User talk:HSV1887

January 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Diego Costa, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Pep Guardiola, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
 * If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
 * If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
 * If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ansu Fati
Hi, what does ref 1 represent? I'm not a Spanish speaker I'm afraid. Kosack (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * renunciando a su nacionalidad anterior means "renouncing his previous nationality". Also look at Spanish nationality law. --HSV1887 (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well typically we avoid listing a definite in the opening sentence if the player's nationality could be considered ambigious, i.e. Born in X, plays for Y, and simply state the facts. There should definitely be no mention of descent in the lead either unless relevant to the subject's notablility, which it's not in this case. Kosack (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Your recent editing history at Carles Pérez shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Knock it off
Leaving this message on both of y'all's talk pages, and pinging just to be extra sure you both get the message:

Sort the issue out on the relevant articles' talk pages by citing professionally published mainstream sources. Stop saying "vandalism," neither of you is using that term correctly. Remember that both of you are trying you help, even if you disagree on how that should look. This is not some game where you can win by getting more points, so stop taking that approach.

Your statement You are German, I am Spanish. You do not know the rule of Spain. is the sort of bigotry we don't allow here. If anyone cites sources about a Spanish team and a Spaniard doesn't cite sources, then the person who cites sources is right as far as we're concerned. If I continue to see any bigoted comments, ( or future accusations of bigotry without evidence), someone might get blocked for violating our civility policies.

You clearly know how to use talk pages, and yet I'm seeing no talk page discussion from you for the past month. Be a good example to a newer user. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You really need to stop labeling everything you disagree with as "vandalism." Vandalism has a very specific meaning here. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you protect this articels? To delete valid information and sources without a comment is vandalism. --HSV1887 (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NOTVAND at least ten times before using the word "vandalism" again. You deleted sourced information here with a useless comment.  I'm not saying the information is right or wrong, I'm just saying that you clearly do not know what the word "vandalism" means in the context of Wikipedia and need to stop accusing good-faith users of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He did it again . --HSV1887 (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And you still haven't engaged in ANY talk page discussions! Instead, you just blindly continued the edit war.  If the other user had made their last revert while blocked, WP:BE would apply but no, that's not the case here.
 * Honestly, what I should say is "if I see you reverting them again anywhere without starting a talk page discussion to examine the sources, I'm going to block you for edit warring." I have to get ready for work, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * if I see you reverting them again anywhere without starting a talk page discussion to examine the sources, I'm going to block you for edit warring. That's exactly what is going to happen, just in case the warnings below aren't clear enough to any of the participants of this ridiculous edit war. ST47 (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Template:FC Barcelona squad; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. ST47 (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at FC Barcelona. Stop edit warring, seek consensus, final warning. ST47 (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? What shall I do? I explaint him on his talk, but no reaction. He reverted again. Now I am the vandal? Funny, very funny. Please protect the articels. --HSV1887 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I am not serious? You violated WP:3RR here on 27 September and also here and also here. You need to develop consensus for your edits, through dispute resolution if needed. I'm not surprised that you want me to protect the "WP:RIGHTVERSION" for you, but that would prevent other good-faith editors from working on those articles. WP:DR is very clear, please read it carefully. If you continue to revert war over this dispute under any circumstances, you will be blocked. ST47 (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is ridiculous. He's deleting parts of the squad. But hey, does not matter for me anymore. Let him delete it. I do not care anymore. --HSV1887 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already mentioned repeatedly how to fix this. I'm going to put it in bold and all-caps so you don't miss it this time: START A TALK PAGE DISCUSSION THAT REVIEWS THE CITED SOURCES.  Then when other users remove information based on those sources, ping them to that discussion.  In this case, you removed info that cited the team's on website!  Instead of calling it vandalism, you should have examined the sources cited in that edit and STARTED A TALK PAGE DISCUSSION about whether or not that those sources support the information added.
 * If you can't cooperate with other players on your team and focus on scoring points against your own team, then there's no point in having you on the team -- that's the situation here. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

He did it again without discussion just after his ban. --HSV1887 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... Oh, what's this? It's a talk page!  WHICH YOU STILL HAVEN'T USED! Ian.thomson (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So it's my obligation and he can do whatever he wants?! I already startet one on his talk, but he blanked his page. It's troll-protection as always. Bye. --HSV1887 (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You started off your discussion with an accusation of vandalism, a failure to assume good faith. He responded by citing a source.
 * Start a talk page discussion where you review the sources cited (including the ones he's cited) or go find a different game to play. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)