User talk:Qed237/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season League Performance

Your recent editing history at 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition to posting this template, which is kinda helpful to read, I'd like to point out that the version you and JMHamo wants is not the "correct version", and that the four of you should go to the talk-page and establish a consensus instead of reverting eachother. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

IT IS NOT EDIT WARRING WHEN MAKING EDITS ACCORDING TO THE GIVEN SOURCE.QED237 (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is edit warring to repeatly revert other editors, no matter if you follow the source or not: This is just as much a content-dispute as the starting-11 content dispute was. But please, if you feel that I have acted wrong in this case, go ahead and report me. I'd be happy to have an uninvolved admin review my actions. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Mentoz is correct, edit warring to make a 'correct' edit is still edit warring. You need to use the talk page. GiantSnowman 08:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I understand even if it feels totally wrong. When I see something that is not according to source the first thing on my mind is to correct it. And Mentoz86 how can it be a content dispute when it is faoolowing a source? QED237 (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Because you disagree over the implementation of that source. Imagine this situation - a reliable source says "David Beckham and Victoria Beckham married in 1999". You edit the article to say "David Beckham married Victoria Beckham in 1999"; another editor changes that to "David Beckham has been married to Victoria Beckham since 1999." A back-and-forth ensues. You're both editing according to the source, but you're still edit warring. GiantSnowman 09:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is not the case. The source (here) has only one number for the position each matchday, and can not be interpreted in any other way. This source takes the position at the end of the day that the team played (for instance saturday). The other editors however feel like the number should be at the end of sunday/monday, but this is not supported by the source i mentioned. So leaving the statto source and still change the position i feel is disruptive/unsourced editing. If however they would have both changed the source and number I would have agreed it was content dispute over what source to use. But you cant say that changing the posititon of match nr.6 from 2->5 when we still have this source in the article is correct, and just content dispute. QED237 (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So to make it short. We are not both editing according to the current source. QED237 (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My Beckham example was purely to counter your question of "how can it be a content dispute when it is faoolowing a source?" [sic] - content disputes arrise when editors disagree over the same source, let alone when they are editing according to different sources, as is the case here. GiantSnowman 10:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

But on the page we were not editing according to different sources since it was always statto on the article page. When I edited it was the statto source on the article but with numbers not the same as the source. QED237 (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well clearly the other editor has another source - and as you have been told multiple times you were edit warring. GiantSnowman 10:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I was edit warring I realze that. But I still dont know what "another source" some of the others were using. They just changed the numbers but without sourcing it, and to me that is disruptive editing. You cant say it is correct for them to change without refering to a source. QED237 (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

After some time off for thinking I need to know one thing. User:GiantSnowman is it content dispute, when I change the info to match the source in the article like this (source is just below my edit)? To me it is one thing to change the source and result, and then someone reverts back ,then it is content dispute over what source to use. However this time it was only one source (and edits against source like this) and then it is not content dispute it is just sourced and unsourced edits. Edit warring okay maybe (even if I only made sourced edits and the other one unsourced edits) but content dispute? NO. QED237 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And also should i go to talkpage everytime i revert some edit that is not according to source? Then it will be a lot of discussions...QED237 (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to follow WP:BRD - someone makes an edit, it's reverted - next step is discussion at the article talk page. If an editor is adding incorrect information then that is vandalism and can be dealt with at WP:AIV - but you should not edit war. See WP:3RR and WP:3RRNO for more guidance. GiantSnowman 20:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay so if I interpret that answer it is edit warring, but no content dispute and the edit I reverted was vandalism (against the source in article)? QED237 (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And also i final question. Looking at page history I have made 2 edits since 15 September (one 3 October and one 8 October) Is that really edit warring? Was not close to break WP:3RR. QED237 (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the history again I admit the warning was perhaps a bit premature - but at least it got you discussing! GiantSnowman 21:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Finally I feel that i get some good response. Getting an edit warring-warning after 2 edits in a month and just correcting according to the source felt to me like a big slap in the face. All i did was to follow the source, and it was definately not a content dispute, since it was the same source the whole time and the other user inserted numbers not in the source. QED237 (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt that it was a slap in the face, but when I saw a new edit-war starting I'd thought it was best to warn all the four involved editors to prevent the page from getting locked again, even though some of you were edit warring less than other (I now even realized that I forgot to warn Mr tim111, which I should have done). But as Giant says, one revert should be enough before you start discussion the content dispute at the talkpage. You also posted on my talk-page that you were reverting vandalism, I disagree: WP:VANDALISM states that "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" - in this case I believe it was good-faith editors who wanted to correct errors, it isn't pointed out anywhere that we are talking about position at the end of the day when Liverpool played rather then at the end of the week. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ukraine - Montenegro

Regulations state that if teams are tied, classification is conducted between them. Montenegro won't be able to play Ukraine any more and are 1-4 in GD between them. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read the regulations here on page 25, and the article 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification#Tiebreakers, it is goal differential! QED237 (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The ranking in each group is determined as follows:

• a) greatest number of points obtained in all group matches;
• b) goal difference in all group matches;
• c) greatest number of goals scored in all group matches.

If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings shall be determined as follows:

• d) greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned;
• e) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned;
• f) greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned;
• g) greater number of goals scored away from home between the teams concerned (if the tie is only between two teams)

There. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

EXACTLY. What does b) say? Please read b) again... =) QED237 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

you are right. I guess, only under the perfect tie the tiebreaker will kick into play. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

2013–14 Reading F.C. season

How were my edits at 2013–14 Reading F.C. season unconstructive and disruptive. Including players promoted from academy as "transfers" is WP:NOTSTATS and do not belong in that article. As for the Matchday Sqauds section at the Everton season page I fail to see how that is disruptive. I feel this warning is very harsh and will consider requesting its removal. 109.149.0.41 (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a warning was a bit hard, but it was an unexplained removal, that to me was not justified. When removing content please use the edit summary. And for the Everton article, look at the talkpage. The consensus is not to have that table and your edit was directly against that consensus. QED237 (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware of the consensus at Everton page but I am now so won'tt add that section again. Re: Reading page I will explain the content removal next time, thanks for the assistance. 109.149.0.41 (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your understand, I will remove these warnings myself as a sign of good faith edits from you. Thank you for discussing the situation, I was a bit fast to warn you. QED237 (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - I might not be the right person to give you tips about warning templates, QED, given the discussion above ;) Bu still: when editors remove stuff from articles without using edit-summaries, Template:Uw-delete1 or Template:Uw-delete2 is the best to use. Another thing is that you when you have warned a user, you shouldn't warn the user again before they make a new edit after they were warned. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip, I try to listen to all the advice I can from more expericed editors. QED237 (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Czech Republic

Thanks for pointing out the situation regarding the Czech Republic. I had overlooked the worst runner-up scenario! Woodlandscaley (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, it is very easy to miss something. QED237 (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could add an inline comment to the template, so that when someone edits they are informed that the colour shouldn't be changed. Sound like a good idea? ;) AJCham 20:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There are already two of them. One next to the "-bgcolor" saying "DO NOT CHANGE" and one above whit a longer explainiton. QED237 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

But thanks for the tip :) QED237 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I know you already added them - I was just trying to subtly express my bemusement that people are continuing to change it in spite of the notice being right in front of them! AJCham 20:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Aha I see, I was to tired about this subject to read what you wrote. And yes it is quite interseting to see, and one would think they also look at edit history before making this change as well. Not sure what they are thinking. And now some other editor said they were out on Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA). Anyway there is absolutely no need to appologize for your edit above. Now that I now the purpose it was fun :) QED237 (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You really are tired... they are out, remember? That's why they are red in the template! Maybe get a bit of rest, then get back to the good work you've being doing on these pages. :) AJCham 21:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am. To rest really seems like a good idea. I have already explained my mistake on the talkpage. Thanks for thinking I do a good work. From what I can see you do a lot of good work as well (however our paths has not crossed that much yet). QED237 (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm no where near as active on here as I used to be - probably 90% of my edits were back in 2010, but I still try to make useful contributions on occasion. They seem to be mostly on football pages, so maybe we'll cross paths more often in future. All the best. AJCham 21:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Premier League 2013/2014 Page

Thanks for undoing the vandalism on the page. Was about to do it myself. Anyway we can make the page semi-protected to prevent further vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krzy32 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013–14 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harry Kane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Matchday scenarios

Hello. Can you please show me where the consensus was reached not to include matchday scenarios? Ivan Volodin (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There has been many discussions but perhaps an dispute resolution for champions league is the best "proof", You can read it here. QED237 (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really sure about the status of that discussion. It is not binding as far as I can see. Meanwhile, other instances where this issue was discussed reveal an absolute lack of consensus and, I would say, a preference for having scenarios for their usefullness and readers' interest. 1, 2, 3. Ivan Volodin (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ivan Volodin:, @Qed237: - I suggest you start a new discussion at WT:FOOTBALL to get wider consensus, as this will obviously effect numerous articles. GiantSnowman 12:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

uefa champions league..all time top scorers

hi there,i tried changing this because its in correct..henrik Larsson scored 59 European goals in total during his carer most of which were in the lower European competition the Europa league or as it was known when he was playing the uefa cup..these are different competitions from the uefa champions league where in fact henrik larrsson scored I think 5 or 6 goals a long way from 59.he does not deserve to be there as im sure you willnow be aware of,you could probably check this from one of wikis pages on henrik Larsson its clear on that page thanks,thomas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.23.227 (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay I will take a look at it thanks. I will see if I can find any good source. QED237 (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Livescores

With all due respect, I understand you're only being officious, but I'm only updating appearances not providing live data pertaining to the actual match result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLWC1905 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

So why did you for example add a goal for Demba Ba? That had nothing to do with the goal he just did? QED237 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Live scores

Hello, Yes mate updating the, appearances, goals, top goalscorer chart, booking/red card chart, league table etc. should wait until the matches are over in my view as it is still under the live updates. Skyblueshaun (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Live scores

Hey, Hello , i am understand, not problems. Ionel141 (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Transmarkt.de source.

Hello, No problem always happy to help. Transfermarkt is definitely not a reliable source as it is edited by the public and not accurate. If I am honest I haven't heard of the other source. But I would suggest that you leave a message on his/her's talkpage to say your reason why. If he/she continues to re-vert or undo your change of source then let me know the user name. Skyblueshaun (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Live scores

I removed the live scores. Why are you going after me for that? --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 17:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The first thing I saw was this where you edited livescore, and that is when I went to your talkpage. I now know you removed the other live updates after that and I am very thankful for that. But as I said I informed you about the situation after your edit above, and I did not use any template warning, it was just info. I am sorry if I somehow offended you, my intention was to inform. QED237 (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

FIFA

Can't wait, eh? Some people are busy in real life at times and it can take time to answer, don't like your tone...

Look at the FIFA World Cup articles or UEFA Euro ones, those have kits included. I did not check the other articles from the previous years because i only know "those" (FIFA/UEFA ones, was not talking about the playoff matches only...) matches WITH kits. Still i think you should started it but that does not matter. We can take it to Footy, i will comment there and see what happens. I'm not THAT into it, to follow it daily or so and live with the result(s). Tell me one thing, what's so bad about having the kits there?

P.S.: Somehow i don't like your acting on wikipedia, but maybe that's just me (and should not affect anything). Kante4 (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit interested on what you dont like with my "acting on wikipedia". Not that it really affect anything about this situation, but It could be good to know in the future, and maybe I can do something different. However to me it looks really bad and unneccesary with both the flag and kits. I just wanted and thought it should look like previous years where the intercontinental playoffs in the qualification has been using the flags. In the articles about the finals the kits has been used INSTEAD OF the flags and not together. It seems to me uneccesary to use both, and to me it does not look good visually the way it looks now (but maybe thats just me). QED237 (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Both are really not needed, but i lean for the kits before the flags, my opinion just. That's why i said "somehow", hard to explain or so, just my feeling. Little bit "too nice" or however i can say that, so that people on the footy project like you. I'm wrong maybe or pretty sure, but it looks like it. Always link to a discussion, ask them what to do and so on... Not that it's a bad thing but somehow i don't like that, just my view. Kante4 (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand. I guess I am still a bit "unsure" sometimes since I have only been on wikipedia since this summer and I am still quite new. Therefore I ask a lot of questions and try to see if I am doing the right thing before warning people and saying that their edit was no good. That is why I usually also try and support my edits with links to prove my point. I guess I can try and be more independent, but I do not wish to give warnings and do something without having consensus for what I am doing. QED237 (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The individual is not understanding English nor Albanian

I'll be reporting him soon for edit warring anyways, and I no longer will need to write in Albanian to him. --DaJeweller (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I know and I support you, he is being totally unreasonable as he has been before. Just wanted to be fair and gave both the same information. We are on english wikipedia. QED237 (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

2015–16 UEFA Champions League

The announcement was made by the Italian Football Federation's chairman and the news appeared this morning (USA ET time) in Italian newspapers. However, it now seems that there was a misunderstanding: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/131115/football-uefa-denies-san-siro-host-2016-champions-league It looks like no decision will be made until spring 2014. Thanks. Angelo Somaschini (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

EURO 2020 Bids Article

Hey

I would like to say thanks for fixing the article, I do appreciate it very much! I know it's something wrong and I was unsure how to fix it, so... Thanks!

Hisakiwa21 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Second Round

You, idiot, what was not constructive in my edit to 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Second Round? Please think first before making such statements. Moron! -- 5.248.190.165 (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No it was not constructive since you edited against the current consensus not to add Livescores (please read WP:LIVESCORES). I also suggest you stop the name calling. It will not help your case anywhere. QED237 (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

2014 FIFA World Cup qualification

Hello. You left a message on my talk page several hours ago. I just watched the match today and at the time of the goal it was about 81:35. I didn't look at any other source at the time of the edit. I just found | this source that claims 82' but I'm not sure whether it qualifies as reliable. The whole issue is not that important to me so feel free to keep it or change it if you want. Martinkunev (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What is important is that we follow source and 81:35 is in the 82' minute. 0:53 is in 1' and so on, that is how it works. QED237 (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) — list of qualifiers

I have reinstated the list of qualifiers that I had added, but which you reverted. Note that I have added the list in a different way. If you still feel the list should not be in the article, I hope you will engage at Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)#Clear statement of who qualified with your explanation. (Unfortunately you did not add provide an explanation for your reversion, so I have no idea why you did that.)--A bit iffy (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Did I revert that? I cant see that I did when looking at the page history, but I believe an other editor did. However in these kind of articles many editors try an make the article look as they did previous years and in those articles that list did not exist. Inserting the teams that qualified in the prose on top of the article like you did now is fine by me. QED237 (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, you didn't do that — it was someone else entirely! My apologies.--A bit iffy (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Everyone makes mistakes. I have done the same thing in the past and understand it can happen.QED237 (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Map of World Cup qualifiers

No worries. The file was on Wikimedia Commons, so it was just a case of finding the image page on Commons and reverting to the correct version. Cheers. – PeeJay 23:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Next matchday scenarios

Hi. Sorry for disturbing you again. Thank you for participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios. I have proposed a conclusion that addresses your concern regarding reliable sources and routine calculations. Unfortunately, you haven't replied to my questions regarding CRYSTAL, so couldn't take your position on board. Would appreciate a comment. Ivan Volodin (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Group H

Im sorry, its my first try on wiki, but why you revert a correct changes that guy do? This group indeed have all teams able to pass through by now, math make it this way. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.30.29 (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You can read about it on UEFA.com or on this link. The tiebreaker is matches amongst teams in question (and not goal differential) so even if Estoril get on same points they have worse result against the other two teams. The same goes for Sevilla that even if the other two teams get 9pts, they were the better team in matches against those teams. QED237 (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle

You might have been right to revert my edit, but I think twinkle was already not working. I was trying to fix it, actually. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I was wrong, sorry for reverting. I thought it would help but it did not, so I inserted my request manually. Sorry for reverting you. QED237 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

On this link they have "FC Chornomorets Odesa 2-1 GNK Dinamo Zagreb A last-gasp Anatoliy Didenko goal gave the Russian side their first home win and set up a final-day decider against PSV Eindhoven." What mean what either they can do mistakes too, or Odessa was captured by Russia from Ukraine last few hours and it went unnoticed.

If Freiburg will win 3-0 or more and Slovan will win Estoril Sevilla will be out, and if Sevilla will beat Freiburg and Estoril will win Slovan with more away goals for Estoril in result they will be second was they outperform both Slovan and Freiburg in this case in head-to-head matches.

I dont mean anything bad, just trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.30.29 (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, I am glad that you want to help. What get when I press the link is "Sevilla eliminate Estoril to progress" with the text "The Spanish hosts reached the knockout stages but a last-minute goal by Estoril substitute Rubén Fernandes prevented them clinching top spot."

And as I said this is because the tiebreaker procedure is "matches amongst teams in question" and not goal differential. Hard to explain so feel free to ask again. QED237 (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2014/matches/round=2000469/match=2012587/postmatch/report/index.html QED237 (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I meant theyr main page link, with article about other match between Ukrainian and Croatian team claimed to be won by Russian team, they fixed it already, but i have a printscreen in case of any interest. So lets see head to head Se-F 2:0 (x:y), in case of 0:3 or more fo F they outperform Se in head to head, and Se-Sl 1:1 and 1:1, in case of F win the needed difference Sl will be also higher than Se by goal difference. Sl-E 2:1 and (x:y), in case of E outperform Sl to have a better head-to-head (any win with more than 1 goal difference or 1:0) they are overtake them, and F-E 1:1 and 0:0, so they are better in this case aswell. Surely i can have some mistake slipped in too, so i hope it will settle someway on UEFAsite soon in any case. Thanks for responses. 81.200.30.29 (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You have to take in to account all three teams on the same point and not just two. Sevilla, Slovan and Freiburg on 9pts mean you make a table without matches against Estoril (4 matches each, Se-Sl, Sl-Se, Se-F, F-Se, F-Sl, Sl-F). With Slovan, Freiburg, Estoril on 6pts you make a table without the matches against Sevilla in the same way. In these mini-table Sevilla will be in top 2 in the 9pts-table (qualify) and Estoril will not be best team in the second table with 6pts. QED237 (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I did it, so i didnt put a matches against E in case of Se and of Se in case of E above. When you remove them it looks as Se possible have worst result in case of right F win, and also E have the best in case of own right win and F lose: example, Se-F 0:3; E-Sl 0-1

Se 7-7 9 Se-F 2:0; 0:3 F>Se head to head; Se-Sl 1:1; 1:1 Sl>Se on goal diff 7-7 vs 8-7

F 8-6 9 F-Sl 2:2, 2:1 F>Sl

Sl 8-7 9

E-Sl 2:0 Se-F 2:0

E 4-4 6 E-F 0:0; 1:1, E>F head to head; E-Sl 1:2; 2:0 E>Sl head to head

F 5-8 6 F-Sl 2:2, 2:1 F>Sl

Sl 7-9 6

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.30.29 (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I will make that table, just wait one second. QED237 (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, great thanks, i managed to found mistake on my own, sorry for such disturb. Se 0 3 1 1 0 x 5+x

F 1 0 0 0 3 y 4+y

Sl 1 0 1 1 0 0 3+0

F 1 0 1 1 3 0 6+0

Sl 1 3 0 0 0 x 4+x

E 0 0 1 1 0 y 2+y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.30.29 (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay so the first case with Freiburg-Sevilla 3-0 and Estoril-Slovan 0-1 we get Sevilla, Freiburg, Slovan all on 9 points. The tiebreaker is matches amongst teams in question, which is the matches (in date order):

• Freiburg-Slovan 2-2
• Sevilla-Freiburg 2-0
• Slovan-Sevilla 1-1
• Sevilla-Slovan 1-1
• Slovan-Freiburg 1-2
• Freiburg-Sevilla (3-0)

These results give us the table

#	Team	P	W	D	L	GF	GA	Dif	Pts
1	Freiburg	4	2	1	1	7	5	+2	7
2	Sevilla	4	1	2	1	4	5	–1	5
3	Slovan	4	0	3	1	5	6	-1	3

So Sevilla and Freiburg will take top2 places. Slovan can not be ahead of Sevilla if all three get 9pts. QED237 (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help. The same thing applies if three teams get 6 pts, then Estoril will not be the best team. QED237 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, great thanks again, initially im stupidly stumbled upon head-to-head results while skipping the first tiebraker, but at least not only me did that mistake, great what there is people like you to check and recheck. Regards man, and sorry again if created any nuisance, keep it running great! 81.200.30.29 (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, as I said i am happy to help. It is an easy mistake and I have made myself a couple of times. QED237 (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

2013-14 UEFA CL Group Stage Error

Trust me, I watched the game, I am from Romania

Here is a link and you cand click on the video so you can see if there were 50k spectators: http://www.digisport.ro/Sport/FOTBAL/Competitii/Champions+League/live-text/VIDEO+Steaua+-+Schalke+26.11.13+

There were less then 10k, and UEFA made an error

Regards

I dont care if you watch the game or not, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not our own estimations, the same goes for goalscorers that some people say is wrong sometimes. QED237 (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I thought wikipedia is about telling the right info... If UEFA made a mistake that you can check out if you watch the highlights or google image Steaua-Schakle 0-0, then we must take if for good.. In about some years this mistake will remain like this and people will forget and take if for good... Here is a link: http://sport.hotnews.ro/stiri-fotbal-16077254-live-text-steaua-schalke-21-45-echipele-start-neagu-chipciu-titulari.htm

it's romanian and it says in the bottom page like this: Lume putina pe Arena Nationala, aproximativ 10.000 de spectatori which means: "Few people at the National Arena, about 10.000"

It's not my own estimation, it is the truth! flaviusO — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlaviusO (talk • contribs) 06:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, as a editor I should not have to look at pictures to see number of spectators and not use approximations. QED237 (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Lee Mason

Today I noticed a grammatical error in the phrase "Since 2006 Mason is on the list of Select Group Referees ..." on Lee Mason's page. I thought I would help by changing the phrase to "Since 2006 Mason has been on the list of Select Group Referees ...".

You have reverted this stating that I needed to provide a reference. Yet you have not deleted the grammatically incorrect, unreferenced version. I don't get how you think that reverting grammatical improvements helps the encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-c4m3lo (talk • contribs) 12:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I can see my mistake now. I did not read it properly and interpreted you change as if he was no longer on that list. I will undo my revert. Again, so sorry! QED237 (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixtures

I was under the impression that DataCo lost the case regarding copyrighting fixture lists. (http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/march1/football-fixture-lists-free-to-publish-following-ecj-ruling-expert-says/) Presumably given you've removed them twice, the UK High Court ruled against ECJ? Not doubting you but just wondering if you had a link to what was officially decided. 90.211.69.44 (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all thank you for the link to that webpage, have not read all of it but it is an interesting read. However I am not a 100% sure about these copyright laws so I just do as I have been told, which is to remove all fixtures except the next upcoming match. I suggest you start a discussion at WT:FOOTY to get information or ask an other user with better understanding of these laws. QED237 (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Had a look at WT:FOOTY and some other things. It looks like it's generally been accepted that it's best to err on the side of caution and not publish fixtures lists (thus not risking having DataCo come after Wikipedia). I guess that makes sense. Also just found this http://www.bluefinprofessions.co.uk/news/football-fixture-lists-protected-by-database-copyright. Although I've not read it all properly (might help if I had someone with a better understanding of legal ramblings with me), it appears to rule in favour of DataCo. Anyway just thought I'd apologise for ignoring your edit, won't happen again. 90.211.69.44 (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Yeah it is better to be cautious and stay on the safe side. QED237 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

UEFA coefficient

Once a team lost in Champions league in Qualifying Phase, they are automatically transferred to Europa League. Uefa co-oefficient takes Europa league in account also.So how come spain lost one team out of 7 in Current ranking table. Could you specify which team is out of both league. I am responding through IP adress. If you want to reach me, reach me through KAS^(talk) ... 111.92.10.222 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. From the group stage the third-placed team goes to the Europa League and the fourth-placed team is eliminated from all competitions. In Group A the spanish team Real Sociedad ended up on the fourth and last place and they are eliminated from all competitions, while third-placed Shaktar Donetsk goes to Europa league. All of this is also according to this source that the UEFA coefficient table is based on. If you have any further questions please just ask. QED237 (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Gsfelipe94

Hello mate. Can you please talk to the user called Gsfelipe94 because he is adding livescores to 2013 FIFA Club World Cup which should not exist before matches are finished.--85.165.20.80 (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have left a note on his talkpage. QED237 (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you and Good luck.--85.165.20.80 (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Keisuke Honda

I'm not sure what your issue with my edit is. I added "official" sources - as in the club releases from CSKA and Milan - does that not meet your standards of "official"? Jxp (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. We should not add club until the move is finalised and he has joined his new club. His current club is CSKA and we do not know the future. In the article people write about that he has signed and such and that is totally fine as long as it is sourced (which it is). But we should not add clubs and change current club until he actually is at the new club. Think for example about the case that he dies next week (lets hope that not happens). Then having "CSKA 2014-" under clubs is totally incorrect. Such things should wait until 3 January. QED237 (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Qed237 ! Thanks a lot for your award to me ! I really appreciate it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usman afif (talk • contribs) 02:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

oops Victuallers (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

		Holiday Cheer
		Victuallers talkback is wishing QED Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger inspired by this - you could do the same

Euro 2016 Qualifying

Hi mate I'm not too sure what was wrong with my edit on this page previously, my source was the UEFA regulations (http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/03/92/81/2039281_DOWNLOAD.pdf), of which I regularly quoted. I may have indeed forgot to mention one source right at the end but I'll add this in in the future.

(Hope this posts correctly!) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by HatterAlex (talk • contribs) 12:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, what I could see was large areas without source but know that you have given it to me I will look to reinstert the content and add the source where it is neccessary. It was overall a very good edit, so keep up the good work. QED237 (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the edits you made was that it would be eight groups but I can not see that information anywhere I only see info about nine groups. QED237 (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I think what I put was that there will be eight groups of 6 teams and 1 group of 5. I believe I may have got this fact as well as other information from a page on the Romanian Football Assocation site (http://www.frf.ro/sectiune/comunicate-frf/articol/campionatul-european-fotbal-franta-2016), of which I should have added as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HatterAlex (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ohh, Okay, I realize that now. I might have read that part to fast, sorry. Otherwise the last part were UEFA decides fixtures was also unsourced, but perhaps that is also in regulations? In that case we need to add that source there as well. And the same for "matches played on the same day. QED237 (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I have added the sources and updated the page. I now understand the important of sources! Feel free to have a look and potentially edit some of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HatterAlex (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the page! It was great that you went to me and ask why I removed it instead of giving up. I will have a look later but I am sure it is fine. Merry Christmas! QED237 (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox dispute

Calm down, it was a mistake. Needless reaction if I may say so. Stevo1000 (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, cool. I will remember to update the date next time. Stevo1000 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Footballer infobox timestamps

Hello, and thank you for trying to encourage the correct updating of the timestamp in footballers' infoboxes. Perhaps you're unaware that the important thing is for the timestamp to be set to a date/time at which the stats are unambiguously correct, i.e. after the end of the player's last game and before their (or their club's) next, and not necessarily the date/time at which the update was made. As it says at the bottom of the box, "correct as of" ..., not "updated at". Although most people use the five-tildes method to generate the current date/time, that isn't a requirement.

Since the anon 86.21.101.81 returned from their short block, they have in all cases changed the timestamp to a date/time at which the stats are unambiguously correct. I'll let them know about the five tildes thing, looks like no-one has yet.

Perhaps you may want to consider removing your warning to the anon, seeing as this time, they haven't actually done anything wrong. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I prefer using the current date/time, because it's clear and straightforward, but the anon probably didn't know there was an easy way. I'd guess they realised they'd made a mistake with Oxlade-Chamberlain, because they went back 2 minutes later to do the club timestamp. There's no harm in keeping the national timestamp up-to-date, assuming the stats are still accurate; I tend to, with articles I update regularly. You're right to keep an eye on their edits, but while they're trying to do it right, it's probably best not to expect perfection. If they stop trying, then another kick up the arse will be appropriate :) thanks again, Struway2 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Those aren't the same IP addresses. They may be the same editor, but personally I doubt it, the 86.21.101.81 anon does infoboxes, not career stats. Why does the Cazorla article have a timestamp above the career stats table? as of match played 13 January 2014 is the clear and explicit method. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There was something that might loosely be called a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 77#Career statistics. Date a few months ago, which came to no conclusion, but I'd agree with my own last contribution, i.e. if the format is clear, sourced, unambiguous and MoS-compliant, then leave it alone. Saying as of 13 January, if that's the date the player or their club last played, is ambiguous, but including a time adds extra potential for confusion, just as it clearly does for some editors in the infobox. Keep it simple: either "as of match played 13 January" or "as of 14 January" work. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your revert at Edin Džeko

Hi, could you please explain why you made this edit? The reason you gave in the edit summary was "No live updates" but both edits were on 14 January and Manchester City did not play on 14 January. --Jaellee (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, the mistake was not really huge and it's easily fixed. I was just wondering if there was something I missed like reverting edits from a known vandal IP or something like that. --Jaellee (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Marriage Penalty WP:RPP

Good spot and many thanks for the catch and the advice. SPACKlick (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually just spotted the page was Marriage penalty not Marriage Penalty Which is a redirect. SPACKlick (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Transfer Essien to A.C. Milan

ESSIEN MOVE AGREED WITH MILAN: Chelsea Football Club and AC Milan have reached an agreement for the transfer of Michael Essien to the Serie A side.

Essien has travelled to Italy and the completion of the move is subject to him agreeing personal terms with Milan and passing a medical examination.

Sorce: http://www.chelseafc.com/news-article/article/3636995 (chelsea fc official website) Ahmadre147 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As has been said so many times "agreement" and "completed" are two very different things. He should not be listed at his new club until everything is completed, that is personal contract is signed and he has passed medical. QED237 (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Helper template

Hello, I don't know what you mean by updating the helper template. Can you please tell me? Thanks --Skyblueshaun (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The league table templates are constructed so that they can be shown in full (all rows) on chosen main articles such as 2013–14 Eredivisie. When the table is used on the club season articles such as 2013–14 Vitesse season#League table there is no need to show the full table so the table is truncated. The helper template {{(template name)/p}} is then used to show the correct lines for the truncated table. So if the positions of the helper template is not updated the part of the table shown on the season articles will be wrong and the wrong rows will be shown. QED237 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Mata's number

Man Utd have confirmed Mata's number on their website. Surprised you didn't check there first :-P – PeeJay 19:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I should probably have done that, but I have seen the number being added back and forth for many players so I guess I got tired of checking for every edit. And also<I should not have to look it up if the editor sources it or at least link source or say "according to manutd.com" in the edit summary. QED237 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Mata note against Southampton

Hi Qed237 - no of course we shouldn't do it for every player. It's just, as something of a devout CFC fan and Wiki contributor for a while, and a real fan (with a passion) for Mata, I saw little harm in a subtle acknowledgement. Apologies. - UB22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownBrick22 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I can see were you are coming from (I understand), but I just think it is not notable. He has not been in the club for very long and it would be hard to draw a line if more players get added the same way. QED237 (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Cardiff City flag issue.

How come there's an English flag next to Cardiff City on the Trinidad & Tobago National Football team page(by Kenwyne Jones)? They have the Welsh flag next to their name in everywhere on here so why different on that page?..--2.100.119.17 (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The teams should have the flag of the association they belong to (or did belong to during that competition). Cardiff City plays for the English Football Association (FA) and represents England in eurpean competitions and should therefore have a English flag. It is the same for Swansea that has English flag in 2013–14 UEFA Europa League even though the team is from Wales. The same also applies for example AS Monaco that plays in France. QED237 (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have other pages were this may be wrong then you just let me know and I will look in to it. QED237 (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No it's alright, rather the Welsh flag next to us one the other pages.--2.100.119.17 (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No, Cardiff City is registered with the FAW, not the FA. They just play in the English leagues. I realise it gets complicated if Cardiff qualify for Europe via English competitions, when they would use the English flag on UEFA competition articles, but they are still a Welsh club. See here. – PeeJay 23:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it is very annoying. I'd prefer it if Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham, Newport, Colwyn Bay and Merthyr Tydfil all came back to play in the Welsh leagues, but this is the situation so we have to deal with it appropriately on a case-by-case basis. – PeeJay 23:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

2013–14 Premier League

Luis Suarez scored 23 goals, Daniel Sturridge scored 13 goals and Simon Mignolet kept seven clean sheets, these are facts so how are they not constructive? unless you care to do it yourself. - User:Deadpool1992 02:45, 29 January 2014

They are not constructive for the reasons I gave in the edit summary. Always when updating stats you should update ENTIRE TABLE ACCORDING TO SOURCE (and if there is a date corresponding to stats it must also be updated). Otherwise it is disruptive. The same applies to infoboxes. You can not just update the parts you like. QED237 (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer userright granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Dzsenifer Marozsán

Hi! You reverted my edit without any comments and any reason therefore I will also reverted. I gave source and I wrote correctly. Your attitide is very strange for me. - Csurla (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said WP:OPENPARA. QED237 (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said she is Hungarian citizenship and also Hungarians. - Csurla (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

source in Hungarian

- Amikor rákérdeznek, mindig magyarnak vallom magamat. Szeretek otthon lenni, szeretem Magyarországot, mindig nagyon jól érzem ott magamat, de itt élek. A németeknek focizom, de ettől még magyar lány vagyok. Az Európa-bajnokság alatt és a döntő megnyerése után az interneten és a közösségi oldalakon elmondhatatlanul sok biztatást és gratulációt kaptam otthonról ismeretlen emberektől. Talán nem is tudják, milyen sokat számított, mennyi erőt adott, hogy Magyarországon is ennyien szurkolnak nekem…

She is so Hungarian, then she speaks in Hungarian. - Csurla (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Taulant Xhaka

Hello. I have a problem with Infobox football biography at Taulant Xhaka. User:Huligan0 did a change there, by puting his start of professional career with the reserve squad of Basel without mading his first debut with the first team of Basel (In 2010 he made it first debut with Basel and User made it as 2008- with reserve team). I reverted once, he reverted once again. So what should we do, who's correct version, mine or him ? Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)