User talk:Abcmaxx/Archives/2018

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Abcmaxx. 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.

Ways to improve How to Plan an Orgy in a Small Town

Hi, I'm Abishe. Abcmaxx, thanks for creating How to Plan an Orgy in a Small Town!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Abishe (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

New Year cats

Abcmaxx,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Abishe (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

About the alleged MK Dons "derbies"

Proximity of two football clubs' hometowns does not automatically translate into "rivalry". Nor do occasional flare ups between players make for a "derby". A large portion of the media do admittedly try to drum up hostility and rivalry where neither does truly exist (or exist at a low level); a practice undertaken particularly by the typical and unreliable popular media dedicated to sports sports. A sample of such reporting is the alleged "rivalry" between MK Dons and Wycombe Wanderers. (Congratulations, by the way, for removing the poor sources about that non-existent rivalry.) Lots of similar, properly unsupported allegations remain, though.

• Against Peterborough United: One source alleging this is a personal blog written by a young, Leicester fan. Well, blogs are not accepted as reliable sources.

• Against Northampton Town: The sole source alleging "rivalry" is The Daily Mail and it is a discredited one.

• Against Luton Town: No source is provided.

• Against Wycombe Wanderers: Perhaps only this qualifies as one - though barely, seeing as the media have taken to calling the meetings between Dons and Wanderers a "derby" from the first game! An example of the media engaged in creative reporting.

I sincerely believe that the whole section needs a strong pruning. The subject of the article have enough problems regarding the infamous issue of "history" without Wikipedia piling up on them with suspect and/or creative information. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Gnome I understand that you're trying to destroy the Dons article with AFC-fuelled standard nonsense, that MK are somehow outcast and follow no traditions, but unfortunately that's not true. Peterborough will always be considered the no.1 rival and will be irrespective of sport. There are regular running battles with Northampton and every game has about 2x attendance compared to other games. Most players are mercenaries nowadays, these a fan rivalries, but as can imagine, because of the repressions supporters face no-one really wants to publicise their rivalries or that brawls in pubs and parks break out on a regular basis. I did say I will add sources, I do have a life outside Wikipedia though. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

All the claims you make ("running battles with Northampton", etc) would be entirely welcome in the article if they were to be backed by reliable sources. Yes, we all have other things to do in life besides Wikipedia but until you find time to track down the required sources, claims about rivalries are to be rejected as unsourced in Wikipedia. As to my supposed motives ("trying to destroy the article", "AFC-fuelled nonsense", and such pap), first, you are warned that lack of civility here will not take you far. And, second, it'd have been easy to check out the record of my contributions; they are nowhere near "football related" (even less so, AFCW-related). There is no "agenda" here. Take a few deep breaths, calm down, and have another go at it. Sincerely, The Gnome (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. You wrote : "Most players are mercenaries nowadays, these a fan rivalries, but as can imagine, because of the repressions supporters face no-one really wants to publicise their rivalries or that brawls in pubs and parks break out on a regular basis." You may personally know way more than most people do on the matter. That's perfectly fine but as long as there are no third-party, reliable sources that would confirm your personal knowledge on the matter, the claims are to remain outside Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia that places verifiability above truth, as you probably already know. (The relevant wording in the rule is: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". Also, one should read the explanatory essay "Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth".) So, as I already suggested, try and track down the necessary sources, when you can find the time. Then, by all means, the claims about those Don's rivalries would be perfectly acceptable. That's all there is to it. -The Gnome (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Gnome also please re-read the consensus on Daily Mail, you've misinterpreted it Abcmaxx (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Let me quote back the most pertinent passage of the post-RfC decision: "[T]he Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." (Emphasis added.) I'd appreciate if you could point out what exactly I have misinterpreted. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, you are interpreting another Wikipedia rule wrongly, by the looks of it. The rule about "weaselly wording" is very specific: "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis."

The wording you removed from the MK Dons article is standard wording when we are careful to direct a claim to a source. In this case, a claim about club rivalries. Since these rivalries are nowhere near a universally established fact (recall how difficult it was to find sources!), stating that this is "reportedly" or "allegedly" so is standard and in fact recommended practice. Nothing wiggling or egg-sucking about it! Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Unreported World

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/episode-guide/series-2017. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Previous episode descriptions in this article, added by other editors, also appear to be copyvio, so I am listing the article at WP:CP for clean-up. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yosemiter (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Your recent reverts

Abcmaxx, hey, could you please explain the reason for your recent reverts on articles regarding FC Arsenal Kyiv and FC CSKA Kyiv? Did you have time to read those articles and references that were recently added? Please, provided me with your reasoning for your recent reverts. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Your recent editing history at German football rivalries shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Relocation of sports teams in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Willington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:FC Steaua București

Please DO NOT opena new move request on Talk:FC Steaua București in six months, if you think the previous result of move discussion is wrong, please use WP:MRV not reopen a new move request, thanks. Hhkohh (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Mattythewhite (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Mattythewhite is that you handle all disagreements? Joke of an admin if so Abcmaxx (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Look at all the warnings plastered all over your talk page, this block is overdue if anything. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Mattythewhite Yeah they're from you usually. Not really my fault you're incapable of a discussion is it? Look at my edit history and tell me if it fits the term disruptive. You trying to force me off Wiki just because you disagree or have some weird personal issue against an anonymous user? Abcmaxx (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Very few are from me, actually. We'll see what the reviewing admin has to say. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Mattythewhite: This is looking very much like a WP:INVOLVED block to me. stwalkerster (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Mattythewhite: you broke 3RR and then blocked the user you were edit warring with (diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4]). I am not seeing any WP:3RRNO exemption. This user did not pass 3RR by my count, but you did and then you blocked them. In my view, this is an WP:INVOLVED block. I would encourage you to self-revert on that article and unblock this user. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
      • User unblocked, see my talk page. I'm somewhat reluctant to revert again in light of the above reverts, if someone else wants to. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Mattythewhite no its you and around 3-4 pals who are throw their weight around unduly as you have done here and have done in the past, doesn't mean it's right. Wikipedia would genuinely be a better and more inclusive place without users like you, essentially abuse of power Abcmaxx (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

refusal to discuss an issue, or bluntly disagreeing with it is not reason to block someone is it now Abcmaxx (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked by blocking admin. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of association football rivalries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Wahda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Unification Church articles

You suggested merging Unification Church and Unification movement. In general I agree since they are the same thing. However, you did not seem to provide a place for discussion.PopSci (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and started the discussion.PopSci (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want to go ahead and merge the articles it's fine with me. I don't see anyone else joining in the discussion.PopSci (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the process.PopSci (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mercedes-Benz 600, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Top Gear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

FCSB

Check UEFA, FRF and LPF websites. FCSB is credited as historic Steaua's successor. I'm waiting for that statistics to change so it can back up your "information" that CSA Steaua is the legal succesor.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Romanian court ruling > some websites. See the talk pages too. UEFA, FRF and LPF are factually incorrect websites on this matter. This is not the real Steaua.Abcmaxx (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Motor Lublin (speedway)

Witam. Pamiętam Twoje edycji z pl.wiki, więc pozwolę sobie napisać po polsku. Dlaczego przeniosłeś artykuł KM Cross Lublin pod Motor Lublin. Przecież to dwa różne kluby/byty. To tak jakbyś chciał przenieść Wimbledon F.C. pod A.F.C. Wimbledon, czy Halifax Town A.F.C. pod F.C. Halifax Town. Proszę o przywrócenie poprzedniej wersji, bo zrobił się teraz niezły bałagan. Pozdrawiam. Cynko (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cynko Klub występuje pod nazwą Motor Lublin w rozgrywkach, czemu artykuł by miał się nazywać KM Cross? Nie jest to samo co Wimbledon, bo AFC wystepuje poza Wimbledonem pod inną nazwą, poza tym klub został założony jeszcze za czasów istnienia Wimbledonu. Tak samo jak Darlington F.C. czy A.C.R. Messina klub ma jedną ciągłość historyczną a WP:COMMONNAME był/jest cały czas taki sam, tak samo kibice stadion itp. Motor zawsze był Motorem. Poza tym żużel na angielskim Wiki jest strasznie zaniedbany, nie widzę powodu rozbijać jednego średniego artykułu na 6 tzw. "stubów", zwłaszcza że mimo że prawnie może się różnią dla większości to jest ten sam klub. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Bo KM Cross to nazwa klubu, który prowadzi tę drużynę. Tutaj klub nie ma ciągłości. Historia Motoru z Hansem Nielsenem skończyła się w 1995. Potem były LKŻety, KMŻety i TŻ-ety i to są różne byty. Zresztą możesz to porównać na pl.wiki. W sezonie 2016 nie było w Lublinie w ogóle żużla. KM Cross założył drużynę, która występuje pod nazwą Speed Car Motor Lublin nie ma nic wspólnego z tą zlikwidowaną w 1995 roku. Mieszkam w Lublinie prawie 40 lat to wiem :-) Początkowo jak tworzyłem ten artykuł też wziąłem pod uwagę jedną nazwę (Motor Lublin), ale zorientowałem się, że to był błąd. Cynko (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cynko Ale na te LKŻety, KMŻety i TŻ-ety itp. chodzili ci sami ludzie, zawody są na tym samym stadionie, do tej samej historii wszyscy się odnoszą itd. WP:COMMONNAME przeważa, a "common-name" jest Motor Lublin. Jest to niezaprzeczalnie Motor ([5] [6]), tak samo jak n.p. Lech Poznań nie ma artykułu "KKS Lech Poznań S.A." mimo że to jest ich oficjalna nazwa. Podobnie PSŻ Poznań też miał lekką przerwę ale artykuł jest jeden bo to ten sam klub mimo że właściciele są inni i stadion jest po remoncie i prawne zmiany nastąpiły itd. Nie łudzę się, wiem że to inny podmiot, inni właściciele itd. itp. ale rozbijanie tego artykułu na 6 nie ma sensu; tak to byśmy taką Messinę musieli rozbić na 10 chyba, Newport County na 2 itd. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Tak skonstrułowałem artykuł żeby to wszystko odzwierciedlić, żeby nie było mętliku, podobnie jak zmiany w zespołach z USA, Kanady czy Australii lub w koszu czy hokeju na lodzie. Osobiście uważam że teraz wygląda znacznie zgrabniej niż 10 różnych jedno-zdaniowych stubów. Z plwiki nie ma co porównywać bo na engwiki nie ma wogóle edytorów zajmujących się żużlem. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Commonname nie ma tu nic do rzeczy jeśli mówimy o dwóch różnych klubach. Ale po kolei. Może i chodzili ci sami ludzie, na pewno co niektórzy co byli na tym meczu co ja pierwszy raz, pewnie już się wykruszyli. Po upadku sekcji żużlowej FSC Motor i powstaniu LKŻ-u frekwencja drastycznie spadła. Dalej, stadion. Zgoda, ale za wynajem płaci Klub Motorowy Cross Lublin, który utworzył sekcję żużlową z nową nazwą drużyny (tutaj Speed Car Motor Lublin) i nowym logiem [7], a nie powstały przy Fabryce Samochodów Motor, którego już dawno nie ma na żużlowej mapie świata. Idźmy dalej - Lech Poznań. Obecnie większość klubów będącymi spółką akcyjną, to spadkobiercy tradycji klubów wojskowych, gwardyjskich, kolejowych, robotniczych itp., więc tu nie ma wątpliwości. PSŻ Poznań ma jeden artykuł i tu jest w porządku. Powstał w 2004, ale nie jest spadkobiercą tradycji innych klubów z tego miasta - Gwardii Poznań, Lechii Poznań czy Poloneza Poznań.

Tworząc te dwa artykuły nie sądziłem, że będę się musiał spierać o takie rzeczy. Utworzyłem dwa odrębne artykuły ze źródłami, spełniające notability, a Ty skonstruowałeś artykuł tak, że zostałem szczęśliwym twórcą przekierowania jedynie, a połowa treści jest nieuźródłowiona. Jednak nie miałbym nic przeciwko wzmiankom o klubach powstałych po 1995 roku w haśle Motor Lublin (speedway), jednak należałoby dodać ważną informację, że owe kluby nie są kontynuaotorami tradycji zespołu FSC. Zauważyłem też, że przeniosłeś KS Toruń pod Apator, którego w nazwie nie ma już od dawna. Podkreślam raz jeszcze, występujący pod nazwą Speed Car Motor Lublin nie ma nic wspólnego z Motorem FSC Lublin, który zdobył wicemistrzostwo w 1991. To oddzielmy byt i powinien mieć oddzielny artykuł. Dlatego proszę o przywrócenie poprawnej wersji hasła KM Cross Lublin, bo nie chcę by moja praca poszła na marne. Nie chcę też wdawać się w jakieś niepotrzebne wojny edycyjne.

Tak na koniec jeszcze dodam, że miałem zamiar uporządkować ten żużlowy bajzel tutaj na en.wiki, ale jeśli miałoby dojść do takiej sytuacji jak z hasłami, które utworzyłem, to po prostu szkoda mi czasu. Pozdrawiam. Cynko (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cynko Ale ja przecież tak zrobiłem w dobrej wierze (tzw. "good faith"), nie zamierzałem ci się psocić czy też niszczyć twój wkład (poza tym nic nie usunałem z tych artykułów jedynie dodawałem i przemieściłem) więc proszę bez takich komentarzy.

Tak z PSŻ-em nie do końca prawda bo powołuję się na historię żuzlową miasta, tych tworów było mnóstwo i o wszystkich można poczytać na ich stronie poza tym jakiekolwiek puchary czy nagrody które te dawne drużyny zdobyły to są w tej chwili posiadaniu PSŻ-u i uważają się za spadkobierców tych tradycji jako nowy podmiot.

Ten Apator to rzeczywiście niepotrzebnie przesunałem, lepiej z powrotem przesunąć, byłem pewien że powrócili do dawnej nazwy ale chyba jednak nie (coś mi się pochrzaniło, ale pewnie że kiedyś musiałem przenosić Polonię Piłę).

Commonname nadal zobowiazuje, ale jeżeli musimy już koniecznie rozbijać artykuł to jak to robimy? KM Cross Lublin to może i założyciel i własciciel/zarządca drużyny, ale występuje pod nazwą Motor (nowy Motor ale Motor, bezapelacyjnie) więc ten drugi klub to jest zwyczajnie Motor Lublin (może inny ale jest, tak jak wyżej wspomniany Halifax). Więc powiedzmy że bedą dwa Motory (1956-1995 i 2017-), to co robimy z tymi tworami między 1996-2017? Abcmaxx (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

KM Cross Lublin to założyciel zespołu, prowadzi szkółkę żużlową, podpisuje kontrakty z zawodnikami, wynajmuje stadion miejski. Sekcja żużlowa tego klubu, to drużyna nosząca nazwę Speed Car Motor Lublin i właśnie ta nazwa używana jest w różnego rodzaju relacjach sportowych. Teraz po awansie gdy zapewne przyjdą nowi sponsorzy to w każdej chwili może się zmienić i wcale w swoim członie nie musi zawierać nazwy "Motor". W tym przypadku więc proponowałbym przenieść z powrotem hasło pod tytuł KM Cross Lublin (speedway team) ----- czy bez teamu, wszystko jedno ---- do tego stanu, tak jak na pl.wiki, bo tłumaczyłem na bieżąco) z dodatkową informacją, którą dodałeś czyli wygranej w play-off 1.Ligi, natomiast w haśle Motor Lublin (speedway) zawarłbym informacje począwszy od LPŻ-u poprzez Motor właściwy z info o wicemistrzostwie 1991 i, żeby nie tworzyć dodatkowych stubów, zostawił Twój tekst z tworami z lat 1996-2016 tworząc oddzielną sekcję pt. Speedway in Lublin in later period czy Speedway in Lublin from 1996 to 2016, żeby to jakoś oddzielić historycznie. Moim zdaniem miałoby to ręce i nogi, no i co najważniejsze, nie wprowadzałoby czytelnika w błąd. Cynko (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cynko A co z przekierowaniami TŻ Lublin LKŻ Lublin itp. itd.? Do starego Motoru? Dla mnie i tak to zagmatwane jest, bo ja rozumiem że to KM Cross założył drużynę ale i tak dla mnie to i tak zawsze będzie Motor i przypuszczam po kibicach odzianych w żółtych strojach Motoru (widziałem nawet szaliki futbolowe) dla nich to jeden i ten sam kontynuator (nawet jeśli się mylą to coś w tym jest, KM Cross wiedział co robi). Proponuję mieć też chociaż mieć przekierowanie Motor Speedway 2017- czy jakoś tak też choćby do tego KM Crossu, chociaż uważam jak ktoś szuka Motor Lublin Speedway to bardzo możliwe że na podstawie wiadomości z teraźniejszej Ekstraligi (w której teraz bedą). Trzeba będzie dodac łatki "{redirect}" bo inaczej i tak się wszyscy poplątają Abcmaxx (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Wiem jak to jest na stadionie, bo sam jestem kibicem zarówno drużyny żużlowej i piłkarskiej od połowy lat 80-tych. Te kilkanaście tysięcy ludzi na stadionie także wie, że obecny klub nie jest w żaden sposób kontynuatorem tego Motoru z Nielsenem w składzie. Są to tylko nawiązania i nic więcej, tak samo jak obecne barwy, żółto-biało-niebieskie nawiązują do barw starego Motoru, który przejął je od klubu piłkarskiego, wcześniej były żółto-niebieskie. Jak był LKŻ czy TŻ Sipma to nikt na stadionie nie krzyczał Motor. Ehhh, nawijam w kółko to samo, ale jakoś nie mogę Cię przekonać :-) Przekierowania, które utworzyłeś mogą kierować do artykułu o starym Motorze, do ewentualnej sekcji, o której wspomniałem powyżej, np. TŻ Sipma do [[Motor Lublin (speedway)#Speedway in Lublin in later period]]. Dodatkowe przekierowania oczywiście są mile widziane, zawsze to jakieś ułatwienie dla czytelnika. Cynko (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

To jak? Nie masz już nic przeciwko bym zrobił z tym porządek? Bo jeśli masz jeszcze jakieś wątpliwości, mogę przywołać do dyskusji wikipedystę, który w kwestii nazewnictwa klubów żużlowych zna się lepiej ode mnie. Cynko (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cynko Tak oczywiście, wybacz, ostanio byłem zajęty. Następnym razem jak będę coś dodawał/zmieniał to się skonsultuję tak żeby nie trzeba było odkręcać ani żadnych nieporozumień Abcmaxx (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Nie ma sprawy, istnieje życie też poza Wikipedią :-) Fajnie, że doszliśmy do porozumienia. Niebawem się tym zajmę. Pozdrawiam. Cynko (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Alliance for the Future (Poland)

Hi, I'm SkyGazer 512. Abcmaxx, thanks for creating Alliance for the Future (Poland)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. If possible, please add reliable sources so that the information can be verified.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

SkyGazer 512 ^Oh no, what did I do this time? 23:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Alliance (Poland)

Hi Abcmaxx, I reverted your move of Alliance (Poland) to 'Agreement' because 'Alliance' is the only English translation that has been used in reliable sources. Thank you. --RevivesDarks (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@RevivesDarks where is this mysterious source? Abcmaxx (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

This article from a website run by Polskie Radio is cited in the article and refers to the party as 'Alliance'. I'm not aware of any reliable source that uses the 'Agreement' translation. --RevivesDarks (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@RevivesDarks What are you on about, it says it hails a new alliance party, i.e. the electoral alliance United Right party which includes Gowin's new party. "Alliance" would be przymierze. At the moment it's a nonsense translation on the basis of a very poorly worded article which isn't even about Agreement party per say. Regardless the translation is super poor and shouldn't be the basis of naming a whole article, especially as it's nonsense.Abcmaxx (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

by the way the article is a translation from TVP Info original in Polish. Alliance is not the correct translation at all, just because it's a source that is quoted does not mean we can bend grammar and language rules and change meaning of words. Abcmaxx (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@RevivesDarks I found the issue. It was founded as Alliance then changed it's name. Will add sources.Abcmaxx (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Milton Keynes Dons F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Women's football (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

FC relocations

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You mustn't keep finding clubs that have relocated when Everybody Knows that the relocation of WFC was Without Precedent! It's getting embarrassing ;-^ John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@User:John Maynard Friedman ahaha thank you! I particularly enjoyed adding the now homeless Kingstonian to that list Abcmaxx (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Mansfield Marksman into Relocation of sports teams in the United Kingdom. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Polska

I don't understand Polish but I may know someone who does. Does user talk:John Maynard Friedman#Please link to Polish Nowy Sol make any sense to you. The anon editor's sense of humour passes me by. If it has anything to do with the Law and (in)Justice party, I'm not inclined to help. If not, would you care to do it? (I thought that these interwikis happen automatically, is there something unusual about it?) Otherwise please ignore. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman I have no idea what this person is on about, knowledge of Polish doesn't help either. The link just points to the Polish equivalent of Nowa Sól article about the town, already linked though? Abcmaxx (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

TYVM anyway. That doesn't surprise me given his/her other edits. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Chemik / Zawisza Bydgoszcz moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Chemik / Zawisza Bydgoszcz, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Thank you for my first 'Thank You!', much appreciated. (for the Lechia-Polonia Gdańsk page) OLLSZCZ (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Sport-Saller

User:Abcmaxx thank you for your help. I know you're now meant to be retired from Wikipedia, but I greatly appreciate the help! Side note - Looking at your pages you've created it seems you have an interest in Polish football too? That's really cool! And I've read so many of your created pages in the past and I've learned so much, so thank you also for all of that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OLLSZCZ (talk • contribs) 14:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Chichester City L.F.C.) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Chichester City L.F.C..

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Well structured article. Could use a few independent sources.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^TT me 13:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Abcmaxx. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Abcmaxx. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Your recent editing history at UK Independence Party shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please learnt to use the talk page when there is disagreement, I suggest you self revert -----Snowded ^TALK 10:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Weekend (2010 film) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Weekend (2010 film), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Strangeways Here We Come (film)

Hello, Abcmaxx,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for creating Strangeways Here We Come (film)! I edit here too, under the username Meatsgains and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meatsgains^(talk) 23:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@User:Meatsgains the sources are the strongest thing about this stub surely? Abcmaxx (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

When I said sources, what I was referring to was inline citations or references. Meatsgains^(talk)

Strangeways, Here We Come

I have reverted your actions with respect to Strangeways, Here We Come because WP:RM requires discussion and consensus to disambiguate a title with incoming links. Also, please review WP:TWODABS. A disambiguation page is merely a navigational tool, and is entirely unnecessary if navigation can be accomplished with a hatnote. bd2412 T 15:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)