User talk:Qed237/Archive 1

Welcome
 Hello Qed237, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Qed237, good luck, and have fun. – Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks – Qed237 (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hi, on the page of Uefa Coefficients I made a few errors, the first one because I didn't know the rule about equal points, the second one because I misinterpreted above rule. But now I do have a question: Why does the source say that Turkey is behind Greece? They have equal points in total AND in season 2013-2014, but Turkey has more points in the previous season. Before I change anything, I want to discuss this with you, to see what your opinion is. Greetings KevinBobby (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. No problem with the errors it happens to everyone, I'm glad that you read my warning and I consider removing them now that you seem to understand. Just make sure to look at the source when editing, because unsourced edits are not good. About your question I have asked myself the same question a couple of times and I am not sure why. My guess is that when two teams have the same coefficient both totally and in latest season (2013-2014), they are ranked alphabetically (G before T). My opinion is to leave Turkey in 12th and Grecce in 11th since this table is totally based on the source. When the source change we change the table. It is good to only change table according to this source or else it will be "messy" when people make small changes during "game-nights" and it is hard to know what matches different countries gets points for and the reader dont know what games has been included. Also the text above table clearly states when the table was made and that it is based on a source, so the whole table should change at one time when the source change. Qed237 (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Point taken. I'm a idiot that almost always overlooked the edit summary... Will pay more heed in the future. FootballStatWhore (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying to change! It's not the most important thing but it is good when fast changes happen like now with live matches. Qed237 (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi
In case you didn't notice, his was all over the place. He used www for some, int for some, uk for some, ca for some. It is all over the place. He also got the dates wrong. Now that you have changed all to www, it is all good. Anyway, it does not matter what you use. I don't stay in the uk, but I could still view it whether I use uk or ca or whatever. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for letting me know. It does not matter that much to me to but I think it should be the same everywhere and www gets people to their "local" page so it is probably the best. Qed237 (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please create an account. So much easier to contact you. Probably you dont know about all your warnings? Qed237 (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2014/draws/index.html lists the draw order. http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2014/matches/round=2000467/index.html is ordered based on time, not match number order. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It was based on order before they added the the time. Just look at the matchnumbers on the matchreports! You are the only one wanting your order and I will have to report you if you keep edit war.Qed237 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Where do they put the match number? I don't see it.108.162.157.141 (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The number is in the matchlink. When you hold the mouse over "matchreport" you will see the link name (bottom left for me in chrome). At first you see the round number and then the matchnumbers. All matches are in order. Odessa has 2012356, Srijoki 2012357 and so on. If you press on the reports it is on top in your browser where you put the link. Qed237 (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The draw decides the match order.108.162.157.141 (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, since you are now reverting against two people (me and chanheigeorge) I will put you up for a ban. The page will probably be protected due to edit warring. Qed237 (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edits are under discussion at WP:AN/I
‎108.162.157.141 has placed a comment regarding your edits at WP:AN/I but omitted to inform you of it. Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tonywalton Talk 23:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: How to make "long line"
When you edit a page, at the bottom of the "edit box" (just above "Watch this page"), there should be a selection box. Choose the first choice "Insert", and on the right, there are a few symbols. The first one is "–" (ndash), which is the symbol we use for the score. (Note that there are two other similar symbols, the second one is "—" (mdash), and another one is "−" (minus sign) and they are different symbols and should not be confused.) Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Chanheigeorge! I tested it in my sandbox and I found it. QED 237   (talk)  09:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League 2013–14
Which edit did you mean? --85.165.30.248 (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I inserted the match results when the games had exactly ended. Stop accusing others. --85.165.30.248 (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I followed UEFA live score and Apoel-Maribor had not ended. QED 237   (talk)  19:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

UEFA coefficients
Why can not I do to make changes based on their calculations, in Russia it is able to each first grader. Please, go to sleep, but better - tell me the site with information about ratings. Where are you from? I can count. Can I tomorrow doing changes, based in my counts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dima123loko (talk • contribs) 20:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please sign your comment by using the four tildes.


 * You wrote "Why Ι cannot to make changes based on my calculations, in Russia it is able to each first grader. Please, go to sleep, but better - tell me the site with information about ratings. Where are you from?"


 * You cant make changes on your calculations because it is based on a source clearly stated above the table. It says "As of 30 July 2013 the coefficients are as follows" and then the source number 14. It is the table in http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method4/crank2014.html. This is where we take our information from, since UEFA not yet started their update for this year.


 * I sleep whenever I want, and where I am from is none of your business.


 * Do not make unsourced edits, look here WP:UNSOURCED it clearly states "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed".  QED 237   (talk)  20:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I still update the page, referring to my calculations today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dima123loko (talk • contribs) 12:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The page has already been updated by someone else when the source updated last night. If there is a difference between article and source you can update. Wikipedia relies on sources and not own calculations. And please sign your comments. QED 237   (talk)  12:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Take a look at this diff from last night how the ranking was updated by another user, and the accessdate updated at the same time (after source change).  QED 237   (talk)  12:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I say, can I make changes today, on the basis of calculations in the sense you can not delete them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dima123loko (talk • contribs) 20:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Блядь, I'm asking you, сука, you're going to change my edits without power today or not. The words written in Russian, put a translator into English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dima123loko (talk • contribs) 20:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said earlier, WHEN SOURCE UPDATE WE UPDATE. I do not like unsourced edits, how do I know they are correct? There has been problem when a lot of users go in and update, when their team win. For example if Rubin Kazan wins a game, then you give them 0.2 points extra, then there is an other user coming doing the same thing and we have ten users doing this to diffferent teams. There has been a lot of errors. Wikipedia is based on source so that is what we should use. When the source update tonight then you can edit. If you do it before I WILL DELETE UNSOURCED EDITS. AND PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS ON TALKPAGES. QED 237   (talk)  12:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the description of the problem. But you can solve it in a way - to delete all changes except those in which the labeled when they are done (example: 01.08.13 13:57 CET), and the user will see when done recently сhange. And I must write that the games played before this time will not be accepted, and then write all night according to the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dima123loko (talk • contribs) 12:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well that is one solution, but it will still be hard for the reader to know which games has been included or not, and it is not a good solution according to WP:UNSOURCED. We should use source. And when source change it takes about 5 minutes to change the page so it goes very fast. QED 237   (talk)  13:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you, please, did not remove changes today, despite the absence of a source. With that, it's hard - I agree. You still come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dima123loko (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * SIGN YOUR POSTS QED 237   (talk)  13:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And no I WILL NOT ALLOW UNSOURCED EDITS. I have no problem reporting you for a block or put page up for protection if needed. Why should I let you do unsourced edits? QED 237   (talk)  13:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Because I know how to count, and, moreover, considered to be "package" all the games at once, all of which will begin before 19.30 GMT

Please allow JUST ME the names I make changes on the basis of calculations, please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dima123loko (talk • contribs) 13:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I cant believe I am actually considering this. Can you give me a good reason why? QED 237   (talk)  13:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it so that Russia has played their games and get their points or what? QED 237   (talk)  13:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Better when the coefficient table is updated as soon as possible, after all matches in wikipedia show "in progress", why can not the table. Where are you from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dima123loko (talk • contribs) 13:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dima123loko (talk • contribs) 13:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaving soon, so let me please update the table in the evening — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dima123loko (talk • contribs) 13:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well i cant agree that it is etter to update as soon as possible. According to the match updates, that is an exception to WP:livescores and is a boarderline to what is acceptable. In general wikipedia do not support live updates and "Wikipedia is not Wikinews, nor is it a sports ticker tape. The current consensus is to not add visible match or frame scores to an article until the match is completed. Wikipedia should only record the results of the match, and is not a live scoring service as Wikipedia is not the place for news reports". The match in progress is a debated exception.


 * All the edits should be sourced, so we have to wait for source to change.


 * Dont see that my personallife is relevant, but I live in western part of Europe (GMT+2). QED 237   (talk)  13:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If you promise to make it clear that it involves games started 1900 CET and earlier i can look the other way today. But only today! AND PLEASE SIGN YOUR POST (look at your talkpage for help). QED 237   (talk)  13:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

After the match scores can be added, as I understand it? And from what country are you from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dima123loko (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I promise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dima123loko (talk • contribs) 14:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Today all matches "in progress" will be edited again the next day, because their entire 29 today — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dima123loko (talk • contribs) 14:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Why cant you sign your post? I believe you can be blocked for not doing that. QED 237   (talk)  14:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Good bye --Dima123loko (talk) 14:11, 01 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edit tonight, becuase you destroyed the table. You must fix the sizes of columns when you move countries around in the table. I you look at the diffs from your changes you see it dont look like a table anymore (Cyprys was out to the right and in the bottom the numbers on the rightwhere all wrongly placed). You need to use the "show preview"-button so you see how it looks like before saving your edit. And also you did not follow our agreement and obviously state when the update was made, and instead you made the several small updates. Next time I will put you up for a block imediately. QED 237   (talk)  20:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Adam Davies (footballer) (born 1992), English footballer[edit source] H
Hi Qed237! I would suggest proposing the article for deletion. Best. Way 2 veers 13:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

FC Barcelona 2013-14 Edits
Hi QED,

You re-edited my removal of Bojan Krkic from the 2013-14 FC Barcelona transfer page - I take your point that he should be on both lists as he returned and was then re-loaned, but both of these cost $0. The $13 million dollar figure you're linking to is actually from 2011-12 so I've edited the costs now but kept him on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.68.178 (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But he cost 13 million for barca to get back from Milan according to the source "The Italian outfit will pay 12 million for the player and the agreement includes an obligatory repurchase clause to be exercised by FC Barcelona at the end of the 2012/13 season, for a cost of 13 million." He was not free. QED 237   (talk)  15:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Translation of city names
Why is it that some city names are translated in the English football articles and some aren't? For example you suggest to use the original name Wien instead of the English translation Vienna, whereas Warszawa is translated into Warsaw.

What exactly determines if a city name should be translated into its English name or not and why aren't you just using a consistent system for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.128.81.76 (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't given much thought to it, I just use what UEFA says. Maybe I could think about it later, dont have time now. QED 237   (talk)  18:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I put the link, but it doesn't work. :(
I put the link, but it doesn't work. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djokovic666 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Take a look at WP:CITEFOOT. QED 237   (talk)  09:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC FC Linköping City was accepted
 FC Linköping City, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! 『Woona』 Dear Celestia...   17:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

FC Linköping City logo
bsd Done. Indeed, you were right. At the moment, the logo on the Facebook profile seems to be the best available. As for the legality, at least in the US, it's allowed under "fair usage" terms. You can see the "fair-use rationale" here: File:FC Linköping City logo.jpg.

On a side note, the article may be eligible for merger with the old team article.

regards --Ben Stone 22:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! QED 237   (talk)  22:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. If you happen to come across a better version, just let me know. --Ben Stone 01:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

2013-14 FA Cup Qualifying Rounds
Can you please tell me how changing an incorrect result to the actual result (Darlington Railway Athletic v Newton Aycliffe) constitutes "vandalism"? Mistersecretsquirrel (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you did not provide any source and then I follow the official source from FA here. FA says the score is 4–2 so that is official results as for now. QED 237   (talk)  23:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If only the "official" source is being used, then so be it but I can categorically tell you the score on the FA web site is wrong and the correct result was the one I included in my edit. (another source: ) Mistersecretsquirrel (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
JMHamo (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
I will take this to WT:FOOTY to get consensus before you break 3RR. JMHamo (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I never intend to edit war or break 3RR. But the thing is that the template is "position by round" and the round ended today (monday) and not saturday. I can agree that it is easiest to put the place when match ended, espiecially when round is not completed and games are postponed, but that is not how i interpret the template. Then it should be "position by match" and not "position by round". QED 237   (talk)  22:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please reach consensus before you make changes. There is no "round" system really. The "round" for a club ends when all league matches have been played on a particular day. In the case of Fulham they were 3rd after their game ended against Sunderland and then when Man Utd beat Swansea then dropped to 4th. The matches that happen on Sunday, Monday or midweek don't impact this. Some clubs may not play a league game for a few weeks due to Europe and FA Cup games, so how do "rounds" work here? It is really "position after end of days games" JMHamo (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The rounds are easy to understand. It starts with the games on Saturday and ends on Monday when all teams have played their games. What is so hard to understand? That is how it work in every other country. Otherwise it should not be called "position by round" it should be "position by matchday" or something. Do you really not understand? QED 237   (talk)  22:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And it rarely happens that teams dont play when games are postponed but then they will catch up later QED 237   (talk)  22:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is one example of the round-system . QED 237   (talk)  22:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And one more here  QED 237   (talk)  22:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will take this to WT:FOOTY.. You are assuming that all teams would have played by Monday which is not always the case. JMHamo (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, you do that. I will reply when I can but I dont think I can post anymore tonight. QED 237   (talk)  23:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * - 4th here...
 * Yes, but it doesn't say "position by ROUND" so they could mean "position by matchday" or something. QED 237   (talk)  23:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you consider is a round, plus all content on WP should have a reliable source, so it's not WP:OR... JMHamo (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A round is a time period with matches so that all teams (if possible) plays one match. QED 237   (talk)  23:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That is WP:POV... you need a Reliable Source JMHamo (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Original Research
Hello mate, your comment on my talk page was less than helpful. I have reported that IP and he will be blocked soon. I like the other work you do on the football articles and think you are a good editor, but please stick with the policies set out. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How can you be so sure that he gets blocked? To me it is more an edit dispute and no vandalism. I try do my best when doing my edits, and I have left the position by round everywhere since it gets reverted everywhere. Have you missed this edit? QED 237   (talk)  16:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather than work against me, could you please help me update the Season articles? JMHamo (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I try and discuss the problem, but I got tired of being reverted so I left the editing part, and I like the Starting XI. When I have the time in the future, maybe I can help you. QED 237   (talk)  21:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will admit I got caught in the moment and was guilty of breaking 3RR, but if you want to become a better editor you should read more about the policies - just because you like something is not a reason for it to exist on Wikipedia. JMHamo (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I should remove the starting XI, but at the moment i dont touch them. But what should we do about "position by round". Maybe use the source that came up with ANI form the premier league cite? QED 237   (talk)  21:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"Position by Round" is still in discussion. Keep watching JMHamo (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ohh, I am watching with exitment. But I must say that in my opinion the Premier league source is the best one so far. It is a source from the league itself. QED 237   (talk)  21:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Continued discussion from closed ANI
FYI.. Struway2 has re-opened the discussion here, because for some unknown reason, the ANI discussion was closed without warning. JMHamo (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information! QED 237   (talk)  11:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: 2013-14 Arsenal F.C. season
Hello, I'm @Blckbrr7. Good day to you, sir. I'm aware that you've brought to my attention that my edit on the 2013-14 Arsenal F.C. season was removed due to the circumstances of the edit coming from a probable biased point of view. Albeit an avid Arsenal fan myself, I would like to address that the edits that I had made on the page was coming from a complete unbiased point of view.

1. I stated the fact that Arsenal became the first ever London club to win 100 London derbies in the Premier League. Merely stating a fact. It's a milestone of the Club, which I suppose should have been mentioned in the page.

2. I added info on the Aston Villa match, in which I had stated that the referee wrongfully given 2 penalty kicks to the visitors, and that again was a valid point. I briefly did a search on Google and this article came up. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23644714 I did not even mention that the visitors threw up all sort of bad tackles and challenges as I was afraid that might come up as biased point of view.

Hope this clears things up. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blckbrr7 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Both your edits were totally unsourced and the second totally biased (I am also Arsenal fan). I understand the first point with the derby wins, but if it is true you need to provide a source for that. For the second point it was totally biased since you said "wrongfully awarded ", "carry out a perfect last man tackle", "sent off on a routine tackle", but you never said anything about whos opinion that is. Who say it is wrongfully awarded? and so on. The source in text say nothing about that, and if it something Wenger said then you need to say so in the text and provide source. QED 237   (talk)  10:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The usage of words like "wrongfully" is not that good. People start asking "who said it was wrong". I have heard expert opinions that siad that the first penalty actually was correct. QED 237   (talk)  10:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I obtained the stat from OptaJoe, which is the official stat provider for the Premier League. I admit that it was my mistake in using 'wrongfully' in my previous edit. I assure that I will be using neutral adjectives from now onwards in my next edit. Anyway, I didn't know I had to cite source. Mind if I ask on how to cite them? Wiki newb here. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blckbrr7 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

P/S: I fail to see how the first penalty was correct because the advantage rule has been applied. And, yes it was a mistimed challenge by Szczesny and had the advantage rule not been applied, penalty kick should have been given. Some expert opinions seem to agree with me too. So how do we go about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blckbrr7 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * For referencing the best is too look and maybe copy an old reference and edit that. Else you could read WP:REF and/or WP:REFB. QED 237   (talk)  16:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * About the penalty I see no reason to change what is said at the moment. It is totally correct and WP:NPOV. Is there something wrong with " An early Giroud goal was expected to give the Gunners momentum but a penalty-rebound and a penalty (awarded in controversial circumstances) scored by Benteke and a late counter-attacking goal against the 10 men of Arsenal (following Koscielny's double yellow card) sealed the victory for the visitors."? QED 237   (talk)  16:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jallouljalloul (talk • contribs) 21:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

UEFA Coefficient
Hi, thanks for the message, but it was merely an accident as I've quite experienced in editing the coefficients. You see, that mistake of decreasing the number of teams was done by Jallouljalloul, the previous user, which I didn't notice. As I started editing the page before you started correcting him, I accidentely did an override on your first edit, making it appear that it was a change from me. Don't worry, I know how UEFA playoffs work but I'll be sure to watch for mistakes like this tomorrow. Secretaria (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Erik Lamela
Source provided. Doesn't help you undoing my edits as I'm halfway through providing a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratboy366 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not the only only reverting your changes more experienced editors do. Until it is official by Tottenham he is a ROMA PLAYER. He has not even past medical yet or agreed on a personal contract. Keep editing and you might be blocked by someone. QED 237   (talk)  18:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season
You are as guilty of edit warring at 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season as anyone. This is not an exception to 3RR. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize that it is not to good to do what i did, I am sorry about that. But I must be able to remove vandalism. The user has been reported for vandalism by another user. QED 237   (talk)  20:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The edits are not vandalism. Someone reported it as vandalism, but it was a content dispute.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, but i does not change the fact that there has been consensus reached in WT:FOOTY to remove these assist-tables. QED 237   (talk)  20:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to understand that more want the assist table than don't want it mate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.202.106 (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So that is why 5 different user has removed it and a consensus has been reached at WT:FOOTY amongst experienced editors at wikipedia. Assist table dont belong there, thats it! QED 237   (talk)  21:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And it is not about who "wants it". The question is if it follows Wikipedia guidelines, and after discussion it is decided that these tables dont since assist is highly subjective and there are no reliable source. QED 237   (talk)  21:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no more reliable source than the Premier League website. Anyway, the article is now protected which is a shame considering the page was doing just fine until users started deleting sections of it. Thankfully Liverpool don't play until Sunday when the protection is lifted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.202.106 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And it got protected without the table. QED 237  (talk)  21:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're being honest, the article could have been protected with or without the table with the amount of edit warring going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.202.106 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is true but the fact is that it should not be included. QED 237   (talk)  21:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to spend more time building consensus. It doesn't appear to be well established. And to your comment above, it got protected in its current state without regard for what that state was. That's generally how it's done. If the protecting admin reverts then protects, the admin is then involved and protecting would be inappropriate. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes i can understand that. I will look around trying to build an even stronger case but this is happening on other pages as well where I am not involved. Assist tables are removed on a lot of pages. QED 237   (talk)  23:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to 2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Now I am getting mad! Should i start putting these templates on you? People do this edits everywhere, and it is not unconstructive when there is a dispute. And who the hell tells you it is okay for you to make edits and not me? You have a lot of work to revert all edits my friend. QED 237   (talk)  09:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a source source, which you are ignoring. You need to read more about Wikipedia policies before editing. JMHamo (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And you need to find a source relevant to the section. That source do not say anything about position by round! QED 237   (talk)  09:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have had enough of this, please respect the source given. If you don't like the section heading, you are free to change it to whatever you like as I said previously. JMHamo (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will keep this discussion going since it is a discussion on many talkpages (maybe you missed it) and a lot of users make this edits. What happened about taking it to WT:FOOTY? Dont think you will "win"? QED 237   (talk)  09:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How about calling it "Position by JMHamo" since you are the only one removing the changes from, so far, 6 users? QED 237   (talk)  09:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I provide a WP:RS!!! Just because "a lot of users do it" does not make it right. JMHamo (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But they do it for a reason, and that is the name "POSITION BY ROUND". QED 237   (talk)  09:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I sugest reading this and this. QED 237   (talk)  09:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

How many times... change the section header if you dont like it. If you don't provide a source then it's WP:OR. There is not much else to say.
 * It even says here The Premier League doesn't have "rounds".. which is what I have been saying from the start. JMHamo (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It also says "I thought we had this discussion and the majority of us were in agreement as to what belong in league season article. PBR, personnel/sponsorship table, and any unreferenced unnecessary stats were a no-no." here so I am all for removing it on all of the articles. QED 237   (talk)  10:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But it is referenced! You keep missing that point. I will admit that I have not done all club season articles yet and for the English premiership clubs the section should be changed to "Results by game", but I will get around to . Please help me if you like. JMHamo (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A final suggestion. Why not do like the did here if you scroll down a bit. It is a article classified as "good article". In this table they just removed the positions, since the main purpose is to show the teams development, which best is shown with, win-draw-loss colors. QED 237   (talk)  10:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing it completely will need consensus, it is not something we can decide ourselves. It will cause more headache that it's worth. As the Premier League has no "Rounds" it is better to change the section heading and add a source, as I have done for a few clubs already. Once you can back-up your change with a source, then there is no issue. I feel like I am repeating myself, over and over :) JMHamo (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on this i will go around and change heading later on if you haven't done that yet. But i dont have time now because I have work to do and I doont like an angry boss. QED 237   (talk)  10:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for that link - I wish we had that sooner, it says everything I was trying to say here. LOL. Don't forget to add the Statto.com link for the source as I have done for Chelsea season article for example, which backs up your change to the section heading. I purpose "League position after match" for the new heading (to match the Statto source). I agree that only applies to the English league. Some other country leagues do seem to have a "Round" system, so this is just for English. Enjoy work :). JMHamo (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What to do about this someone just edited? The table states that it is updated after whole round. It is different on every page. QED 237   (talk)  14:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just updated it. That should be OK now. JMHamo (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=570778770 your edit] to 2013–14 Manchester City F.C. season may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

2013 European Trophy
Hello! I see no reason why the standings in the article should not be sortable. Could you explain? Thanks in advance, Hey  mid  (contribs) 13:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A table with pure statistics, like top assist, top goalsscorers etc is something I feel like is something to make sortable. But the standings are what they are. It is a table where the teams should be in the correct given order according to points and the goal-differential. I have never seen a standings-table where you can sort and change the order of teams. Maybe I am not to good to explain but I hope you understand my thinking. Fell free to let me know otherwise and I will try and explain better. QED 237   (talk)  15:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A couple of examples are 2012–13 NHL season, 2012–13 Elitserien season, and European Trophy articles from previous years. There's nothing wrong in making sortable standings; it's obvious that the points determine the team order (in the first place). I consider sorting to be useful because it allows you to see, among other things, how good a certain team's plus-minus is compared to other teams, as well as goals forward and goals against. It allows you to see how the team stands in case their ranking is determined by any of the tie-breaking criteria. While I see your point with your reasoning, I do not think it would harm the article in any way if we made the standings sortable. Hey  mid  (contribs) 16:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * For larger tables I can agree with you that it might be good to be able to sort them, at least for plus-minus. But it this case I feel like you can see it as a reader without sorting the table since it is so small. And as I said above the standings are the standings and it feel like it shoud not be reordered. If you want it to be sortable, then there are two things i think need to be fixed that is a problem.
 * When making the standings sortable, the v-t-e buttons in the template are disabled so there are no way to access the template when watching the page, which makes it a lot harder to access the table when making edits.
 * There are no way to get the table back to the correct order. If the reader sorts on points, then the order might still be wrong based on the plus-minus. So we need to add a position column if we make the table sortable.
 * If those things are fixed. I might consider making the tables sortable (partly becuase you asked nicely unlike some other editors and not started "battling" on the page), even though I am personally against sortable standings. QED 237   (talk)  18:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You do indeed raise valid points. However, if you use the sort template, you can make the team orders return to normal when sorting by points. But it's not worth doing that. I won't be disappointed if the standings are left unsortable. Cheers, Hey  mid  (contribs) 20:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round
Hi

I follow the live score on FIFA.com and Soccerway. I wait until matches have ended before adding the results.--Muj745 (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

2014 world cup qualifying uefa group I
you reverted my edit to show a color classification that does not exist on the group I page, what is it you wish the reader to understand?18abruce (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, sorry for the trouble, thanks for fixing it.18abruce (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season
Which admin said there was "narrow consensus", and where? GiantSnowman 08:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mufka on his talkpage, when I asked him why he protected the page so fast, and I dont think it was edit warring. QED 237   (talk)  08:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkpage answer
Why do you answer instead of User:Chanheigeorge. Do not interfere in what does not concern you, OK.--85.165.42.67 (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I anwered because it was an obvious answer to a not very bright question. It is about an article I am interested in so why not answer? You cant tell me what to do or dont do and you definately have no right to remove my comments. QED 237   (talk)  14:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for what I've done. Thank you for your interest. --85.165.42.67 (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Apology accepted. QED 237   (talk)  14:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

86.144.95.135
I have reverted and issued a final warning - if he restores the unsourced material please let me know and I will block. Normally you would revert, warn, and report to AIV if he continued - and as ever, please bear in mind WP:3RR (as well as WP:3RRNO. GiantSnowman 11:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I always think about WP:3RR but in this case it almost feels like I have to break WP:3RR to remove this vandalism. Almost worth getting blocked just to make wikipedia "clean" from vandalism. I dont think removing vandalism after trying to discuss with them is something you should be blocked for, but it is as it is so I try and watch out for it. QED 237   (talk)  11:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have looked at WP:3RRNO and I ask if this is a case were 4. or 7. is reason for breaking WP:3RR. It is kind of vandalism continuing after our discussion (maybe a bit strong to call it vandalism). But he is adding unsourced info to a living person. QED 237   (talk)  11:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

STOP
DI maria assisted one in yesterday's game... 2+1 assist=3 simple maths. stop reverting!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.233.210 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * He may have assisted today but the source has not yet updated on that. The tables are based on a WP:RS and your edits are unsourced which gives me right to remove them. Please stop making unsourced edits! QED 237   (talk)  22:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah? Which source are you talking about. Espn website clearly has already said di maria has 3 assists. Why have you put ronaldo as 6 goals then. what are you sourcing?!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.233.210 (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The official source from UEFA here that is linked on the bottom of the table. QED 237   (talk)  22:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And I am working on removing that to, but now I ended up in this discussion instead of doing what I was supposed to do. QED 237   (talk)  22:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The New Editor's Barnstar

 * Thank you. I will copy it and put on my userpage. QED 237   (talk)  01:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for adding your opinions to the admins noticeboard. Kinda creeped out by the whole thing so it's good to know there are people who see the same thing I see on here. Spc 21 (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well to be honest I have not seen all of the "dispute" you guys have been having, so I am not so sure that you are "clean" either. Just because JMHamo is a bit aggressive, does not mean you have not done anything wrong (I dont know since I havent read everything). I suggest that the both of you drop this and move on. QED 237   (talk)  09:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Re:Edit warring on 2013–14 UEFA Europa League group stage
Hi.

I understand it now, thank you for the clarification.--Muj745 (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. I think maybe I should have made the explanation earlier instead of all the reverting. QED 237   (talk)  11:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was better to explain before reverting edits. I am also glad because I frankly do not like getting into conflicts with other users.--Muj745 (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

comment
for comment you made it on talk page of user User:JMHamo for deletion of my article Thomas Strakosha... I said "I've created once again and not including one full match for National Football team but only Under-21, 19 & 17 and once again they deleted
 * he has played a match for national team but has not sources or news for that match.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk • contribs) 14:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes and in that case he should not have any article. We cant have articles that we cant prove is notable. We need proof that he is notable to have the article. QED 237   (talk)  15:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

but why not, I've seen many of non-professionall footballers that already have it a article on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * All of the players on wikipedia must have played in a fully professional football league or national team, and it must be backed up with source or else that player fails notability and should be removed. I doubt there are many players that is not notable on wikipedia. If there are it is probably because some experienced editor has not noticed those players yet. Do you have any examples of non-proffesional footballers with an article? QED 237   (talk)  20:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think I've seen some of those kind of players, but he's a third-choise goalkeeper for a big football-team like Lazio so for that I've created article in name of him, also he's my compatriot cause i'm albanian too and I've want it for my entire compatriots to see him biography on a great page like Wikipedia. I'm sure that he invited once with our national team Albania and also he has played but fuck this sh*t I can't find a single news on web for that fact..... (maybe my english is some bad, sorry for that hope you understand what I mean on this, thank you)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, I will put this on my user page!. QED 237   (talk)  09:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)