User talk:Eem dik doun in toene

Congratulations

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears, and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley F.C.

Congrats on your first FA! Kosack (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Kosack! Very kind. I'll try to look at FAC 1925 FA Cup Final somewhere this weekend. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Eem dik doun in toene
	Hi Eem dik doun in toene, just wishing you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year. Here's to 2021 being a bit brighter for all!    –Kosack (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack Thank you very much! I also wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Take care and all the best, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review and support

Hi WA8MTWAYC, just a quick note to thank you for your reviews and supports of my various bits and pieces. I've decided to withdraw from FAC for the time being, there has been a series of toxic exchanges, some rather "unusual" coincidences and certainly some "unfortunate" decision-making. Combined with the ongoing snark and back-channelling and dismissive comments about the way I (and some others) approach both nominations and reviews, it's making me too ill to participate. So I've withdrawn the FAC you were kind enough to review and support, with apologies for wasting your time. I will continue to try to help wherever I can, but while the atmosphere of "all contributors are equal, some are more equal than others" persists, I can't afford to risk my health with it. Thanks again for your interest, and let me know if there's anything I can do to help away from that "process" and those individuals. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turf Moor

Just wanted to say nice job improving the article and good luck in the FAC. I couldn't quite get it over the line all those years ago, but it's looking great now. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't have loads of free time to help out, but I do have a Lancashire Library membership if you want me to look up anything in particular. They have a local newspaper archive going back to the 1850s. BigDom (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on achieving FA with this article. Really the credit is all yours, I'm happy I could help. Thankyou on behalf of the people of Burnley for this and your other work about the football club. I'm sure the fans appreciate it also, but as they're only my 2nd favourite team, I can't really speak on their behalf. It has been good working with you, hope we can do it again sometime. All the best! TiB chat 13:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crewe Alexandra

Hi User:WA8MTWAYC. Inspired by your efforts to get Burnley F.C. to featured status, I've been working to improve the Crewe Alexandra F.C. article. I think it is currently B-class, but I would like to eventually at least get it to Good, so I've requested a peer review (first time I've ever done this, so it's all a bit unfamiliar to me). I hope you might be able to help on this. Many thanks. Paul W (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your detailed comments on the article. I think I have addressed the points made, but will keep the review open for a week or so. Do you think this could be a GAN candidate? Paul W (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Turf Moor

Congratulations, WA8MTWAYC! The article you nominated, Turf Moor, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley F.C. scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 18, 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. A coordinator will draft a blurb - based on your draft if the TFA came via TFA requests, or for Featured Articles promoted recently from an existing blurb on the FAC talk page. Feel free to comment on this. We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for the article "about English football club Burnley, which competes in the Premier League, the first tier. It's a club from a small town but with a rather interesting and large history."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Burnley F.C.

Thank you for quality articles around Burnley F.C., such as Turf Moor, List of Burnley F.C. seasons, List of Burnley F.C. managers and many more, and your dedication for a complete topic, for reviewing, fighting vandalism and updating content, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2597 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Gerda! I'll cherish this. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did it again: thank you today for Turf Moor, introduced as "about one of the oldest football grounds in the world, which received some fame for being the “Happy Place” of an I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here contestant. After an unfortunately failed FAC nom almost 11 years ago, I decided to hopefully bring it up to FA status. I’ve squeezed out every bit of information, including from the seminal book Football Grounds of Britain by Simon Inglis."! Thank you for the Happy Place, pursued with consistency. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda! That's very kind. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turf Moor

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 23, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 23, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Football Barnstar
		For your excellent work on articles relating to Burnley F.C.

Hi, congrats / thanks for another Burnley TFA. A little over 30k views, seems pretty impressive to me![1] This is also the first barnstar I've ever given, so I hope I'm doing it correctly! All the best! TiB chat 17:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trappedinburnley, thanks very much! I appreciate it. Take care, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of History of Burnley F.C.

Congratulations, WA8MTWAYC! The article you nominated, History of Burnley F.C., has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of FC Groningen has passed!

The article FC Groningen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:FC Groningen for comments about the article. Well done! ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArsenalGhanaPartey Thank you very much for the review! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of FC Groningen

The article FC Groningen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:FC Groningen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ArsenalGhanaPartey -- ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of 1959–60 Burnley F.C. season

Congratulations, WA8MTWAYC! The article you nominated, 1959–60 Burnley F.C. season, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Hog Farm (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

One year!

1920–21 Burnley F.C. season

Hi there. I took this article to FAC about 12 years ago now, but it failed despite several support votes as one user opposed on essentially WP:PROSELINE grounds (which I strongly disagreed with). I think at the time that no sports season article had ever been promoted to FA so people weren't sure about it, but now there is precedent (such as your excellent 1959–60 article) I'm thinking of taking it back and have added some extra content. There was no book written about the 1921 team so it's a bit pieced together from newspaper archives and the Simpson book, but I'm pretty happy with how it's come together. I wondered if you wouldn't mind having a read through just to see if there's any potential FAC issues you think are glaringly obvious? No rush of course, just if you have a bit of time. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BigDom, good to see your name again, and thanks for the kind words. Burnley fan Mike Smith has since written a book about Tommy Boyle (which I don't own). It maybe contains some decent info but I see you've already done a great job with the newspaper archive and the Simpson book. The article looks worth having a shot at FAC as far as I can see, but I'll make some amends and leave some comments soon. If there's anything else I can do, I'm glad to help. Thanks, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. The FAC for this article is still running; Ian Rose has asked for a reference for the table of transfers in and out. I assume it came from the Clarets Chronicles but I don't have access to my copy at the moment, do you have one? If so, and the transfers are listed in there, would you be able to let me know the page number (or feel free to just add it to the article yourself). No worries if not though. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dom, I've got the book. The players who played for the club between 1919 and 1939 are alphabetically listed on pp. 492-494 (including their birth places, and prev. and following clubs). Thanks, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks for getting back so quickly! BigDom (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FC Barcelona page

Stop doing vandalism in this page. There is important information that needs to be changed immediately. for example the oficial colors of the club (blue and garnet). I have added official references from the club itself. Regarding the sponsors, the table is incomplete and with some mistakes. Vicpumu (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vicpumu The FC Barcelona article is of FA quality, which means a high standard should be maintained. "Traditionally and for over 100 years, the colours blue and garnet have come together on the shirts of Barcelona players and this is why the Club is also known as the equip blaugrana (blue and garnet team)" is not correct English. Also, references shouldn't be used in the lead as it's supposed to be a summary of the body of the article. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I’m reviewing this section. Vicpumu (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally and for over 100 years, Barcelona players wear dark-toned equipment with blue and garnet stripes, hence nicknamed "Blaugrana team". Vicpumu (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vicpumu [2] - How do you like this? Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Sunderland A.F.C.

I have nominated Sunderland A.F.C. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content removals

Hello, I am wondering if you can provide any additional context on your recent large reverts -- labeled variants of "Rv most of the contributions from a sockpuppet (twice confirmed)". What is the sockpuppet and is this effort discussed somewhere? Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caleb, I've reverted some of the contributions of a confirmed sockpuppet - see the users/confirmations here: [3][4] (not to mention the enourmous use of different IP Addresses). This user clearly has an unhealthy obsession with promoting the Netherlands (WP is not a hagiography), which led to massive WP:POV and WP:SYNTH issues. The user has been reverted and warned multiple times during his editing, but several pages are still "infected". A Korean IP Address caught my eye last week, who was already reverting some of his contributions: [5] (and no, it's not me using an IP Address, as I don't have VPN;)) Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the context! Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hi there, hope you are well. You've been kind enough in the past to take a look at my FACs, so I was wondering if you might have a spare few minutes to look at my latest one, which is struggling to attract any interest at all? If not, not to worry, and have a great day! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Hi Chris, I'm alright, thanks. I hope you're also doing well. I'll gladly take a look at your FAC, which will probably be this weekend. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August songs

You kindly commented in my FAC Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56 - we are now in the next round, and I'd appreciate your input now that the recordings section is more stable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for History of Burnley F.C., "about the history of English football team Burnley F.C., who have seen the absolute highs and lows."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAC request

Saw that you reviewed another FAC recently. Would you be so kind as to offer a review for this article? Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Texas_A&M_University/archive3? Buffs (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buffs, looking at that FAC page, it looks like there are still some points left to address before I can start a review. After a quick glance through the article, I would suggest to make sure everything is properly sourced, and to avoid having small unsourced paragraphs like the one under "Mascot". Good luck, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe every point has been either addressed or I've asked an (unanswered) clarifying question. If you disagree or would be willing to further clarify, I'd be happy to address those points too. Buffs (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Burnley F.C. scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the History of Burnley F.C. article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 29, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 29, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

My daughter lives in Rossendale, so I know Burnley well, although I've never seen Burnley play at Turf Moor

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimfbleak, I'll check the main page text but at first glance it looks good. This is a great season to catch a Burnley home game as Vincent Kompany has transformed the club. Even for a neutral, Burnley's style of play is quite enjoyable to watch (unlike previous seasons, albeit successful years...). Cheers, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, do what you like with the blurb as long as it stays below 1025 characters, and good luck with the season Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. You good luck as well with Spurs this season. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch East India Company

Hi

I was wondering what was going on when you made this revision, and caused so much peacocking and obvious POV to be reinstated into the article? If you are wondering what I mean, you seem to have changed a perfectly good lead into a biased section full of words and phrases such as "considered to have been the first multinational corporation", "eclipsed", "sent only", "distant second", "mere one-fifth" - most of which is peacocking.

The previous lead seems to have been pretty stable over the previous couple of years - so could you also explain to me how you arrived at that particular version of the lead to retore it to? I do not seem to be able to find where that was in the page history.

Can you please also tell me where I can read about the sockpuppetry that you mention. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaosdruid, I've removed (most of) the contributions of Hocimi and his sockpuppets as I decided to be WP:BOLD and remove the user's nationalistic and biased additions. I believe I restored the lede's version from before the sockpuppet was active, so defo before 2016. I hope this clears it all up. Cheers, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eem dik doun in toene Thanks for that, I've read up on their shenannigans ... I'll try and sort out the lead a little - my concern being that it currently is a little too nationalistic. I'll try and get some of the good stuff out of the lead-that-was, as some of those older refs are gone. Cheers for the info, it's been a long time since I heard anyone say "defo" lol ;¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chaosdruid Hahaha, no problem. I agree the current lede is glorifying and sugarcoating the company's history - e.g. the second paragraph is just not that relevant and reads like a "my dad is bigger than your dad" competition. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vettel

Thanks for explaining you revert. I should have dug a little deeper Jackhammer111 (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Burnley F.C. in international football

Congratulations, Eem dik doun in toene! The article you nominated, Burnley F.C. in international football, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Werder Bremen page

Hi, yesterday I edited a lot of the SV Werder Bremen page, most of which you have now reverted: "The history section should be a potted summary, most finishing positions are not relevant. It was unsourced, and the book missed page numbers. There was also some OR (e.g., "defining an era") and uncyclopedic language (e.g., "retaining their crown")."

I am new to editing Wiki so I will defer to your judgment, especially on some of the language which you are definitely right about. However I would like to to ask a few things about it. How detailed is the history section supposed to be? Most football clubs the size of Werder Bremen have much more detailed history sections on their pages. For example, on the current page the 03/04 season has just one sentence - by way of comparison, the German page is far larger.

Nothing that I added was unsourced, so I am a bit confused by that although I realise that I didn't add the page numbers in the references. Looking at the current page most of the references are just links to the league table from a particular season. I respect your judgment but I want to understand what kind of thing I should be doing, because a lot of German football pages are far more limited than other football pages.

LOfussball (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LOfussball, the general history section of a football club should only contain highlights/important events and should thus be a canned summary. More detailed summaries of events should be placed in an overall history article such as History of Burnley F.C.. The German Werder page is impressive, but does not really look readable with so much text there. Some of the articles of the highest quality on here, such as Gillingham F.C. and Luton Town F.C., have rather small history sections in comparison to articles of lesser quality such as Portsmouth F.C. and Scunthorpe United F.C.. The German wiki (and the Dutch one as well) seem to have different rules; the German one seems to be more focussed on quantity, while the English one seems to be more focussed on quality.

With regard to the sourcing, all information (and it doesn't really matter if it's "general knowledge"), should be verifiable, i.e., should be followed by an inline citation. E.g., on the Burnley F.C. page, "The team were relegated to the Third Division for the first time in 1979–80." is followed by an inline citation (number 7). All information of this sentence can be found in that reference. For more inspiration and maybe in general how a football club article should be built, you can check out how it's done on featured articles such as Cardiff City F.C. and A.C. Monza.

The current sourcing on the Werder is not that great, I must admit, as e.g., "Werder reached the DFB-Pokal final in 1989 and 1990, and were victorious in 1991. They also won the European Cup Winners' Cup in 1991–92, beating AS Monaco 2–0 in the final." is only followed by one reference, supporting the latter part of the sentence. That Werder won the DFB Pokal back-to-back might be general knowledge, but does not have a reference supporting it.

I agree that almost all of the (West) German football pages are lacking in quality and even in quality in most cases, so it's good you want to address it. Good luck and happy editing! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. If I were to redo my edits, but with improved writing and sourcing, how much would you keep on the page? If you don't have any detail, it effectively becomes an honours list. What I don't like with the current article is that it seems fairly inconsistent with what has detail; there's a whole paragraph on a fairly insignificant incident in one match in 1971, and lots about a European tie with Napoli, but not much about things that may be more important like the titles.

Other two questions: is it strictly necessary to put a reference for every league position or cup run mentioned, when this is well documented in the sources already referenced, and elsewhere in the page?

And if the stuff I added is too much for the page, should there be a specific History of Werder Bremen page? LOfussball (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOfussball No worries. Looking at the current state of the Werder page, I don't think that much has to be changed, maybe some additional info here and there (like you mentioned, with regard to some of the titles), and the addition of some extra sources, but no complete overhaul. I would leave most as it is.

Ideally, every piece of info is sourced, and you can reuse references throughout the article of course. Also, the end of every paragraph needs to be followed by an inline reference.

It would not be a bad idea to create a History of SV Werder Bremen page, it would only improve the overall quality in my opinion. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hi there - you were kind enough to review my last Gillingham FAC back in January. Don't suppose you might have a bit of time to look at my latest one, which is struggling a bit? Not to worry if not..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, I'm happy to take a look this evening! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for 1959–60 Burnley F.C. season, introduced: "Burnley are probably getting relegated this season, but there was a time when they were crowned champions of England, albeit a few generations ago: 1959–60. Burnley had to win their last game to win the title, and they did just that ... just. The team consisted almost entirely of players who came through the club’s youth academy. Burnley bought only two players for a combined fee of 15k."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1959–60 Burnley F.C. season scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the 1959–60 Burnley F.C. season article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 11, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 11, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, now Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 22, 2023

Jimfbleak No worries! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FC Groningen chart

Hi, sorry for bothering you, I made an error in the chart, forgot to differentiate the clubs. (And thank you for bringing that to my attention.) The error is now fixed, can you restore my edit? Or can I add it again myself? Sviraman (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sviraman, no worries! If you want, you can add it in again yourself. Cheers, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 1914 FA Cup final

The article 1914 FA Cup final you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1914 FA Cup final for comments about the article, and Talk:1914 FA Cup final/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most expensive transfers

Hello, I understand what you said earlier, but without my edit, Higuain's line is broken. (On mobile app at least) Spectritus (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spectritus, I checked the page on both the PC and mobile phone (via Google) but it seems fine now. What exactly do you see on Higuain's line? Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His line is offset and there's no rank. Spectritus (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spectritus Hmm that is odd. Do you use the Wikipedia app on your phone? (On the Google browser on the phone it is fine.) Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I use the mobile app. Spectritus (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine on the computer website. Spectritus (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A very very late Barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For helping reach consensus on the dumpster fire that was our debate on what counts as the first automobile over at Talk:Benz Patent-Motorwagen and Talk:Car just over a year ago, and also apologies for the lack of respect on my part. — Mugtheboss (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 1973 FA Charity Shield

The article 1973 FA Charity Shield you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1973 FA Charity Shield for comments about the article, and Talk:1973 FA Charity Shield/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of HawkAussie -- HawkAussie (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 2015 KNVB Cup final

The article 2015 KNVB Cup final you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2015 KNVB Cup final for comments about the article, and Talk:2015 KNVB Cup final/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of 1914 FA Cup final

Congratulations, Eem dik doun in toene! The article you nominated, 1914 FA Cup final, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

Congratulations! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay

How was the previous version better, especially in terms of sources? A smear fake news website is not a better source than FIFAs official document from their website on world championships of 24 and 28 Truefacts24 (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truefacts24, "Uruguayfootballhistory" and a Twitter page are not reliable sources. ESPN and El Grafico are, because they are fact-checked. The Twitter page might display correct information, but Twitter (the website itself) is just not reliable. I also don't know which source you think is a "smear fake news website". The current version of the Uruguay page seems good to me. People can read that they have won 4 world titles, of which two FIFA World Cups and twice the Olympics. The page also wikilinks the four stars page, on which I also reverted your edits as the tags (e.g., primary sources) aren't solved yet. Cheers, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most important reference I’m referring to [1]. The x page shows a picture from the FIFA museum which is widely considered not disputable, I used that particular account on x because various FIFA website articles also use that account, who is a historian, as a source as you can see here[2]. If it’s good enough for FIFA, it’s good enough for a Wikipedia page about something run by fifa.

The first source in that is from a website called marca, that’s the fake news website, not a source. Truefacts24 (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. "Offical FIFA World Cup Origin document" (PDF). fifa.com (archive).
2. "FIFA article". fifa.com.

Promotion of 1973 FA Charity Shield

Congratulations, Eem dik doun in toene! The article you nominated, 1973 FA Charity Shield, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of 2015 KNVB Cup final

Congratulations, Eem dik doun in toene! The article you nominated, 2015 KNVB Cup final, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bárány is a Hungarian Nobel Prize Laurete despite only his father was Hungarian and was not born in Hungary

Robert Bárány is considered a Hungarian Nobel Prize Laurete despite only his father was Hungarian and Robert was not born in Hungary. Then others should be listed by this same rule. Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vazulvonal of Stockholm Was he really? Where is the source which states this? And anecdotal evidence is not a supportive argument. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the Wikipedia article.Read it.

Bárány is considered hungarian in Sweden. In any source written in Sweden. Despite his mother born in Prague, then in Austria.

But again, his father was born in Várpalota, Kingdom of Hungary and that qualifies him as a Hungarian citizen according to hungarian nationality law... Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vazulvonal of Stockholm I'm saying it again, provide a reliable source that states that Bárány was a Hungarian citizen. What you're doing is original research. Is that so hard to understand? Because WP:COMPETENCE. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]