User talk:AlfieLavender

December 2015
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Paulo Gazzaniga, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Junior Stanislas, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

July 2016
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Granit Xhaka. Thank you. Qed237&#160;(talk) 11:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Club infobox dates
Hi, when updating club infobox stats you should update the club-update or pcupdate parameter by adding five tildes, which generates the specific time the update was made. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

June 2018
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Liverpool F.C.. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Table on The Hundred
Hello. A discussion has been taking place on the talk page of The Hundred about the ways in which we present information and, in particular, the use of statistical tables. As part of that discussion I had previously removed the table that you have re-added. There has been no objection at all to this on the talk page - so I suppose we're sort of in the position where there's a tacit consensus not to have the table there. You might disagree. In which case I think you should probably join the discussion or start a new one and propose that a table is added to summarise the information you think should be added to the article. I would very strongly argue that the information you're adding is largely redundant and could probably be largely replaced by a paragraph of prose on the page - an article that is in desperate need of prose in some sections. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I couldn't disagree more. It's a summary of team's results in a joint format of both the men's and women's competitions. It's a concise and visual way for people to see how each team has performed ove the course of the competition. It is factual and has literally nothing for you to remove. Every sporting league's Wikipedia page has a table such as this, and considering the nature of The Hundred launching the men's and women's competition simultaneously, a joint table is therefore appropriate. AlfieLavender (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry but - as I've said on the article talk page - I find the tables you had proposed to be really confusing. In general terms the information that you're trying to summarise is either unnecessary or simply not presented in a way which makes it easy to understand. Those to me are the keys - if we're going to use a table, what are we trying to say?
 * The situation is much more complex because we're dealing with the men's and women's competitions on the same page. There are very few examples of where we do that with sports leagues that I can find. I did find one now - see below. I'm really not sure that combining the results of both competitions in one table will ever work tbh.
 * I would be interested in seeing similar tables from other leagues though. The nearest equivalent league I've found so far is the Philippine Super Liga which deals with both a men's and women's competition. I can see the tables there and, with some caveats, they're probably the best way to present the information. I'm not sure that the ones you're proposing do the same thing at all. But I'm open to being shown other examples that work better. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey,
 * I know this is an old issue, so apologies for dragging this back up.
 * However I would argue that the efforts of having a table of both the men's and women's results combined in The Hundred is legitimate on the basis that this is a fairly unique competition in that regard. Both competitions were designed to be equals; both competitions were launched on the same date, both fixtures are played on the same day, in the same stadium watched by the same fans. The competitions are aimed to be equals in their very nature, the growing lineage of both the men's and women's teams are in that regard, are intrinsically and perpetually linked. Putting the two together in regards to results in the competition makes a considerable amount more sense than most sporting leagues, so existing examples may not reflect this, due in part, to their obvious separation. I'd vehemently argue that The Hundred is contrary to this common factor in sport. As time wears on this fact will become more defined in my humble opinion.
 * If the table proposed doesn't reflect this in a clear manner, then fair enough, but I ask if someone could propose one that would? I think it is an opportunity missed otherwise.
 * Cheers :) AlfieLavender (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

October 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2022 All-Pro Team. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The  Kip  14:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? You use very strong words with literally no substance. Everything I edited was factual, get your facts straight. AlfieLavender (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

February 2024
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Southampton F.C.. Favonian (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There is every reason to remove this as it is unnecessary in it's very nature. This information does not need to be on a Wikipedia page as there are countless examples of in-house controversies of sporting clubs that are not displayed on Wikipedia pages. If one is to be displayed, they should all be displayed, I can give countless examples of this. This information WAS removed with validity. I would argue that point as strongly as I can possibly muster. AlfieLavender (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Please take your argument to Talk:Southampton F.C. Favonian (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)