Talk:2023 Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras season

Full protection
Would you mind resolving this content dispute here on the talkpage, possibly with external input from any of WP:3PO or a relevant Wikiproject? It's getting a bit disruptive to the article. Have briefly full-protected the article page as an alternative to blocking anyone for edit-warring, and to give time for consensus discussion to occur. No idea who is right or wrong, so the protection is not an endorsement of the current version. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Look, i've tried, many times. I contacted him in his talk page, tried to explain but he stills do the same wrongs edits again. Would love to get some help on this. Thanks. Guilherme (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes am aware of that, and thanks for being the one who reached out. :) It would just be good to formalise the discussion a little by holding it here. A talkpage consensus is also something that can guide future editing of this page long after this specific dispute is resolved. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Let's hope we can find a solution. Guilherme (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

To move this along, the dispute is between this version and this version. To achieve consensus, can anyone with a view on which is preferable please post that view in this talkpage thread over the next few days. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Vote for this version because:
 * Don't change the way the pages are linked (example: Nottingham Forest are being changed to Nottingham Forest really don't understand why this being made, and this is just one example).
 * Changing the way the player names are being displayed (example: José Manuel López should be shown as only "López" not "José López", and there are other examples for this too.)
 * The final issue is inserting matches dates, stadiums and locations without this information being 100% confirmed by the tournament organizer. At the start of the championship (Série A) only the first nine rounds were fully confirmed (with dates, times, stadiums and locations) and the other editor insists on adding these wrong information to the other rounds. These informations are being confirmed as the tournament goes. This can be easily checked at the CBF website.
 * I already tried to talk to him in his talk page, with no response and he goes back and revert these contributions. Looks like he's active and editing other articles.
 * These are the main issues. Thanks. Guilherme (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * Thanks for helping with the discussion. TBH i tried contacting a administrator to report WP:AN3 but they told me to start the discussion here at the talk page first, before requesting help due to edit warring. That's when @Euryalus comes here to start the discussion about this. Guilherme (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. Have removed the full protection as talkpage discussion is under way. (or anyone else) please do feel free to add to this discusssion in the interests of a consensus outcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So, as soon as the full protection is removed he came back doing the same edits again. What we can do in this situation? @Euryalus @MaxnaCarta Guilherme (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Have reverted it as against the consensus-making process, and left them a note. Hopefully they'll now come here to discuss, but we're really at the last chance stage. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Guilherme for the first time in my life here at Wikipedia I am recommending this is moved to ANI or other relevant admin page for discussion. This editors conduct is in my opinion, disruptive and sniffs of being almost intentionally provocative given the clear messaging they’ve been sent on the matter. @Claudiogostoso, why have you continued to engage in this behaviour without even attempting to participate in the conversation? You’ve done this immediately after my comment and also an administrator page protecting which clearly shows the conduct of just reverting each other without coming to consensus is not appropriate? Please explain. I’m close to referring to ANI or a disputes page myself but I hate drama and really think you should come here and resolve this via consensus rather than having to involve more people. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to post it to the noticeboard but I doubt it's necessary at this point. There's an active talkpage discussion which is presently in favour of Guilherme's version. If any editor now simply imposes another version without discussing it here they can be reverted and referred to this page. Claudiogostoso has been asked multiple times to discuss rather than edit war. Its also been made clear if they do it again (add their edit without discussing) they'll be blocked for disruptive editing. The process is a little drawn out because their edit history suggests they are otherwise editing in good faith and I haven't wanted to rush to a block on a productive contributor . But we're on the last chance now with respect to this particular article. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If not necessary, then I agree best not to. Drama boards are always to be avoided where possible. Thanks for stepping in here. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, not explaining why these type of edits are still being done?
@Claudiogostoso Can you please for the love of god explain why you are still doing these wrong edits? And why don't answer when asked about it? I thought we were above this situation? Guilherme (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. Firstly, I am fully aware that everything I say, you will not take into consideration and will continue saying that I am adding false information to the article. Secondly, if I use anonymous ID or log into my account, that's my problem. What I see here in this case is that you do not accept that someone else edits these articles, implying that, any standard edition is modified, you will use tricks and mechanisms to restrain other editors. What I do is just organize tables and base information according to pre-determined locations and names, which everyone already knows, but only you want to have the responsibility of editing this. And, if by chance I'm wrong, or any changes to the information are made, just change it and don't delete all the information posted. Third, I am fully aware that we will not reach a consensus on these issues, so feel free to report me, stop my edits and do whatever you want, I just believe that, in my point of view, this is a It's a huge waste of time to argue and fight over information that, in the end, is the same as what you and/or I provide. And I just didn't answer you because I didn't want to waste my time and argue over such a trivial reason. But, as I said, I know that everything I wrote here will not be considered by you and I will end up being reported in the same way. Okay, I respect your decision, but I'm just saying that it won't stop me from continuing to edit here. Thanks again. Claudiogostoso (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Look man, i'm not trying to restrict anyone. I'm just trying to make the article more correct. In 10 years of editing i never had a situation like this.
 * About this article in particular, you are changing simple redirects which I don't see why are you doing?
 * About not responding when contacted. If you are in a place like this, that everyone contributes you need to understand that sometimes you will be contacted about a edit that you made. Not responding is your choice, but it makes harder to reach a point of consensus, which ends up in a situation like this.
 * I don't you to stop editing the articles, i just want to make sure that you understand that what are you doing is not ok with the Wikipedia guidelines.
 * Hope you understand this. Thanks. Guilherme (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)