User talk:Footballistically

Importance ratings
Hello, welcome, and thanks for updating footballers' importance ratings. But perhaps you might want another look at the assessment criteria? You rated both Oleh Luzhnyi and Igors Stepanovs as low, when they have 60 and 100 international caps respectively, which is stonewall Mid importance for the football project. Keep up the good work, but maybe slow down a bit... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What you can do, if you think the player's overall assessment should be different from his importance to Arsenal, is put "importance=Mid" (say) but instead of just "Arsenal=yes", put "Arsenal=Low", which puts the article into the Category:Low-importance Arsenal F.C. articles but keeps it in the Category:Mid-importance football articles. Like I just did with Igors Stepanovs. hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Welcome to Wikipedia :) Thank you for your feedback! For help with getting started, please try Help desk and the help pages and Sandbox for editing tests.

 Great user  ( T •  C ) 06:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Edits
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Arsène Wenger. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Limefrost Spiral (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

March 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Arsène Wenger. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Your recent editing history at Arsène Wenger shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ''DO NOT REVERT ON THIS PAGE AGAIN. You are already in violation several times of the WP:3RR. If you revert again, you WILL be reported and blocked. You DO NOT own the article, you HAVE to use the talk page for consensus. '' Fbifriday (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon
Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

File:United Review cover October 1990.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:United Review cover October 1990.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2015 FA Cup Final programme.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:2015 FA Cup Final programme.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)