User talk:Qed237/Archive 21

Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

1958 FIFA World Cup

Hello. I saw that you reverted my edits on the 1958 FIFA World Cup page, so I thought that I would explain myself in a civil way.

1. I verified the information that I put in by going to every World Cup page, looking at the retrospective ranking section, and looking at the number of points earned per team. For every other World Cup, I noticed that there was at least one team that got no points (lost all of their matches), but with this World Cup, every team got at least one point (at least one draw). You can do the same thing if you want. If I am wrong, then I won't put this edit in the article again.

2. In case you say that the edit was pointless (not to make a judgement against you, that is just a comment I have wrongly gotten on an edit before), on the 2014 world cup page for Group F in the section about the match between Bosnia and Iran, the article stated that Iran's goal in that match made this world cup the first since 1998 in which every team scored at least once. Not even first time ever, but just first since 1998. I am not trying to say that the edit was pointless (in fact I found it to be an interesting tidbit of knowledge). I am just saying that it was no better or worse than my edit, yet it got to stay on its respective page for months at least.

I thought that I would explain the purpose of my edit respectfully. Thank you in advance for reading this. I hope you can get back to me as soon as possible. Wildboy7 (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wildboy7: First of all I am glad that you started this discussion before it turned in to an edit war. There are two things that made me remove that content. The first reason is that it is WP:OR (original research), meaning it is unsourced and not easy to verify. The second reason is WP:NOTNEWS, meaning we should not have "current info" that may get outdated if article is not updated. Saying This was also the only World Cup finals in which every participating team managed to get at least one point, might be true right now but not if evry team takes a point in 2018, then it will not be only World Cup finals for 1958. If you compare with the other example you had the first since 1998 in which every participating team managed to score at least once and that will always be true no matter what happens in future. Qed237 (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: Thank you for your response. I found it very informative and now I know why you took out my changes. Thank you so much for educating me. I have been on this site for a while but am still not an expert editor, so it is nice to get some help. Thanks again. Wildboy7 (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Wildboy7: No problem. I have been here for a while, but I still learn something almost every day. We are all here to help eachother improve wikipedia and if you have more questions do not hesitate to ask. Next time it could be me doing a mistake or something and you may help me. Have a nice day! Qed237 (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

The Template Barnstar
I wanted to give you a barnstar to thank you for all of your help converting the Sports Table Module so it could be used for Australian rules football. I've implemented it in the current season. --SuperJew (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2015–16 La Liga. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. OlJa 16:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Some information why would be lovely. Why give me a warning and why heave I deserved a level 2? Whitout information I find this warning a bit weird and probably only retaliation for a warning I gave this editor earlier. Qed237 (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) A tentative look into this, I would agree with you Qed237 - I will however advise yourself and Oldstone James not to edit war and discuss on the talk page if possible -- samtar whisper 16:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: @Samtar: To be honest I just did this to get attention - yes, @Samtar: is right, we must stop edit warring and start a discussion (btw It's Qed237 who must start the discussion first - I don't care who started removing the Results by Round table first, it's been there for ages and if you want to make any changes that won't be reverted then start a discussion). OlJa 16:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Oldstone James: Why must it be me that opens a discussion? Anyone can open a discussion and you keep reinstating unsourced content. Also you can not use warning templates as a way of getting attention, it may be considered disruptive and bad behaviour, but I will let it slide for now. There are more important issues with your editing, like adding unsourced content or using bare url. Qed237 (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Petr Cech

he should were number 1 so i put it there so the Arsenal can realise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kofi100 (talk • contribs)

@Kofi100: Sorry but that is not how wikipedia works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on facts (and reliable sources) and we should not add our own personal thoughts. Qed237 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, remove that timestamp is my mistake. Ueutyi (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ueutyi: No problem, mistakes happen. Qed237 (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

UEFA Championship League should be Top importance

That is because it it just a bit less known than the world cup. It contains the best teams from all over the world and they compete against each other for the second highest title in the world (after the world cup.) Dat GuyWiki (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dat GuyWiki: The main Champions League article has high importance (not top), but season articles should be lower. Just look at previous seasons. Have you even looked at the criterias before updating. Top is Articles strictly related to the game: rules of the game, positions, confederations, etc. No biographical articles. I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment#Importance scale. Qed237 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
@Dat GuyWiki: Moving on, you can read about Low as Any other team. Most players and managers. Football-related lists, season articles. (my bolding). Qed237 (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Paulinho (footballer), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--Oleola (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay now I have to ask, what made me deserve a level 2 warning when you were the one trying to impose a change? Qed237 (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ádám Bogdán

Indeed they do, just about every club in the world plays in multuple competitions. But including the club's division provides pertinent information and adds context for our readers, and for me doesn't suggest that the club only plays in that competition. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: I am just trying to be consistent with a lot other articles I edit. This has been discussed multiple times at WT:FOOTY without consensus so I wont edit war over it, but I think "English" is more general and also by not writing league, no issues will occur if/when a team is relegated or promoted (which most likely wont happen to liverpool). Qed237 (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sergio Busquets

Because you revert information with source? Josepolivares (talk) 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Josepolivares: I made a simple mistake wwhen I saw I was re-revert by you again, but as you may have seen I undid my own edits immediately. Qed237 (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Leader Member Exchange Theory

Please understand that I completely updated the outdated version of Leader Member Exchange Theory on Saturday, December 19, 2015. As I understand it Captain Raju immediately "reverted" my contribution and has not responded to my "talk". What do you recommend to be my next step. It is important that Leader Member Exchange Theory be brought up-to-date.

G2squared a.k.a George Graen, — Preceding unsigned comment added by G2squared (talk • contribs) 22:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am just a regular editor so I am not sure what I can hel you with? From what I can see there was a few problem with your edit, where you, as an example, removed all headers. Qed237 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qed237. You have new messages at Sport and politics's talk page.
Message added Sport and politics (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Since I started to write on your talkpage I have it on my watchlist, so I can see your edits. Qed237 (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

List of Real Madrid C.F. seasons

You undo this List of Real Madrid C.F. seasons but did you check what I did ? I did usefull things (tag competitions, teams) - nothing wrong ! I did many edits because I did it in more hours, not all in same time.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Do not put SFR Yugoslavia, Serbia, Kosovska Mitrovica

Do not put SFR Yugoslavia, Serbia, Kosovska Mitrovica in perosnalities like singers, football players, basketball players, and many others that are from Kosovo. Kosovo is now an independent state and I will keep editing those pages, until you and all the editors here stop reverting them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dardn2015 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dardn2015: Place of birth is place of birth. We put the name of the nation they were born in, not what nation it currently is. If you continue you will be blocked. Qed237 (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

ACS UTA Bătrâna Doamnă Arad

Merry Christmas my friend, do you have any idea how I can change the name of the page : ACS UTA Bătrâna Doamnă Arad in FC UTA Arad ? The team changed the name back !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexiulian25: The best idea I have is to do a WP:RM (requested move) on the article talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@Alexiulian25: The section is WP:RM#CM. Qed237 (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries for reversions

Hello, Qed237. I thought I would alert you to a discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#What_is_Twinkle?. Apparently you reverted some of this user's changes, and he/she is struggling to understand the reasons for this. We have suggested that he opens a discussion here to ask those questions. If I might be so bold as to offer a suggestion, edit summaries might help - both to help the initial editor to improve their contributions, and also for other editors to understand what the issue is.Gronk Oz (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I do give him reasons for the reverts many times, but he still keeps on doing same edits over and over and finally i get tired of writing same edit summary all over. I am starting to question the WP:COMPETENCE. He asked me about List of Real Madrid C.F. seasons in this edit on 24 December, and I made this response on his talkpage 10 hours later. Yet he asked about the reason for the revert on the twinkle talkpage now, two days later? He has already gotten the reason. I have no problem with him asking me if he does not understand why, but it would be good if he also listens to the response. Qed237 (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: By the way, thank you for alerting me. Merry Christmas! Qed237 (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I did understand now, what is Twinkle about, and why you reverted my edits in List of Real Madrid C.F. seasons. What do you suggest now? To do my "good" edits manually again ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@Alexiulian25: My suggestion is that you copy the article and work on it in your sandbox, it is better than making a lot of small edits. When you are done, you can ask me if it is okay, If there is only a few issues I can probably help and edit in your sandbox and then we can put it in the real article. Qed237 (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237:, thanks for the update - I had not followed through the full history of the matter enough to see it in that context. In the spirit of the season, I will wish you both a constructive resolution that everybody feels proud of.Gronk Oz (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

2015–16 Premier League: Clean Sheets

I'm updating it but because the source takes too long to update itself my edit gets removed, why? Fungusandfurball

(talk page stalker) @Fungusandfurball: Because Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources, anything else is original research, which is not permitted. Just wait for the source to update itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@Josep2302: Fine but it's annoyingly slow, if I know the stats myself I should be allowed to edit it but never mind those are the rules. Fungusandfurball (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Ronaldo

He scored 4 today so that is why I updated to 88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fondivine (talk • contribs) 21:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fondivine: How can you miss ALL comment? We update ALL players at one time after ALL matches after end of matchweek. After your edit table was completely incorrect and stated "as of 26 November". Qed237 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought we agreed you were going to stop blindly reverting things, and instead update the timestamp, as a constructive editor should? Tsk tsk... Eightball (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@Eightball: Thought we agreed you should stop following me around. Thius has NOTHING to do with the actual timestamp, but the fact that all stats should be updated after matches has been played to avoid errors (which the comments in that article clearly states). Soon I will have you blocked for personal harassment. WP:DROPTHESTICK and perhaps try and learn what you are actually talking about before making false claims. Qed237 (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Please do not threaten me. Eightball (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
@Eightball: Please stop following me around and do some real work for a change. Qed237 (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
You pinged me. Eightball (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
@Eightball: Yes, I ping the response to your bs complaints on my talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ludwig Augustinsson

Hello Qed237,

I hope you have a nice holiday. I was wondering if you maybe could take a look at Ludwig Augustinsson and maybe give input if you think something need to be improved in the article, and I wonder if you'd be willing to help me add content about his journey in the U21-championship last summer. I've tried making that piece for almost a half a year without being able to. Thank you in advance. / Psemmler (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Psemmler: I must be honest and let you know that I am currently very busy (mostly IRL but also on wikipedia). For that reason I dont have much time and Ludwig Augustinsson is not that high on my priority list, but I will keep it in mind. Qed237 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
It's okay, no worries:) // Psemmler (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex Ferguson

It's not my opinion that he's the greatest and most successful, it is the opinion of the credible sources provided. Now, it's not to say EVERYONE thinks this but certain people do and that's what the sources say. Davefelmer (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And there are sources saying someone else is the greatest so then we should add those also to be neutral. We have to consider all sides and be neutral. Qed237 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think there are many others who are considered the greatest. But either way, many do consider sir Alex to be the greatest and those sources prove that. It is neutral because it is not saying he IS the greatest, just that many consider him to be which is true. The same goes for him being the most successful. That's why it is worded that people CONSIDER him to be, not that he is, thus keeping it neutral and acknowledging debate. But when all the sources say he's the greatest, and you write he's ONE of the greatest, it is not corroborating the information of the sources. Davefelmer (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It is all a matter of opinion. Qed237 (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It is, and while there is a lot of opinion that dictates SAF is the greatest or most successful and thats what the sources say, it should be reflected (while acknowledging it is the opinion of some people but not a cold, hard fact). Davefelmer (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Some say he is the greatest, some say an other manager, but many consider him as one of the greatest managers. Qed237 (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

What about most successful then? How about 'he is widely considered to be one of the greatest managers of all time. Media sources such as the Guardian have also quoted him as the most successful manager ever.'? That sounds fair. Davefelmer (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not all for that, and if you want it you would need to find consensus first. Qed237 (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus over what to add was already reached on the wikiproject football page. You were part of that debate. That was concerning the most successful part. The greatest part is me recognising that when 3 of the 4 sources listed say he's the best ever, the information has to reflect the sources as that is what wikipedia is; an encyclopaedia based off of reliable sources. Davefelmer (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Tim Howard

Hi Qed, I work with the Wikimedia Blog. We're writing a post on Wikipedia sports vandalism and the inevitable tide of blog posts that follow, and we'd like to ask you a few questions for use in that post. Specifically, one of the edits we're referring to is the Tim Howard/Secretary of Defense edit that you reverted. Do you think sports blogs blow these edits out of proportion? Do these posts make the vandalism problem worse? What impact do these edits have on-wiki, and how does it distract from other work? Thanks for your time! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

About Moldovan cup

Ok.you said that only 10 goalscorers are notable.but why when you deleted you left only 5 players on the main page,there are the rest 5(to be up to ten) has gone ???? on english premier league 2015/16 season ( page, you look after )is 15 players,not 10 as you say.WHY ? Is the exactly same situation in Moldovan cup.if you look again at this page you will se that 1 player is on the 1st place,4-players with 2 goals scored are in placed 2-5. so,easy calculation.the rest players who scored 1 goal are situated on the 6th place.So,they meet all the possible criterea to be notable and to be in top 10.Double standarts again ??? And again ???? And again ???? Please revert your edits back,and live Moldovan football alone.take care of english football ,Arsenal and whatever.good luck and happy new year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolya77 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kolya77: We try and keep it to 10 players, but as you say sometimes there are players that have scored the same amount of goals so we have to include more than 10. However, depending on how many players that are tied, it may be to many players in the list of scorers so we have to cut the list before 10. See for example 2014–15 UEFA Champions League#Statistics were we have 12 players in "top goalscorers" (4 players is tied for 9th place), while in "top assists" we only list 7 players (5 players tied for 3rd) because adding all 17 players with 3 assist would be to much. Qed237 (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting changes in Indian national football team jersey

Can you please remove the sponsor logo from the away jersey (second colours) of India national football team? — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 17:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@SWASTIK 25: It is not so easy to fix all the kit images so I have been trying to look for a similar replacement. However could not find any in Template:Football kit/pattern list so it is now a search in Commons:Category:Football kit body and related categories to see if we can find something. Qed237 (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: Till then, please allow that jersey to be displayed in the away kit, otherwise it will remain odd.— Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 17:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry no logos allowed per copyright laws. Qed237 (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The jersey that you replaced is preety good! But please keep on searching for a perfect replacement of the earlier one, without any logo. Thanks. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 19:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Your use of Twinkle on FA Cup

I quote from WP:TWABUSE: "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used."

Please bear this in mind. 2.103.118.107 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was very self-explantory as they are two concurrent tournaments. They are both seasonal in same period, like for example 2015-16. The final does not have to be on the same day for the tournaments to be concurrent. Qed237 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Re:Final warning

You are not gonna decide what I'm going to keep in or delete from my talk page. So, don't try to give any more lame advice regarding that. I know what shall lead me to a block. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 05:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No I am not, but removing things you dont like is not helping you. Consider archiving. Qed237 (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of articles about Bosnian players

Okay, I understand now that you delete articles about players who play in Bosnian league, since it it not fully professional. But I wanted to make an article about Riad Bajić, who is now in Turkish league, and that league is fully professional. But I cannot make it since it is protected. Could it please be removed, so that I can make him a page? HankMoodyTZ (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@HankMoodyTZ: I went to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and asked for the page to be unprotected as Riad Bajić now indeed seems to be notable. If that does not work, I think we can go to the football project to get consensus that it is really notable and then contact an admin. But the request should be enough. Qed237 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HankMoodyTZ (talk • contribs)

No problem, let me know if you need more help. Qed237 (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I seem to have a problem putting the page into categories, I wrote it and made a lot of references, but don't seem to get how the categories work.

I suggest you look at other article, like for example Goran Zakarić. You add categories by adding [[Category:xyz]] at the bottom of the article (where xyz is the category). Qed237 (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Will Keane

Why you place Will Keane in Loan Out players ? Gorokoto (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The source clearly says he is on loan until 30 June and you did not provide any source saying he has returned. Qed237 (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

2015-16 La Liga Positions by Round

Are you flipping serious???????? I mean really, I've even started a discussion about the matter, added a reliable source, got some people on my side and you are still reverting the Positions by Round table??? With no reasons to back your actions? I mean I have nothing against you but that's just called hating. OlJa 18:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in that source sources the whole table without having to move around in the link and produce your own table. Qed237 (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: No source in the world is direct to any statement. This one is very trivial. There is nothing that doesn't support any piece of information in the table. You stated in your userpage that you try not to violate any rules on Wikipedia, but you clearly are not trying too hard and what you have done is clearly not good faith. It is something that you claim to hate, edit warring and bad faith vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talk • contribs)
If no such source exist then we shouild not have the table. Why should we make up our own info? Qed237 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Mcphail

Thats just league appearance Stephen has made not over all its wrong Cormc (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Cormc: The infobox is only meant to have league appearances listed, it clearly states at the bottom of the infobox "Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only". Joseph2302 (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure Shamrock Rovers info is wrong, apologies on over all apps Cormc (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to update it, please provide a source, and as said above please keep in mind that it is league matches only. Qed237 (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Cormc: I've updated his Shamrock appearances using [1]. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

reversion of edit in FIFA Club World Cup

Please, I would like to ask you why the reversion of my edits, in that the contents are ipsis litteris quoted from the sources, some of them the same sources present in the article. Thanks

PS: I did not realise the expression ipsis litteris was not used in English; this term means verbatim. By ipsis litteris, I meant I quoted the sources verbatim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El cazador (talk • contribs)

2015–16 Premier League

Hello. Regarding your revert of my formatting fix to the article 2015–16 Premier League, my edit put things all on a single line like the rest of the table. Please explain your revert, thank you for your consideration to this matter. Respectfully, Freddiem (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Basically a name should not be split but it does not matter if name is below the flag. Just like the rest of the table, also it helps sorting. Qed237 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, but I'm confused by it. In all other cases the name of the manager is beside the flag, so it's not like the rest of the table with your edit. Also, I checked the sorting of my version in the edit history of the article and the sorting works the same. In the interest of uniformity within the table, I respectfully ask for your reconsideration. Thank you...Freddiem (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
It depends on the width of your screen, currently I have no problems at all. If you look at the code for the other managers in that table they dont have the flag inside the "nobreak". Qed237 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Klopp, Pelligrini, van Gaal, Neil, Pochettino are just a few examples where the code for the other managers in that table have the flag inside the "nobreak". You must have a very wide screen because my screen is pretty wide, it's pretty standard for a laptop, it's not a small screen. Freddiem (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Well they shouldn't be and other managers are not, we have to allow the rows to break somewhere. And my current screen is pretty small for a stationary computer, only 19". Qed237 (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
How can you say they shouldn't be that way, based on what? Your assumption? I would imagine they are that way for a reason. Those are not the only examples, I just gave a few to illustrate. 19" is pretty wide, wider than mine. Mine is a pretty standard laptop and it's probably what most people have. Freddiem (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Most people have stationary computers and not laptops with smaller screens. Qed237 (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
What century are you living in?! Have you been to any store selling computers in the last ten years?! Because that's about the last time I saw a desktop available for sale in a store...Or maybe you live in Greenland or something?! Each time you respond you are even more nonsensical than the time before. You know what my screen probably is 19". I think you are completely full of nonsense. Freddiem (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I find you funny, yes some has laptops for small usage, but a desktop is used so much more. While working and programming, a desktop with multiple screens is the way to go and at home most people have a desktop. Where are you living, on a moving bus where you can not have a desktop? Qed237 (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
And by the way do you go to the store and buy a computer? I thought no one did that anymore, or do you live in the arctic? It is so much better to buy the components and build your own computer, with better performance. Qed237 (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
"some has laptops for small usage"??? What does that even mean? It's a clear sign you don't have a full command of the English language. And maybe you ARE living in Antarctica, if you think that most people aren't using laptops these days. Hmm, your first excuse was "it does not matter if name is below the flag". You must have noticed that the name was below the flag because that's what showed on your screen, hmm. Freddiem (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
As I said, both at home and at work I have a desktop with multiple screens, both a lot better than a store-bought laptop. The computers gets a lot better when you build them on your own. All components are better and a "clean" computer without unneccesary programs from the manufacturer is maikng computer faster. However, I do have a laptop as well for when I am travelling and not having access to a desktop and that laptop has a slightly smaller screen and then I have seen name on a new row. I am not dumb, I know people have laptops, but the main usage are still from desktops and what I meant was that there is minor use of laptops. Now please stop this OT-discussion, dont WP:SHOUT and stop attacking me and make false claims about my life or I will have you blocked for personal harassment. If you want to discuss, talk about content and not editors. You can not be so blind and narrowminded that you think people only uses laptops, when desktops are so much better. Qed237 (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

2015–16 Premier League

Hello.

Please could you explain the reversion of my edit? The source cited clearly and repeatedly says "sacked" and does not refer to mutual consent; in the same vein as the other sources given for managers who are described as "sacked", I cannot see the logic behind this move? Thank you. Vaze50 (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

He left club by mutual consent, just like official statement says. Qed237 (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Then in that case, can we go back through the pages and change every single instance a manager has departed by "mutual consent" as per a club statement - which includes some "sacked" this season? Or is it only for that manager we make an exception? Please advise. To ensure consistency I am happy to either revert your edit or go back through and make sure we are consistent and correct. Vaze50 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I can not remember all old managers and also note WP:OSE. There was a dicsussion and it was mutual consent. Qed237 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

EPL all time goal leaders

Hello..

Why do you not agree with my update of Rooney becoming 2nd all time Premier League goal scorer. I put 2 references to pages that show the updated list.

Thank you Tomrtn (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You may want to read the edit summary. It clearly says above the table that it is based on List of Premier League players with 100 or more goals and there already is a source below the table. Additional sources with different numers only causes a conflict. When the current source from PL has updated, both Premier League and List of Premier League players with 100 or more goals will be updated. Be patient. Qed237 (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Adrien Rabiot

Hi there QED,

sorry for my mixup in this player's article, and for saying you did not do something when in fact you did. Display of ref has already been improved, even though I don't agree with its inclusion because it is already a link.

Happy 2016, from Portugal --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, mistakes (and mixup) happens. I prefer to have reference for the height otherwise editors keep changing it back and forth without providing any reference and I have seen it many times, but I guess it is a matter of opinion. Happy new year! Qed237 (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

2015–16 Arsenal F.C. season edit

Hi There

I made an edit to this page where I added the assist stats for this season. You removed this and left me a message saying "did not appear to be constructive". I think this edit is as a useful as having the scoring stats on the page.

I hope this can be put back on ArsenalFan1989999 (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a lot of different ways to calculate assists and PL changes their definition every year, so it is not included on PL main article or related article as there is no clear definition. For example they even count players diving to get penalty as assist if penalty goes in. Qed237 (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I referenced all the stats I used. I used whoscored.com as my bases. Assist are an important statistic to have. Plus some other pages have assist stats (2015–16 Juventus F.C. season) but when I post assist stats that are referenced they get removed.ArsenalFan1989999 (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said the definition of assist in Premier League (Juventus dont play in PL) changes and sometimes players that gets a penalty/free kick is even included. No assist. Qed237 (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The Premier League have assist stats on their website (http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/players/index.html). It doesn't matter if they change their define if they have stats listed on their website I don't see why they shouldn't be included on wiki.ArsenalFan1989999 (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again, the definition of assist varies from site to site and from year to year. Qed237 (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The page is for a single year and the stats are for that same year and they come from the official Premier League website. I think your wrong on this one and the Assist Stats should remain.ArsenalFan1989999 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Then get consensus for it. Qed237 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Where shall I get that. I thought that's what I was trying to do with you since your the one deleting the edit.ArsenalFan1989999 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If I where you I would go to the article talkpage to see what other editors think or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football as it is same for other PL articles as well. Qed237 (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have posted an article on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to get consensus. I hope this little war can end.ArsenalFan1989999 (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Great, I will leave one reply there with my view and then let others give their view. Qed237 (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like we are getting much consensus on the assist debate. ArsenalFan1989999 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, it is easier if we would have left our views and ten let others say their views. Now it looks like you gave me a question in your second edits and no other editor wants to get in the middle. Qed237 (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Bosnia issue

The article Bosnia and Herzegovina actually covers the period descrbed in the article Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The second is basically just a subarticle of the main one. Seems useless what we are doing there specially because it is just a techncallity for infobox purposes. Also, the way you are choosing puts in place the use of Republika Srpska as well, so will create quite a mess. FkpCascais (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Republika Srpska was never a country. Qed237 (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Career stats table

The reason that it is 'National Cup' in MOS is because that MOS is used for players in all nations - so having 'FA Cup' there would be misleading/confusing. But because Reine-Adélaïde has only ever played in England it is better to specify FA Cup. GiantSnowman 19:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I dont agree as I have seen to many times it saying "FA Cup" or "Copa del Rey" or similar even after a player has changed league/nation. However I am going to leave it now and it is certainly nothing to edit war over (and honestly I am suprised that you as an admin reverted so much without it being vandalism and I did provid MOS and you did not link to any consensus). Qed237 (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Manchester United

Hi do you think it would be worth asking for semi-protection on this seasons page, due to the number of vandalism made by IPs. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lukejordan02: Even though I think it would be good to have it protected, I dont think it is enough. Only one IP has edited today and five IP's since the start of 2016. It is a borderline case and I am not convinced that a request would be successful, but you could always make a request at WP:RFPP and let an admin decide. Qed237 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the advice. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The cheek on you

"Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page."

Do you have any reason at all for why you have reversed my changes multiple times, without explanation? Is there any reason at all why I should be obliged to talk to you to avoid an edit war, when the only person who apparently has an issue with my changes is you, and you have shown no willingness to talk to me or explain what your objections even are? Rabono26 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and "I hope you like the place and decide to stay". Ha Ha. Do I even need to ask if you actually typed that yourself, or is it an auto-generated empty platitude? Rabono26 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

And now threats. Seriously, do you actually expect me to treat you with respect, when you show absolutely none to me? What are these "multiple issues" you claim exist? Show me some "good faith" and be the first person to explain them on the talk page, because it looks to me like you haven't even properly looked at them (I've done a hell of a lot more than just split the trophy material out). Rabono26 (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have offended you, but yes they are standard template messages. You should not edit war and reinstate challenged material over and over again and I gave you reason in the edit summary. There is no need to move the Trophy to a separated article and why are you changing the lead without any source at all removing the full name of the competition? Please start talking in a calm way. I am happy that you started talking at Talk:Laws of the Game (association football), but claiming My version (B) is quite obviously superior when two other editors has disagreed with your edits and explained why at the same talkpage shows battleground behaviour which is not helping the situation. Qed237 (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football for further input. Qed237 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
If you want people to be calm, then you need to change your approach. All you have done so far is mess me around with mindless reverts - I am the one who has explained all their changes, on the FA Cup article you have only belatedly explained one small part of your objections, and on the Laws page all you have said (again, belatedly) is you agree with the other guy. This does not do anything to convince me you are trying to be constructive, especially once you began issuing me with threats and warnings for edit warring and telling me to talk, even though you were the other party to the edit war and you weren't doing any talking yourself. Rabono26 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
You can not only blame me for your behaviour. Name calling is something I am strongly against and it will not help you in this situation. Qed237 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

FA CUP

Why did you undo the start times for the Forth round they are posted on the theFA.com site? Tomrtn (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tomrtn: Because the matches are so far just added with the standard times and those times will change. No matchtime has been confirmed and will not be until after the media coverage has been decided. Qed237 (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I agree with QED, lots of the time will change, mostly once the TV schedules have been sorted. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Sock

Hey, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I am probably even more of a novice regarding SOCKs than you honestly. I just saw the similarity in naming and editing styles and put two and two together. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, thank you for the nomination of the templates for deletion from Swat. I like the user but I feel he has a lot to learn still. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
@ArsenalFan700: No problem, we are all volunteers and answer when we can (and we dont even have to answer, although it is good to do so). Perhaps we are bot novices regarding socks. And no problem, I nominate what I feel is something for deletion. 14:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Kuwait AFD sock

Yes, it's probably worth a SPI. GiantSnowman 17:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thanks for the info, I saw it has been opened now by an other editor. Qed237 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Objection to Removal of Penalty Misses

Hi, I've recently added some penalty misses to few Arsenal pages. So could I request you to stop removing them please? Your reason was that - we don't add penalty misses. The 2012-13 Arsenal page clearly has Arteta's penalty miss on it. So why did you start deleting all the penalty misses that I've added?

Is a penalty miss in a 90 mins game a non-event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blckbrr7 (talk • contribs)

@Blckbrr7: There is a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that penaltymisses are not notable enough to have in these matchboxes. If you dont agree please open a new discussion at WT:FOOTY. Qed237 (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you link me to it? Blckbrr7 (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Blckbrr7: There is some information in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 80#Penalty miss in matchinfo, but the most recent discussion can be read at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 89#Club season articles and match info.. Qed237 (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not this again..

Please, not this again. Either the matches is recognized in the infobox or not. I thought, with discussion with @Mattias321:, that we said that it would be counted for in the info box. And since Mattias321 have done that with every player, aswell as last year, I'm reverting your edit on Alexander Fransson. // Psemmler (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Psemmler: What do you mean with not this again? If you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 92#Unofficial matches there was no clear consensus, but the last editor, Smartskaft, said FIFA is the official and I agree, we should go with FIFA. If you look at User talk:Mattias321#Räknas A-landskamper även under inofficiella landskamper?, Reckless182 also said Jag antar att FIFA väger tyngre i detta sambandet i och med att vi pratar om internationella landskamper på seniornivå. To completely remove the notes has never been discussed and I will restore those. Qed237 (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if you may be paid by FIFA, the ignorant and arrogant way you're acting on this. Alexander Fransson is a part of SvFF (The Swedish Football Association), for whom he played two exhibition games for. The association he played for aknowledge the exhibition games as official and notice them. Just because the game isn't arranged by FIFA doesn't mean it's not an official exhibition game. The only reason is not to be for an official exhibition game may be for FIFA's sake, and for the money, which is the contro of what's Wikipedia is all about, it's not about money or power. Alexander Fransson played two exbibition game that's official, end of story. And I don't see why Alexander Fransson should be handle different, with notes about nonsens that it wasn't official, than any other players who played the games, so I will revert your edit once again and when Wikipedia has been bought by FIFA you may change it back. // Psemmler (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Sonn I will have you blocked for failing to comply with consensus. You know very well that the latest discussions involved notes and FIFA is the organisers of international matches. Qed237 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Haha, so now you're threatening to ban one person who's trying to make Wikipedia a better place by putting time and effort everyday on trying Wikipedia a better site. Unlike you, I'd rather put the same time effort in finding correct references than claiming facts don't have any reference to it, but I guess that's the difference between us, you want to show yourself demanding stuff right or left without contribute. Of course Alexander Fransson shouldnt be handled any differently than the other player artciles so until Wikipedia has lost it's freedom you should try respect those facts that's been given to us. Until you're getting right by the WP:Football then every player article should have noted the January exhibition games, not 99% and only Alexander Fransson that isn't. // Psemmler (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:OSE just follow what has been said or open a new discussion. Qed237 (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
No personal attacks please and I have now opened a discusson for you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Unofficial caps (FIFA or national association) Qed237 (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Keke Geladze

Thanks for helping deal with that sockpuppeteer, but I wouldn't bother the repeated reverts if you find it at all tedious, that particular account will be blocked and the article will be semi-protected soon enough. Cannolis (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cannolis: I spotted it when list of template-protected edit request increased at my talkpage when the editor blanked the talkpage trying to get the page protected. It is obvious that they dont know what they were doing. Qed237 (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, now they're adding protection templates and FA article templates to the page. S/he's a waste of time, I got sucked into AGFing a bit too blindly and dumbly, back when they were really going at it with like 5-6 IP addresses, should've just requested semiprotection and moved on. Cannolis (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@Cannolis: It is easy to think afterwards what you should have done instead, but it looks to me like you handled it well. Have a nice day! Qed237 (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Beating Band

 Done GiantSnowman 12:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Carmeron Carter-Vickers

Hi, I was the one that edited C C-V's page and removed the deletion notice. Firstly, the user that first suggested deletion was "ArsenalFan007" possible conflict of interest. I do believe he is notable, he might of not made it onto the pitch vs Monaco, but I believe he still warrants a page as the interest in the player has been increased and therefore information should be provided. There is a lot of Third-Party sources available on Cameron Carter-Vickers, which means he meets Wikipedia's notability standards.

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

This page in a nutshell: An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Maybe an exception should be applied for this particular situation, given his commercial value. (Sponsorship by Under Armor and staring in an Under Armor commercial) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YagamiSandwich (talk • contribs)

I suggest you motivate your case at the AfD, but the player to me is not notable enough. Qed237 (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, talk page stalker, and I just saw this... conflict of interest? LOL. Yes, my fandom of Arsenal means that any Tottenham player must not have a page! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Aguero

I didn't update the timestamps last time and nobody got so offended about it. You just want a reaction from people. Stop being so petty. Oh, and remember to check the football results next week ;).Gunk 78 (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gunk 78: I gave you a notification on yuor talkpage that you ignored and updated the caps and goals a second time still without updating timestamp. I did assume good faith and did not give you a warning despite ignoring the message and just because you have manage to avoid a reaction in the past does not mean you are right. Dont worry about what I do and focus on your edits. Qed237 (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ignore it, but the notification only came up after I'd edited it the second time. I actually have updated the timestamps in the past, but forgot this time. I understand the reminder, but it would have been nice to have updated it for me.Gunk 78 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)