User talk:Profavi1

Hey[edit]

hey Profavi1 (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

This seems like a good footballer - I hope to hear more about his career in the future. Alextheconservative (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's going to win it all I'm telling you Profavi1 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Edge is overrated[edit]

Yes, what he did in the League Cup Final was good, but he'll be a one-season wonder in the Prem. No better than that Connor Wickham - he'll break Shearer's record, Rooney's record, Pele's record - everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gafferoo (talk • contribs) 19:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be too sure... Edge is already currently leading the PL Golden Boot race, while Wickham is faffing about in the Championship (Palace got relegated in the 2014-15 season in this universe :/ ) Profavi1 (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Erling Haaland, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unnecessary revert; the initial edit was poorly worded and, while I concede that I shouldn't have included the link to the 'Premier League records' page, the original article didn't even contain a wikilink to Andy Cole (his and Shearer's record being undoubtedly relevant to Haaland's page). If your issue with my edit was simply the overlinking, you could have removed the additional link, rather than reverting the edit entirely. Profavi1 (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few things, first, wordier doesn't equal better, so that's rather subjective on your part. Then I don't see any mention of Andy Cole in the reference, and Shearer is already mentioned (and linked). You should probably read through the article a bit before you edit it. TylerBurden (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see any mention of Andy Cole in the reference? Did you open the link to the page on the Man City website where it literally mentions the previous record of both Cole and Shearer? Or are you being purposefully obtuse? Profavi1 (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was hasty in checking it and CTR+F'd Andy Cole which did not show up because Andrew is used on the source, so that was a mistake by me. If you would like to add that additional context of who were the previous holders I don't have anything against that, just please don't add more MOS:DUPLINKS. TylerBurden (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, happens to the best of us. I'll do that, glad we could sort this out, and sorry for any unnecessary edits I made. Profavi1 (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 25, 2023[edit]

Hello Profavi1. Sorry to bother you. I wanted to ask you about NextEditor123. He has been constantly making changes to several footballers wikipedia pages since January 2023. I was wondering if you know what we could do regarding people who are deleting accurate information. Jarradjarrad (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League and La Liga rules does not matter there. One of main things that matter in Wikipedia is giving solid sources for edits to be accepted. In case of Piqué and Cancelo, they both have profiles in official websites of Premier League and FC Barcelona. They are used in their Wikipedia pages as sources for "Honours" sections. If you look at them, they don't include La Liga title for Piqué or Premier League title for Cancelo in 2023 at that moment. We can put titles in both Wikipedia articles if they will be included in the sources.

Are you trying to convince people that I violate rules? Who are you to decide who have rights to edit? Show me a prove where I gave disinformation. NextEditor123 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sanctioning anything Jarradjarrad is saying, but I do want to point out that I provided a tweet from Barcelona's official Twitter page, depicting all the medal winners for the season (and therefore more up to date than Pique's page on the website), which shows that Pique has been awarded a La Liga medal for the season, and, as such, it can be counted as a major honour. As such, please refrain from undoing the edit any further. Profavi1 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to convince anyone. You have done to Profavi1 what you've done to me many times. Seeing this, I asked them if there was anything we could do in regards to you constantly deleted information from other editors. This is a common theme based on your edit history. In Piqué's case specifically, Barcelona have officially recognised him as a La Liga winner. In regards to you saying that twitter is not a reliable source even if it came from Barcelona's official twitter page. Wikipedia clearly states: "Tweets and other self-published material may be acceptable if the conditions specified at WP:SPS or WP:TWITTER are met." Therefore, it is a reliable source. You can check this specifications if you want. Jarradjarrad (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Callum Doyle. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Giant Snowman 08:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

??? It wasn't vandalism, I was removing clearly the Manchester City seasons where he made 0 appearances since they don't need to be there, he was always on loan at different clubs Profavi1 (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your edits to James Trafford have now also been reverted by me and another editor. Giant Snowman 07:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to both Callum Doyle and James Trafford were in line with other pages, where players have spent multiple years at a club and only gone out on loan, and thus have not had the club appear in their career statistics. Take Diego Costa's first stint (2007-09) at Atletico Madrid for instance - the "career statistics" table only shows his loan spells, not the Atletico seasons with 0 appearances. Profavi1 (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional FIFA biographies[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a free webhosting service. Wikipedia is not a place to post personal content, host personal websites, or do things that are not directly related to adding to or improving the encyclopedia, as you did at User:Profavi1/RobinEdge. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to remind you that the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page is a subpage of my user profile, and is intended as a sandbox through which I can explore the conventions of editing footballers on Wikipedia by doing such with a fictional player. Profavi1 (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (User talk:Govvy) for a period of 1 week for repeatedly making comments on an editor's usertalk page after they had politely requested to be left alone. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 11 January 2024 (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).

Profavi1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User insulted me (stating they didn't believe I went to university) after being corrected on basic grammar, then removed comments from their talk page from another user calling them out, which I simply reverted. I do not believe this is a reason to be blocked from the discussion. Profavi1 (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The discussion is over, and you haven't given a reason you need to post on that user's talk page. My advice is that you go on about editing the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2024 (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.