User talk:Fma12/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

10 ≤ - Go to archive: - ≥ 12

American gasoline station brands/companies

¡Hola! Greetings. I have noticed that you have recently made many edits to Wikipedia articles concerning gasoline station brands (i.e., Amoco, Texaco, 76 (gas station), Conoco, etc.) that are currently used in the United States which have the same name as former American oil companies but are now owned by a different company as a BRAND and not as a subsidiary.

A subsidiary is a legal entity while a brand is not. A brand is just a trademark.

I am slowly in the process of trying to untangle the mess left by previous editors who confuse the to terms. As an example, in the United States, Texaco is a brand of the Chevron Corporation. Texaco, Inc. does not exist anymore. Any (new) service station owner located in the marketing territory serviced by the Chevron Corporation can choice either Texaco or the Chevron brands for his/her station, but that station would be supplied from the same Chevron Corp. distributor regardless of which brand chosen. The Phillips 66 Company does the same for the 76 (gas station), Conoco (brand), and Phillips 66 (brand), so it is not uncommon to have a Conoco branded station across the street from a Phillips 66 station in some cities within the United States. BP does the same for the Amoco (brand) in the United States.

Ideally, it would best if we can have separate articles that can separate currently used gasoline station brands from their now defunct parent companies. However, I am trying to make separate sections that could be easily separate out as new articles when enough cited material could be gathered about the current brands. This is why you might see TWO Infoboxes in the article, one for the defunct company {{Infobox company}} and one for the brand {{Infobox brand}}

One example in which a brand was separated out from its defunct parent oil company is Unocal Corporation which started the 76 (gas station) brand.

The Texaco and ARCO articles are currently confusing because previous editors make it appear the Texaco, Inc., and the Atlantic Richfield Company still exists as subsidiaries.

• 76 (gas station) was founded by Unocal Corporation but brand now owned by Phillips 66 Company
• ARCO (brand) was founded by Atlantic Richfield Company but brand now owned by Marathon Petroleum
• Amoco (brand) was founded by Amoco Corporation but brand now owned by BP
• Conoco (brand) was founded by Conoco, Inc. but brand now owned by Phillips 66 Company
• Texaco (brand) was founded by Texaco, Inc. but brand now owned by Chevron Corporation

Since both of are editing the same articles, I would like to reach a consensus with you so that we don't step on each other toes by constantly rewriting each other's work. Your edits broke some of the {{R to section}} links for the brand redirects and removed the

Your suggestions on how best to separate out brands would be greatly appreciated since other editors will keep adding information about the current brand which has no business being in the same section as information about the defunct company. -- 96.64.134.61 (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi ! user:96.64.134.61 thanks for contacting me. Of course you know much more about oil American companies than me. In fact, my contributions were mainly focused on adding/ordering images and other elements on each article, rather than determining if Texaco is a company or a brand because I don't know it (moreover, Texaco does not operate in my country so I'm far from being familiarised with it despite I know the brand). I must confess you that it took a time until I got familiar about the relation between the 76 brand, Phillips66 (company) and other associated entities so it was a bit confussing if you dont' have enough information or (just like my case) don't live in the US.

The idea of separating articles to avoid confusions between "brand" and "company" is good, but I don't know if a separate article will be deleted by an admin which consider that merging both is the only way. But you can be sure that I'll support your ideas and I don't want to collide with anyone but to join forces and make a collaborative effort to improve this project. Best wishes, Fma12 (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Looking at your one line "bio", I guessed that you might be editing things that you don't have first-hand knowledge (which has not stopped me before, like my writing about milanesa a la napolitana de pollo on the chicken parmigiana page (please correct my mistakes there since the refs are in Spanish, which I can kinda read, but I'm definitely not an expert)).

Thanking for agreeing with me that separate articles are needed to distinguish between "brand" and "company". The reason why I have not created separate articles from the start is the lack of material about the "brands" after the "companies" were acquired. This is why I TRIED to start separating "brand" from "company" in the articles. As a non-resident of the USA, you can help me by trying to separate the two "distinctions" in the same article that would allow for easy eventual separations and not be too repetitive. Looking at the articles, other (mostly American) editors appear to think what they currently see in their local neighborhood and think "brand" and start adding information about the brand to the section about the defunct company (which is wrong). So to combat that, my first thought is to move "brand" on top. However, structurally, it might be better to have "defunct company" on top since 90% of the article is about the defunct company. So my question to you, is how to best structure the lead/lede section and make it easy for the reader to "jump" to the appropriate section that the reader is most interested in. Next question, where to best place the Infobox(es) so that the reader can view the appropriate information in the appropriate spot without other (well meaning editors) start added incorrect information for the respective Infobox.

I think an article about a "brand" could withstand deletion if it is possible to have a minimum of three paragraphs with a minimum of five citations. The only candidate that we might be able to immediately split is ARCO since the brand has changed hand several times before it was acquired by its current owner. Need to find more information about the brand expansion under it current owner, Marathon, especially in Mexico. It might be possible that you might be able to find better search terms for ARCO stations in Mexico in Mexican publications via Google.

As for the others, Amoco, Conoco, Texaco, etc., more material is needed. Texaco would be very complicated since I have very little information about the Texaco station brand outside of the United States since the acquisition by Chevron. The Texaco article says that "The Texaco brand is strong in the U.S., Latin America and West Africa." Using google, I can't find anything about Texaco in either Latin America and West Africa. In Europe, the Texaco brand seems to be alive in the UK, Belgium, and the Netherlands. I have yet to check other places in Europe. It appears that Texas-branded motor oil was sold in Argentina. Not sure if this is still current.

I believe in collaborations since the sum is always greater than the parts. -- 96.64.134.61 (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

First of all: You're right, I have been editing articles related with topics I'm not fully familiarised (at first) but that fact haven't stopped me, otherwise, it allowed me to learn while editing, which I consider a goal. If you have tried "milanesa a la napolitana", you know that it's a "point of no return", in fact this is one of the most popular foods in Argentina (brought by the numerous Italian immigrants that arrived here n the XIX century). I'll take a look at that article then, I promise. I have been writing and editing on several topics, from association (soccer) to American football, rugby union, railway, comics, events in Argentina, and, of course, companies.

My experience as editor tells me that putting two infoboxes into the same article, one for the (former) company and other for the (current) brand, can be appropriate as long as the article is long enough to allow this. Otherwise, there will be an overlap of elements and the article would be a visual caos. I clearly know the difference between company and brand but I realise than other editors don't. For the reason given, the addition of an extra infobox is ok in the case of, pe. Bowman Gum (current candy manufacturer and current brand of Topps) or other cases of companies that became brands (a frecquent situation in tobacco companies, such as John Player & Sons). In the case of Bowman, the addition of a separate infobox is valid because the article has a long section dedicated to it as a brand so there is enough space to place the box there without interfering with other elements. But instead of adding a new infobox for "brand", I prefer to add the legend "became a brand in (year)..." or similar quotes in the "fate" paramether, like I did in several editions, to avoid those superpositions that are unsightly (for my taste, at least). I'm not particularly a fan of two infoboxes so I consider they can rarely coexist without confusing readers. It's just an opinion. That's the reason I had supressed the "brand" infobox on Conoco so I consider it has a largest run as an independent company and its time as a brand is too recent and short-lived. Let me cite you another example, Chevrolet was a company founded by Louis Chevrolet before being acquired by GM in 1917 and becoming a division of it. Nevertheless, the article has only one infobox despite Chevrolet's long-running as part of GM. If you look at the infobox, 'fate' indicates "merged to General Motors in 1917". And I think it's enough for readers.

About Texaco, the sentence "The Texaco brand is strong in the U.S., Latin America and West Africa" is not too accurate, speaking of Argentina at least, where not only there is no one Texaco station service, but you can hardly find a motor oil bottle in stores. I made a search in the main local e-commerce site with only few results (see [A:aceite%20texaco here]) so I can assure you than the brand Texaco has no presence in my country. Let me know your feedback, which will be highly appreciated. Fma12 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

New Los Angeles Rams uniforms

Hello, Fma12 (talk), I was wondering if there was a possibility that you could please update File:La rams uniforms 20.png? The Los Angeles Rams have unveiled a new white uniform design, per NFL.com & RamsNewLook.com. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Charlesaaronthompson:, sorry for the delay but my PC collapsed and I couldn't use any design software during the time it took me to acquire a new one. As things came back to normal, I'm working on it and the update will be ready a.s.a.p. Fma12 (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fma12: Is there any update on the progress of adding the Los Angeles Rams' new white uniforms to File:La rams uniforms 20.png? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fma12: How's your computer? Were you able to reinstall the design software you use to create NFL team uniform files? I was wondering if it would be possible to update File:La rams uniforms 20.png or upload a completely different uniform file altogether that has the Los Angeles Rams' new white jersey w/yellow pants? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sports equipment

Template:Sports equipment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but a friendly warning

Definitely appreciate the kudos. FYI tho, be careful with images showing packaging. They like to delete those as copyrighted material. On Wikipedia they are ok sometimes, but they come down harder on Wikipedia. Might be best to avoid them when possible for article use, never know when someone on commons might decide it needs to be deleted. Famartin (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Famartin: Thanks for the advice. I know that packaging can be a complicated issue sometimes. For that reason, I only used your pictures displaying only the product, without any package. Fma12 (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

FUR image at Commons

I don't understand why you've uploaded a very large version (2,035 × 2,048 pixels, File:Agv motorsports logo.svg) of ostensibly the same logo (File:AGV brand logo.svg), but Commons can only host images that could be re-used by anyone. Logos are (almost?) always used under a under fair use rationale, as was the image that you replaced; this old version (correctly hosted at Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons) will now be deleted by a bot after seven days as you've removed the useage for which it was uploaded. I notice you've annotated the new version as PD, which I believe to be wrong, but I suggest you mark it for speedy deletion to protect the WMF against litigation. You've been around for a very long time, so I'm surprised you didn't know this. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I now see that you uploaded many others (the Simpson one is enormous, 5,000px) so I'll leave those with you to address with the Commons admins.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: I DO understand why I uploaded the AVG logo. Logos which are used under a fair rationale are non-free logos only. And according with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy #1, Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available There are other logos that are below the threshold of originality (p.e. simple logos, commonly named "text logos") and allowed on commons. This is the case of the AVG logo which has, in fact, another version already hosted on commons (see commons:file:AGV logo.png).

About the Simpson logo, what´s the problem with its size? As a free logo, there is no size limits for them. There is no copyright violation at all. But if you disagree, you can nominate that logo (or whatever you consider a copyvio) for deletion. For the reasons given above, I'm going to revert your edit because the logo uploaded by me doesn't infringe any terms. Fma12 (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Where is the release of copyright annotated at your nominated source?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: Take a look at this, Commons:Threshold of originality, is an useful guide to understand the logos' policies on wikimedia projects -Fma12 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bell logo terms of re-use are stated here as "This vector logo is for personal and non-commercial use...By downloading this BELL Helmets logo you agree to the Terms of Use". I'm off-Wiki now for several hours.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: the only rights holder of any logo is its owner (in this case, Bell Helmets). The Bell logo is a simple-text logo with no copyright restrictions, beyond of what brandslogos.com or any other website state. – Fma12 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that they had any rights, just that they were behaving in a responsible manner as a 'publisher'. It turned out that I had less time than I anticipated, and I don't relish trawling through history and cats as it's Diminishing Returns down time, so I will catch up eventually - some things are outstanding since 2015 8¬(. Thanks for confirming there was another AGV logo at Commons - so are duplicate(s), I'm not concerned about filename extensions.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: Good, I misunderstood you about the links you had provided me. Websites hosting logos to download usually state some "terms and conditions" that don' count for me so they do not own the logos or trademarks. If you have any question, please don't hesitate to contact me, I've been pretty busy too during these days. Fma12 (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: B&IL

You changed the links from British & Irish Lions to British and Irish Lions. If you look carefully, you'll see the article is correctly located at British & Irish Lions, so your change was inappropriate. The flag you added is also original research and therefore shouldn't be used per MOS:ICON. Finally, information generally shouldn't be hidden at all (per MOS:COLLAPSE); I'm not too bothered about hiding the info from the tour matches, but the info for the tests definitely shouldn't be hidden. Hope that makes sense to you. Cheers. – PeeJay 20:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: You're right about the link so "British & Irish Lions" was the original name of the article, my bad. About the flag, I took it from Template:Country data British & Irish Lions so I was far of thinking it was original research. Thanks for your advices and if you believe I missed something, just let me know. Regards, Fma12 (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I can see why you would think that the flag was okay to use, but I would avoid using it because it hasn't come from an official source, it's just a combination of the four nations' flags. – PeeJay 18:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Honors section on football articles

What's up. I noticed you removed all the runner-up honors on Club Atlético Tigre, is it a standard to avoid including runner-up places (and only leave first-place titles) in this section? 67.233.63.152 (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

"Honours" layout and formatting

Hi there. Thanks for updating Carlos García Cambón. Going forward, please use the standard layout and formatting as outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players which is the result of past discussions of the community of football editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Specifically, we don't use counts unless the number is over 5. Linking the league twice violates MOS:REPEATLINK. I've fixed both issues. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Flag lists and Fila

Hi Fma12,

I'd like for you to weigh in on Talk:Fila#List of Sponsorships, as you're pretty active on the topic. There has been a "Sponsorships" section throughout that page's history, and the most recent one was reliably-sourced but deleted. Thanks. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have left a feedback on the talk page. And also restored your edits. Fma12 (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Keeplocal

Don't remove {{keeplocal}} from images you did not upload. I don't care if you import them into Commons for use at other projects. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: First of all, be polite when you're talking to me. Second, I did not remove the keeplocal tag on purpose, beyond of the fact that moving free images to commons is recommended (see template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons section). I don't have any problems with keeping that file or any other one, it's not relevant to me. On the other hand, your reversion of my edit on GM is only disruptive, so why is the reason to revert a good faith edit removing the same image from commons? Why do you not upload the files directly to that site?

Maybe you're upset because of the discussion for the Cadillac logo (?), but I had no personal issues with you. Until now. You're not a newbie here so I don't know why are starting a non-sense edit warring instead of being collaborative at all. If you persist with this behaviour I'll report you.

By the way, when you reverted my edits on GM Specialty Vehicles (logo).svg you also deleted the template:Information (which I had be added giving format to the summary section). Next time, be aware of that. Fma12 (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all, be polite when you're talking to me. I was not impolite. your reversion of my edit on GM is only disruptive No, it was not. I was restoring the original link to the local copy, your name change (FileImporter defaults to the name on the source project, so you had to willfully change it when importing to Commons) and attempt to orphan the local copy was the disruption . ...so why is the reason to revert a good faith edit removing the same image from commons? You will not be allowed to orphan the local copy for the copy at Commons. THAT is disruptive. Why do you not upload the files directly to that site? I have a litany of reasons to not use Commons. None of which are your concern. As I plainly stated in my original message, I have no issue with you importing them into Commons for use in other projects. I take issue with the attempt to remove {{keeplocal}} from the local copies here and orphan the local files.

I note that you also moved File talk:General Motors (logo with wordmark, horizontal).svg again. Stop doing that, as you're separating the image discussion from the local file.

I am a volunteer. I am not paid to do this. My time here is finite. If my responses come off as impolite it's because you've made me stop doing the thing I want to do (contribute) to take time to stop you from damaging my work. If you persist with this behaviour I'll report you. I'll note here that you're the first person moving to threats, not me (and based only upon my terse, to the point, message above). With that being said, if you don't stop trying to orphan images I've uploaded in favor of copies you renamed when importing to Commons, or if you persist in removing {{keeplocal}} from images you did not upload, YOU will be taken to WP:AN/I. Do you understand everything I've explained to you? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: I perceived your tone was far from polite. Better if it was not. I'm as volunteer as you. I'm not being paid for this, my only interest is to improve articles and being collaborative with the free knowledge. When you say "you've made me stop doing the thing I want to do (contribute) to take time to stop you from damaging my work", you're wrong, because the GM logos are not "your work" but PD-textlogos also created by other person. As those logos are free, any user can make (presuming good faith of course) edits to them. In fact, I've uploaded a lot of logos to WP and Commons and never complained to other users when they edited them for good.

Your statement: "You will not be allowed to orphan the local copy for the copy at Commons." is hilarious ... who told you that replacing a file with an identical copy requires any permission? About the threat if you don't stop trying to orphan images I've uploaded in favor of copies you renamed when importing to Commons", I suggest you to take a look at template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons and you'll understand that I haven't been doing anything disruptive with those files. Which are not "yours" at all whether if you uploaded them or not. What I wonder is: are you still thinking in taking me to WP:AN/I...??

About the "keep" tags I just told you that I did not remove them on purpose, in fact I restored all those tags on their respective files you uploaded when I realised of my mistake. So don't repeat that again.

Now I'm the one who ask: "Do you understand everything I've explained to you?". I hope so because I don't want to waste my time anymore with you. Advice: have you tried uploading files at commons? – Fma12 (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you also editing logged-out under 185.172.241.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: I'm logged in just now and replying this to you. I don't usually edit hidden behind IPs. Never Fma12 (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Which is it? You've never, or you don't usually but you have? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Anyone than can trace an IP could easily verify that I'm not behind 185.172.241.184. I infer you are referring to this edit. Well, it wasn't mine. Fma12 (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

you're wrong, because the GM logos are not "your work" but PD-textlogos also created by other person for purposes of Wikipedia, they are "my work". Maybe you missed it, but it wasn't uploaded by someone else, or you, it was uploaded by me after spending time finding the image, getting it to render correctly, and uploading it here. In some instances these images take countless hours to produce between research and dealing with formatting concerns. As those logos are free, any user can make (presuming good faith of course) edits to them. I never said anything to the contrary. You appear to be under the mistaken impression that freedom to edit is the same as freedom to be disruptive. It is not.

who told you that replacing a file with an identical copy requires any permission? Please read {{keep local}} more clearly, and explain to me how renaming and uploading to Commons to circumvent the keep local tag is not disruptive and would be allowed? What I wonder is: are you still thinking in taking me to WP:AN/I...?? As you haven't attempted to continue the disruption, I don't have a need to at this time. in fact I restored all those tags on their respective files you uploaded when I realised of my mistake No, you did not. All the tags that were re-added were by me after you had removed them. So don't repeat that again. I will repeat it as often as is necessary, as it is the truth and easily verifiable.

Advice: have you tried uploading files at commons? Yes I have. Clearly I'm not a fan. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: Your statements have several falacies, i.e.:

1) "for purposes of Wikipedia, they are "my work". Maybe you missed it, but it wasn't uploaded by someone else, or you, it was uploaded by me after spending time finding the image, getting it to render correctly, and uploading it here..." Wrong. Spending time looking for an image on the web (or drawing a vector version of a logo) does mean it is "your" work. You are only the uploader, not the original creator.

2) Do you want to be what are "own works"?? p.e. this. Why? because in spite of not having created the original work (the 3d trophy in this case), I did not find it on the internet but I rendered it myself (CorelDraw, Photoshop) in a unique rendition.

3) You want to "keep local" the files. Well, I don't have a problem with that (I told you that I had removed the keeptag by accident, if you don't believe me, it's all the same to me). Copying a file to commons is the logical (and recommended) prodedure when a PD image is hosted on WP so it can be used at other language projects. So I did it and I'll do the same with every PD image not matter who upload it.

4) You complained me about the waste of time of this discussion. For the first time, I agree with you. This so long debate with a person who seems to act like a capricious and impulsive child, spending time and energy fighting with other user instead of working towards a common understanding and collaboration, is really a waste of time. Even though I'm used to deal with problematic persons after spending many years here, my patient is becoming increasingly smaller. I usually (and gladly) work jointly with other users who have interests in common, you could do the same instead of looking fight and controversy. The choice is yours. Fma12 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

If you'd wanted to be collaborative you wouldn't have been disruptive. I'm done here. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: I'm glad you're done so I don't like fighters and non-collaboraative editors. By the way, I'm replying to your futile and libellous accusations of being a sockpuppet. And I expect an apology from your part. Fma12 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Fuck you. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Your recent editing history 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Aleenf1 00:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aleenf1: Go to the ANI page and give your explanations there. Fma12 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fma12: Breaking the manual of style. --Aleenf1 00:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm still waiting that you show me what specific rule of the MOS I broke. Moreover, you cited MOS:icons and MOS:flags generically, with no concrete evidence to support your disruptive edits. I opened a case so you can go there and giving your reasons for reverting my changes. You can explain why (according to your POV) sortable paramethers can't be added to a table. Or why the number of editions of a competition can't be added either. I'd like to know what part of any MOS specifies that. And please, try to be concrete and provide me specific sources and evidence. I'm plenty of time for you. Fma12 (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm already shown you, you didn't take. --Aleenf1 00:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aleenf1: I won't reply here anymore but in the ADI page. Fma12 (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)