User talk:Ilikeeatingwaffles

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6

Reversion of page

I recently added a section on the Wealdstone FC Wikipedia page (under the name edfilmsuk). Please tell me why you chose to delete it. If an insufficient answer is provided, I will revert back my changes. This step has been taken to prevent an edit war. 109.148.3.146 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. The info you added doesn't appear to be encyclopaedic to me. I can't see the relevance of a youtube video of an individual supporter a single match to the history of a football club over 100 years old. More importantly, it is not backed up by a reliable source. Information that is not backed up by a published, reliable, third-party source should not be on Wikipedia. This is particularly important because it covers a living person. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


February 2015

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Everton F.C.: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. ToonLucas22 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Reference errors on 2 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Club Corinthians Paulista

Hello. If you keep reverting my edits on that page, I'll report you for edit warring. Those edits are pure vandalism. I've said it and I'm sure I know why it is. If you don't, there's no explanation for your reverts. He's mocking one of the "torcidas organizadas". He's changing the name of the biggest one and somehow believing that mocking stuff like that is nice. So please, after this explanation, do not put those edits back again. Thanks Gsfelipe94 (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be referenced information. I don't speak Portuguese, but a quick google translate of the sources indicated that this is a real organisation. Please note that I haven't actually reverted any of your edits, merely put back what appeared to be referenced information wrongly removed, and that making threats goes assuming WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RECENT

Hi, I noticed you removed a list of statistics here. I have added them back as I feel you have misunderstood WP:RECENT. Firstly it is an essay, not a guideline, so if another editor reverts, please seek consensus on the talk page rather than removing again. Secondly, WP:RECENT clearly state: Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention. The list provided goes back nearly thirty years. Correct, the start point maybe arbitrary, but this merely makes the listing incomplete, not unacceptable. Secondly thirty years of history is hardly recentism and there is nothing in the presentation of a list of statistics that indicates an attempt to give undue prominence to recent seasons. Fenix down (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that WP:RECENT wasn't a solid-enough reasoning to use, though emphasising the last 300 years of a 150-year old institution does, in my opinion, inflate the importance of more recent times. Either way, I don't think that this (incomplete) list of seasons belongs here. Though I appreciate that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST isn't a good argument to use, I don't think that any of the football club articles that have reached FA status include this kind of thing. A separate article entitled something like List of TSV 1860 München seasons or TSV 1860 München records and statistics could work though? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point I would like to make is that it would be great to have the articles mentioned above created or to have a complete list of all 1860 Munich seasons but unfortunatly there is not enough interested editors to create or expand these topics. I also find it quite strange that a section of 25 "recent seasons" gets deleted while the section "current squad" raises no questions. How much more "recent" can you get? On a friendly note, keep well, Calistemon (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I will start the new article (I'll look for precedents to figure what it should be) and tag it as being incomplete. I understand the point about "current squad" sections - it's extremely recent! My take on this is that it is a snapshot of the club as it exists right now, which is analogous to saying what division they compete in and what their current home ground is. I'm sure I read someone make a very succinct argument for this, using Wikipedia policy, but I don't remember the details. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1028 of
Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Man Utd treble

I dont know what quadruple you are referring to, but if you mean something that included regional trophies, be advised that they dont count. The BBC specifically state in the source that they were the first BRITISH team. Is the BBC unreliable now?Davefelmer (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Including regional trophies, Celtic won a quintuple in 1967 - European Cup, League, League Cup, SFA Cup, and the Glasgow Cup.[1] In terms of a European Cup/domestic league/domestic FA Cup treble, Celtic beat Man Utd to it by 22 years. The BBC link does state that MU were "the first British club to win the Premier League Championship, the FA Cup, and the European Cup", but since Scottish teams don't compete in the FA Cup or the Premier League it makes it a bit of an odd thing to say. Please drop the confrontational tone (WP:CIVIL) Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hahahaha confrontational tone over a computer screen? Is this for real? If you want to include regional trophies, does this mean United can include the lancashire cup win and manchester senior cup win of that year too? If not, then its still irrelevant. I agree it is phrased a bit weird, but it is what it is and our job as editors is to reflect source content, not change it because we feel something else would suit better. This isnt some magazine or ManUtd.com saying it either, its the BBC, the biggest and most reliable news source in Britain and arguably the world. Davefelmer (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, upon reflection, I'll leave it as you have done it. It seems a silly thing to argue about, and you do have a point about another british team doing an equivalent treble first. The phrasing is a bit off and I dont want to prompt confusion to some by implying United were the first british club to win the treble. Davefelmer (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing "is the BBC unreliable now?" comes across as trying to start an argument, rather than going by the collaborative nature that Wikipedia should abide by. I've seen a bunch of your other edits which are similarly non-collaborative. Regardless of that, thanks for seeing my point. It would be helpful to find a better source that explicit states Celtic's achievement of the Quadruple in '67 - I was really surprised that the best thing I could find quickly was the club's OS! Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Marc Bartra

Hello ILEW, from Portugal,

first of all, I apologize for reinserting a dead source, last time I checked it last week it was still functioning. However, I'd like to reach a compromise in storyline between your edits and mine, if possible. I elaborate: 1 - it's advisable to add full dates to wording especially concerning debuts and transfers (14 FEBRUARY 2010 not FEBRUARY 2010, 3 JUNE 2016 not JUNE 2016), so please allow that; 2 - I don't know what's the problem in saying that he made his debut when he was not yet 19 and that RCD Espanyol is a neighbouring club, but out of respect for you we'll leave those out.

3 - construction of paragraphs: I have composed them so that name of team (in this case Barcelona) and subject (in this case Bartra) only appear once in each, no need to overmention; 4 - display of refs, I have sorted out between what is a newspaper (for example Diario AS) and what is not.

Attentively, happy editing --Be Quiet AL (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


ultrAslan

Dear Eater of Waffles,

I see you were part of the deletion discussion for ultrAslan in 2012. During new page patrol, I saw that it had been recreated. Since then, German and Turkish articles have been written, and it seems that the firm has become more notable. I translated the German article, so now there is more substance and better references. If you think it still needs a deletion review, feel free to submit it again. --Slashme (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cambridge

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cambridge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Emir of Wikipedia -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 21 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cambridge

The article Cambridge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cambridge for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Emir of Wikipedia -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have had to reclose this review as "not listed" for the time being for reasons explained on the GA talk page. I want to emphasise that this is nothing personal and is done purely to ensure the GA standards are adhered to correctly, and would hope you continue to improve it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...
sports and players
... you were recipient
no. 1028 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and four --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and five --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ilikeeatingwaffles. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the Mail

I reverted your reversion at Milton Keynes Dons because I believe you have over-interpreted the decision at WP:RS regarding the Mail. The decision was that the DM is not a reliable source unless corroborated by another independent source. Even in articles that already have statements that are only cited by a DM source, the convention is to tag as "better source needed", not to delete outright (as you have done). IMO the DM, Sun and Express are not fit to be used as toilet paper and that we should have barred them outright, but the policy is more measured. We may not particularly like it but we have to go along with it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with all of that! Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Hill

Hello. I fix wikilinks to dab pages and have reached the links to Honey Hill. I think they're all meant for the Cambridge road. I don't see much point in redlinking to a non-notable subject, but it seems a shame to unlink them. What do you think we should do with them? Certes (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the old article should be merged instead, like what was done with the others. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: Thanks; that sounds good. What would we merge it into, and please do you have an example of "the others"? Certes (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Direct to Cambridge? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes: I was referring to Portugal Place, Cambridge which was simply redirected. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has removed the links while I was away, which seems sensible as the articles already link to Cambridge. As with Portugal Place, I don't think there's any text important enough to salvage and merge into Cambridge. Thanks again for your help. Certes (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages are there for a reason

If you have a problem with something take it to the talk page, your edits on Leeds United are horrible and uncalled for, Govvy (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better dealt with a WP:FOOTY, so I'm going to start a discussion there. Personally, I think the massive tables of sponsors and manufacturers look terrible, and over-emphasise the importance/interesting of such details. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ilikeeatingwaffles. I'm writing about the issues you posted on the page for The Movies (band). I don't understand what issues you're having with it. The article was written about a band, by a fan and friend of the band and the articles sites its sources where appropriate. As a member of this band, I can verify all of the information in the article as accurate. Please either state specifically what your issues with the article are and (because we're very curious), why you even bother to try and discredit the article. Thanks for your time.

The Movies (band) & your issues

Hi Ilikeeatingwaffles. I'm writing about the issues you posted on the page for The Movies (band). I don't understand what issues you're having with it. The article was written about a band, by a fan and friend of the band and the articles sites its sources where appropriate. As a member of this band, I can verify all of the information in the article as accurate. Please either state specifically what your issues with the article are and (because we're very curious), why you even bother to try and discredit the article. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheClearyB (talk • contribs) 16:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheClearyB: Sure thing. It looks like I put two different tags on The Movies (band). One of them is there because the article has no lead section. All Wikipedia articles require a lead section that briefly summarises what the page is article is about, and should include a few of the most important details. The other tag I put on there is because the article is not written in the most neutral fashion, which is important for Wikipedia. All articles should adhere to a neutral point of view. In my opinion, phrases such as "...known for erratic, highly energetic, unpredictable live shows..." and "The band have achieved somewhat of a cult status with a loyal following..." are opinions, and should only be included if a reliable source can be cited stating this. Looking at this article again, it appears to me that there are not currently suffcient reliable sources to prove that the group passes the notability threshold required for a Wikipedia article to exist. I don't doubt that the group exist(ed), but it seems unclear to me whether they are sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avetik Chalabyan article up for deletion

Hi Ilikeeatingwaffles! About 2 years ago I wrote a biography of a living person article [Chalabyan]. The article has been recently marked as up for deletion. Any advice on why this might be happening, how to address it or what to improve would really be appreciated. Obviously, your vote as an experienced editor on Wiki would really go a long way to make sure it's not deleted.

Thanks in advance for your attention to the matter.

Alice Ananian (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking me? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The hole (football) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The hole (football). Since you had some involvement with the The hole (football) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Cnilep (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ilikeeatingwaffles. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maps as references

I don't think use of maps is necessarily OR, though see this RM and this comment but in thi cases just like The Solent its referring to what the name is on the map. With respect to settlement status Geograph does have a search that shows what type of place it is such as for Stackyard Green and also see Bentley for example, notice the absence of the Suffolk one and at List of United Kingdom locations: Ben-Bez#Ben-Bep, same goes with Wissington. The OS does give the status of the place in the linked data but doesn't appear to be reliable, for example it gives Eilean Aoidhe and Barmore Island despite apparently being attached to the mainland at all times as islands and Edwardstone as being a hamlet. I would also note that there are cases like Unthank, Alnham that is only a few buildings[2] but is clearly notable as a former CP. The point rather appears to be that being named as a settlement doesn't nessesarrily mean that its notable but there's been quite a bit of debate on that. There was also this comment about being on a map and primacy, notice at county level the Cumbrian village is shown but yet Salford and Westminster aren't! Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is this in reference to? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're points years ago that maps aren't suitable references such as here and here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the point I was making is that being on a map shows that it exists but not necessarily that it is notable. Don't think anything has changed to make that not the case, and I don't understand why you are coming here grinding an axe, bringing something up from over 9 years ago. Keep it to a relevant discussion page. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Troyes AC into AS Troyes-Savinienne. 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) 23:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]