User talk:BestEditorEver

Welcome!

Hello, BestEditorEver, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! jaco♫plane 20:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid[edit]

I don't see why my match report against Espanyol was reverted...thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.63.29 (talk • contribs)

Apologies for this late reply. I removed the match report from the Real Madrid article because it looked unbalanced and recentist to me. Elaborate match details are more suitable for Wikinews, methinks. Cheers. BestEditorEver 09:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi[edit]

Hee, ik laat je een berichtje achter om te zeggen dat je goed bezig bent :) Keep it up! JACO PLANE • 2007-06-1 00:26

Dank voor de aardige woorden! Erg attent.

Ik ben het trouwens volledig met je eens ;) BestEditorEver 11:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Boateng[edit]

I checked, it is well in Royal Excelsior Mouscron and not in Excelsior Rotterdam that George BOATENG played.

Esperanza222 13:57, 3 June 2007 (My hour is that of France)

There are conflicting sources as to with which Excelsior he played. I assumed it was Rotterdam's because of Feyenoord, but maybe not. Sorry if my edit was incorrect. BestEditorEver 12:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me as, I thought as it was Excelsior Rotterdam considering which it then played Feneyoord, but the large majority of the biographies of George Boateng that I consulted put Excelsior with a Belgian flag, which wants to say that it is Royal Excelsior Mouscron.

Esperanza222 17:43, 3 June 2007 (My hour is that of France )

But this reliable site has him at Excelsior Rotterdam. Not that I care either way mind you. BestEditorEver 19:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits of Glen Johnson (footballer)[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glen Johnson (footballer). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Adambro 10:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made to Glen Johnson (footballer)[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Glen Johnson (footballer). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Please note that just because you haven't made more than 3 reverts in any one 24 hour period, it does not mean your actions do not violate 3RR. Adambro 22:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BestEditorEver (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Read my username... Think again.

Decline reason:

Read your username, not impressed by that argument. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

UEFA Cup[edit]

Please stop revert-warring with User:Fadiga09 and discuss the matter on Talk:UEFA Cup instead. Oldelpaso 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. My argument with the other editor revolves around if the Inter Cities Fairs Cup results belong on Uefa related articles. I have tried to discuss the subject and posted my references several times on talk pages (see [1] and [2]). But I find it hopeless to engage into a discussion with someone who lacks a basic grasp of WP: Civil. I requested for someone to arbitrate the impasse on WikiProject Football a while ago ([3]), but none of the admins made an attempt. If you're familiar with the subject, could you read the above linked discussions and give an outsider's opinion. That may help resolve this deadlock. -- BestEditorEver 18:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those links (though I'm a little dismayed that the scale of the dispute is larger than I initially thought). I have no strong opinion either way; ending the back-and-forth is my priority. In terms of UEFA Cup I'd probably favour including both in the same article whether they are viewed as a true continuation or not, as I have a slight mergist tendency. For the records it is largely semantics, statistical sources vary in their approach. UEFA aren't always consistent either from what I can tell. Oldelpaso 19:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's clear form the references ([4], [5]) that the Fairs and Uefa Cup are two different tournaments, with a different set-up, different organizer and a different history. If Uefa does not consider the Fairs Cup results a part of clubs' records (as stated here unambiguously (not merely semantics I would say), then why should an encyclopedic article describing Uefa records include not recognized results? -- BestEditorEver 19:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the revert-warring has continued, I have protected the four articles in which this dispute is taking place. Please put further discussion on one of the article talk pages. Oldelpaso 18:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(About your last post) I wish to act purely as a mediator here - as I've now used admin tools it would be improper for me advocate a particular position. Oldelpaso 18:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You protected the unreferenced version of the article you endorsed in your first comment, so don't be claiming you're not advocating a particular position here.

We already have discussed the subject on two talk pages (see [6] and [7]). Richard Rundle avoids posting any sources and rarely participates in discussions and Fadiga03 thinks computer games are suitable references. So, what is the point to continue "discussing" with these editors.

To back my point even further: I'm including the third paragraph in this uefa.com article in addition to the references cited in my first comment. Uefa recognizes three clubs to have won all three Uefa tournaments. This trio does not include Barcelona despite winning the Champions League, Cup Winners Cup and the Fairs Cup.

These references are evident that Uefa does not count the Fairs Cup results as Uefa competition. Including them as if they were, like Richard Rundle and Fadiga03 have been doing, is POV pushing and original research.

And finally, the articles should be protected at its referencend versions, not the unsourced versions you happen to advocate. -- BestEditorEver 08:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See m:The Wrong Version. Protection is not an endorsement. However, if you think the protection is improper, you can get another admin to review it by going to WP:RFPP. Oldelpaso 17:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made to various pages with links considered unsuitable[edit]

Just want to express my apologies for the unsuitable links. I did read the regulations about links, but felt that what I was linking to was relevant enough to the subject matter, however as you have pointed out they are not and removed these links, I'll not carry on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkhallsredfloors (talk • contribs) 12:35, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Robinho[edit]

Thanks for helping on Robinho today. I am on WP:3RR risk there. A suspected sockpuppeteer User:AnonymousDude1993 and sockpuppets User:Futbolfan and User:IamRobinho are making the same DOB change adding the same comments that "he heard on TV that Robinho is 19 yrs old". Sockpupeteer has been reported to: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AnonymousDude1993. Please keep an eye on this one. Thanks! Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 16:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and I will. Thanks for the message. -- BestEditorEver 10:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]