User talk:MalaguistaUK

September 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Málaga CF. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Málaga CF. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=M%C3%A1laga_CF&diff=prev&oldid=1243500821 Drmies (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining the 'edit war' on Malaga CF page

I would like to improve the Malaga CF page by using the 'Current squad' format rather than the 'First-team squad' format when listing the players in the team. The reason for this is because if you exclude youth players it can give the impression to the reader that these players are not involved in the first team and playing regularly with the club. This is not true because 26 Antonito Cordero and 35 Aaron Ochoa are playing regular football for Malaga CF. For example, Cordero has scored two goals in the first three games of the 24/25 La Liga 2 season.

The 'Current squad' layout is used for the majority of football teams including many in La Liga 2. Feel free to visit the pages of other clubs (none of which I have edited) and you will see that a lot of them use this format to reflect the regular involvement of youth contract players.

Yes, it is true that these players are registered as reserves. Young players are more likely to be registered as reserves because players over the age of 23 must be given professional contracts by their clubs. Young players who have recently transitioned from the reserve or B team are of course still on reserve contracts until they become professionals. However I believe if a player on a reserve contract is regularly featuring for the first team they should be grouped with the first team players they play alongside.

I don't think the insistence on using the 'First-team squad' format is helpful and I think the format is less relevant to this particular club at this moment in time. Especially because, as the other user has pointed out in edit history notes, readers can already see which players are registered as professionals by their 1-25 squad numbers.

I would like to reiterate that the 'Current squad' format is widely used across Wikipedia and the edits I have made are in line with many other FC pages. These edits are in no way vandalism as labelled by the other user.

I would also like to point out that these reserves are listed as part of the Malaga 2024/25 squad on the official La Liga website - https://www.laliga.com/en-GB/clubs/malaga-cf/squad - although I have only included 2 reserves in the first team because for the others we appear to agree that they have not had enough first team involvement yet.

I think the other user should reflect on which format is more accurate and informative to someone visiting this page rather than their own preferences. In the 'Current squad' format a reader would be informed of which youth players are involved with the first team and to what extent. In the other user's preferred format that would not be the case. In my opinion the other user has been too concerned with the contractual status of players and the technicalities of registration rules, rather than their actions on the pitch which is more relevant. For example, if a youth player on a reserve contract played every single minute for Malaga CF in the upcoming La Liga 2 season and played zero minutes for the reserve team Atletico Malagueno the other user would group that player in the reserve team section that redirects to the Atletico Malagueno page. Quote from the other user in their edit history notes: "Don't care how many matches a player played with first team. If he wear a squad number over 25 he's a RESERVE player."

I hope this explains the differences in opinion between myself and the other user. It is of course a matter of opinion as to which layout is better, although I must insist that the 'Current squad' format grouping first team players with youth players who are regularly playing with the first team is more appropriate to be applied in this case. MalaguistaUK (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they wear numbers 26 onwards already indicates that they are players from the reserve teams who are related in some way to the first team, there is no need to put them together. AlejandroR1990 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clear up a few misunderstandings. First, I'm an administrator and I am not really interested in your arguments about content; that's not my business. My job is to make sure that edits are done by way of consensus, and that bad behavior isn't rewarded. Bad behavior includes continuing to edit war after you've been warned. You don't have to convince me of anything related to content--you should have convinced your opponent. Second, you used two different IPs to evade your block, and that also is not OK. These are the things you need to consider if you want to place a successful unblock request. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to place a successful unblock request. I already said I won't be making another edit. The other user was doing exactly the same as myself and has not convinced me either. Feel free not to message me again. MalaguistaUK (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]