.236.26 (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Premier League table: Man Utd qualification to EL 3rd round
If "not here", as you put it, then where? I would greatly appreciate a little more developed feedback, as I am left confused. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob von Schlumpfenberg (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Bob von Schlumpfenberg: It is standard with a note in the table itself, just like previous seasons. I did not have time earlier but I will look at it soon. Qed237 (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Bob von Schlumpfenberg: I have now fixed it as how it was last season. Qed237 (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Bot question
Do you think FOOTY like a bot that updates templates of leagues? My current thought is taking input from BBC and converting it to appropiate wikiformat. Should I start a section on the talk page? Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- @DatGuy: I can not answer for what other people think, so it might be a good idea to start discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. My personal thought are that it depends on how the bot works, but in my mind we should keep Module:Sports table. Also note that BBC lists far from every table. Qed237 (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Dynamic IP disruption
There could be too much collateral damage with a rangeblock, maybe we should protect the pages instead? GiantSnowman 09:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)