User talk:Qed237/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Qed237. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Juan Cuadrado

http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2015/02/cuadrado-signs-.html

It says in the official article that he will wear the number 23 shirt. I didn't pull that out of nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownBrick22 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@UnknownBrick22:, and how was I supposed to know that? I cant read your mind. Next time provide the source when you make the edit. QED237 (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocks

Hi can you tell me how a block works? You know the techinal reasons behind it, if possible? Zafiraman Lets talk about it 11:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Zafiraman: Hi, sorry I dont have the technical skill to know exactly how it works. And I have never been blocked myself so I dont know how it looks. All I know is guidelines and how to report editors if the vandalize. QED237 (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of the "C" in Module:Sports table

I was under the impression that the "C" was used to denote the champion in any given tournament. I presume now after the back-and-forth on the AFC table that its intended use was in league tables. Am I correct? If so, then there is some documenation I will need to change. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: I have always thought it was for league tables, or when tournament are decided with a final group stage, and not to use in group stage tables when there are a playoff/knockout stage after because then group stage does not determine champions. But perhaps it is best to take discussion to Footy (or ask other involved editors)? QED237 (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@CRwikiCA: any comments? QED237 (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jkudlick and Qed237: Prior to the module, these letters were only used for league tables. I am fine with just using the letters that are applicable to the group alone. (So no C for groups in which the champion comes through a later KO stage.) I don't think this has ever been discussed explicitly though, although forming implicit consensus based on what people do with it would work for this as well. CRwikiCA talk 15:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hammarby IF

Hi!

I believe that consistency is very important when it comes to naming conventions in these league tables. Consistency in this matter would be to either include or exclude the last abbreviation for club form after the club name and apply it to all clubs. To exclude the abbreviations for all teams would be problematic for a number of reasons, the biggest being the factor of confusion with other clubs with similar names and cities which has or has had more than one club in Allsvenskan, for example Malmö FF and IFK Malmö. Therefore, after a discussion between me and other Swedish editors we came to the conclusion to include the various abbreviations that follows the club name. For consistency we chose to do this for all clubs. The biggest reason for this is the fact that it is common praxis in both Swedish media and Swedish football books to include these abbreviations. I don't see a reason to suddenly break this established praxis without having a proper discussion first. Furthermore I think svenskfotboll.se is a bad example in this matter since the naming conventions in the table is very inconsistent. No one would ever refer to IFK Norrköping as "IFK Norrköping FK" for example. It's true that people would more commonly refer to Djurgården and Hammarby without "IF" but the same would not be true about Örebro. If you want to change this I believe we should engage in a new debate at Sweden task force or at WikiProject Football. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: See here for the discussion I was referring to above. I'm sure that is not the only discussion though, I think we have discussed it a few times more than that. Elisson made a very convincing case for the current praxis in this discussion however. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Reckless182: Okay thank you I was not aware of that discussion, I will read it. But I have a question right now, if we should use the abbreviations everywhere why not use IF for AIK? See AIK IF. QED237 (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! AIK IF is the name of the ice-hockey section of the club. The football section has never been known as AIK IF but as "AIK Fotboll". I don't think I've seen the football being referred to anything else than just simply "AIK" in any league table I've seen in books and etc.--Reckless182 (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I just did a search and saw that, cant believe I missed that, I must be to tired, blaiming it on the fact that it is friday and soon weekend. QED237 (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thanks for reverting your edit.--Reckless182 (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Reckless182: I also changed Hammarby → Hammarby IF in 2014–15 Svenska Cupen. There I also changed to use of location parameter that may need discussion as well. QED237 (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that. I'm aware of the WP:WHATABOUTX principle, I was simply referring to what I believed was praxis. Perhaps this is something that can be discussed. I see pros and cons with both solutions. Personally I prefer the format to which you changed. This format seems to be the desired format for club season articles. Not sure why the opposite format is commonly used for competition season articles. Maybe we can ask for opinions at WikiProject Football? --Reckless182 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Reckless182: Yes I can see pros and cons too, and I dont know why it has not been used the same on different places. I believe much in consistency and the different use has sometimes confused me. Asking for opinions at FOOTY sounds like a really good idea. I will most likely be of wiki for a few days due to some events IRL, so I am not sure of my ability to contribute in a discussion. If you want to open a discussion now feel free to do so, but I probably wont open a new discusssion this weekend. QED237 (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Reckless182: Sorry made a mistake in my last ping. QED237 (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Same here. Let's start the discussion next week. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good. Have a nice weekend. QED237 (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

And you too. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. QED237 (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey. I have some time to start the discussion over at WP:FOOTBALL. Do you want me to initiate it? --Reckless182 (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Reckless182: Hey, sure please do. That sounds great. QED237 (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Started the discussion here. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

English footballer heights

Hello Qed237. I don't understand why you don't want to obey the Wikipedia MOS guidelines which says use feet and inches first for English people. I live in England and know it is true. The footballer's trade union, the Professional Footballers' Association, produce the football bible called "The PFA Footballers' Who's Who" and that uses only feet and inches for heights with no meters. We should follow the English customs and the WP rules I think. Why do you disagree? The Premier League is only one football organisation and people don't take any notice of the meters anyway. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I always try and follow official sources and 99% of the world uses the metric system. QED237 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't add up. What makes the Premier League site any more official than the clubs own sites which mostly use feet and inches first or more official than the PFA which uses only feet and inches? The players are English people in their own right and not the property of the PL and their articles should use WP:UNITS rules. WP:UNITS must have been written to recognise the situation of feet and inches in England and yet you want to ignore it because you prefer meters and that isn't very community spirited I don't think. Please attept to support the community decision to write WP:UNITS to cover this and please allow me to work to it. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thats your opinion, I have a different one. Many of the teams uses metric system (about 50-50) and as I said many other sources as well as the official league controlled by FA uses metric system. QED237 (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion is valueless without a good argument to support it. And you have not given a bad argument. WP:UNITS specifies feet first for English people never mind what your chosen source gives. The argument for meters first flying in the face of WP:UNITS here is very weak and seems to be based on private views and preference rather than the actual rules. Sources can be found using either meters or feet first or one type of unit only and that is not the point. The PL are not owners of the personal data of players and are not the official source of it. Stick with the WP:UNITS advice until you can prove that it is not good for English footballers please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speccy4Eyes (talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thats your opinion, I follow WP:RS reliable source. QED237 (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No it's WP:UNITS opinion not mine. You chose a source which gives meters just to say that. You could use a WP:RS source with feet first if you wanted, but you don't and WP:UNITS says to convert if the source is wrong like the PL source anyway. You are not making good sense just supporting your own non Wiki friendly view. You have no sensible argument for meters I'm afraid because feet are first in most reliable official sources. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Feet are first in most reliable sources? Haha what to you read?. There are many reliable sources around the world of which most uses metric system (if you have learnt what it is by now, centimeters and meters are thesame system you know). And calling me unfriendly?, yeah right. If you dont have anything new to say, dont waste your time at my talkpage, I wont change my mind. QED237 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Feet first, yes, in most English from England and from the US reliable sources. The main one is the English footballers bible, the PFA Footballers' Who's Who. But that is irrelevant here because it is the WP:UNITS that says use feet first, even if all the sources are meter only. Sticking to WP:UNITS is a higher justification than going with your personal aesthetic. So yes flying in the face of WP:UNITS by insisting we stick with your personal preference for meters is not a Wiki friendly way to behave. You need to provide a bullet proof reason to flout WP:UNIT and you have not. Please think again about your attitude. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Say whatevever you want, I dont even read your posts anymore. My mind wont change. QED237 (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to progress by collaboration and agreement. How can we progress if your mind is closed and you refuse to listen to why meters first is wrong in these articles? I'll put you down as refusing to collaborate so your contributions to the discussion can be considered in that light. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Because you keep going in circles and you cant just say "English and American sources" there are millions of reliable sources in the rest of the world. QED237 (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The source units don't matter because WP:UNITS trumps them (but if they did matter we could find plenty with feet first). Full stop. Now please stop regurgitating the same false arguments based on your personal austhetic and accept WP:UNITS must now be used in the absence of any solid reason to ignore it. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion. QED237 (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not opinion it's fact. Check it out yourself in WP:UNITS. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thats your opinion. Check it out in WP:RS. Now if you have nothing to add without trying to push your POV on me then get of my talkpage. QED237 (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing there that disagrees with what I told you. And what's POV? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If you say sooo... (or not). Your opinion. QED237 (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Re:February 2015

What are you talking about? I didn't do anything. All I did was update the clean sheet. Is that considered disruptive?! SovanDara (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@SovanDara18: What you did was updating only one entry in infobox without updating the timestamp at the bottom. Then it says "as of 1 February" which is incorrect (not 11 clean sheets by then) and you have introduced factual error on the page. When a matchday is over, the ENTIRE infobox and timestamp should be updated at one edit. QED237 (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@SovanDara: you have two accounts? Ping the one who edited article. QED237 (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No I have only one. I changed my name. The old name redirects to my new one. And also, I didn't notice the timestamp since I edited on mobile. Sorry about that, won't happen again. SovanDara (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Phishing

Could you please check the history of this article and see if the current edit needs reverting Zafiraman Lets talk about it 07:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Done @Zafiraman: It says 1995 in AOL article and there was no computer to hack in 1895 so I undid the edit. QED237 (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Problem

Why are your pings to me not working? You have used the correct template @Zafiraman: but I have not received notification that you left me a message, I only saw your replies as I scrolled through your talk page? Any thoughts Zafiraman Lets talk about it 17:19, 9 Februrary 2015 (UTC)

@Zafiraman: No idea, I dont get all pings either, must be something wrong with it. QED237 (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It worked this time but other times it hasn't strange, needs looking into I'd say, cheers friend Zafiraman Lets talk about it 18:05, 9 Februrary 2015 (UTC)

Duly noted

I don't think anything gives you the right to patronize me like that. I'm just trying to improve this site like you and everyone else. UnknownBrick22 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@UnknownBrick22: Sorry about that, I just made the exact same revert earlier and did not check close enough if it was the same editor again. QED237 (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering

What country are you from? Zafiraman Lets talk about it 11:19, 10 Februrary 2015 (UTC)

@Zafiraman: I usually try and not answer these kind of questions where I come from, both because it is personal and I want to be anonymous but also out of mystery :). What I can say is that I am a football fan from northern Europe. May I ask where you are from (you dont have to answer)? QED237 (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Im from the United Kingdom :) Zafiraman Lets talk about it 12:40, 10 Februrary 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I am not from there. QED237 (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Markovic

markovic has scored two pl goals: sunderland and tottenham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFC99 (talk • contribs)

Still no live updates allowed, you cant set a timestamp during a match. QED237 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Hi friend, I was thinking is a reference proof or evidence that something exists, like for example if someone is arrested and they are put in prison because there is evidence they committed a crime? Zafiraman Lets talk about it 17:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Zafiraman: Sorry I dont know exactly what you mean, but I think the answer is no it is not evidence. QED237 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Again ping didn't work, I mean like is the reference proof that something exists or actually happened? Zafiraman Lets talk about it 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Zafiraman: This time ping did not work becaues I forgot to sign my post, ping only work if you sign correctly. And I believe it depeds on how you look at it, but maybe it can be seen as "proof". QED237 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Name

Hi, my name was changed in the change username page, my new name is TeaLover1996 :) TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 00:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Okay great! I am glad it all worked out well. QED237 (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection

@Qed237: I have read the policy on Template Protection, but can you explain what it means if you can TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 17:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: It is a special protection for templates that is used on many pages (hundreds or thousands of pages) and when a template protection is used on a template only administrators and special template editors can edit the template. QED237 (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah so you're saying that it is a template which can only be edited by certain accounts, right, I thought it meant templates couldn't be placed on the article TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 23:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Yes exactly, it is protected from editing but it can still be used on pages. It is protected because if vandalised and used on many pages then the vandalism will be seen on many articles. QED237 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of edit on MCFC season page

Hi you reverted an edit I made yesterday while on an IP address (didn't realise I was logged out). Your edit explanation doesn't make sense to me and I don't understand why you reverted the edit (it refers to the stoke city result). Also you then tagged it as a unconstructive on the IP address talk page. Paul Bradbury 14:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Having reviewed your revisions on the page in question I see this is not the first time you have erroneously made the same revert, I have not undone your edit yet, I'd like to understand why you are making them, I can only assume you are maybe a match out in your calculation and you are assuming its a match that hasn't been played, also you are doing it through twinkle and as I don't know how that works it may be that its doing it wrong for you? Paul Bradbury 14:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: Hi, in my opinion I have not "erroneously made the same revert". When making statistics updated there is a timestamp below or above the stats table saying when stats are correct and verified against sources. If the timestamp is not updated, but the stats are, then someone has introduced factual errors on a page. As an example if someone update top scorers saying "player X has scored 12 goals" but timestamp says "14 October" and all goals were scored in December, it is a factual error. I have seen this happening on several pages from other users (especially on BLP) and while I can agree revert followed by unconstructive may not be the best solution (although a correct one) I usually leave a message at the editor talkpage first and if he"she continues the it is unconstructive warnings. The content can not stay on article if it is factually incorrect. QED237 (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: Hi again, if you are refering to the matchday section, there is consensus to use matchdays as there are no such things as rounds because matches in England easily gets moved around. So we use Matchday instead which is the end of the day the match was played which is also what the source use. QED237 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious that the information is correct and the time stamp is incorrect (it was not updated in error). The better course of action I would suggest is simply to update the date and not remove information which is correct with an incorrect date stamp. You have made this revery to more than one editor simply removing the information. It seems to be fairly obtuse behaviour and not really in the spirit of wikipedia. I can go and dig through the guidelines if you'd like to find the appropriate one explaining why your edits were in error (not assuming good faith for a start). I will go and fix your revert and update the time stamp. Paul Bradbury 16:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: Yes, that may be a better solution but I have just gotten tired of this issue fixing timestamps after people over and over again and as it is introducing factual errors I have ssen other users doing the same. I have been considering an edit notice for updating timestamps. QED237 (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I can appreciate that, it is a thankless task. But I think removing the info can be disheartening, especially for new editors. Not sure what a better way is, I think adding the dates solved one problem and added another. Paul Bradbury 16:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: There is comments when editing the section (above the stats) but that does not seem to help, the comments inside template dont even help, people edit against source anyway. But do you think an edit notice is a way to go (a box that appears above edit window when editing, not visible otherwise), I have done one before for live updating which is used on some articles. And do you know if it is possible to make a message to add on talkpages instead of having to write a long message evrytime explaining timestamps, but avoid use of unconstructive template? Like calling {{subst:user:Qed237/timestamp}} or something can work and have a text prepared there? QED237 (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: Re-ping as I made a mistake last time. QED237 (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Marc-André ter Stegen

Stegen conceded 12 goals in 4 games...you can find in the source the details even for the exact min he conceded the goal so it is a clear cut fact =).

the reason we don't have this for all goalies because it is hard and even sometimes impossible to put the accurate information for some goalies but it doesn't mean all of goalies entry should be the same right ? wikipedia is about putting as much as accurate information as we can without making it long...which i was trying to do on marc page =) if you still confused about i can even post for you the dates for the goals he conceded .

thank you for listening mate Adnan (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no source saying "goals conceded" it is your own original reasearch and adding (WP:OR). And we should use consistency. QED237 (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

why should we be consisted like all goalies are the same ?? it doesn't make sense...some players can be easily figured out other it is impossible ! so why should be all be the same ?? i am curious .. and if it was my own research it means we can't use it you mean?? Adnan (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Original research means you should not have to figure it out and count yourself when reading a source. It should say "goals conceded 12" and not that you have to add all goals yourself and check if player was on the field all goals or substituted and so on. We should always use source that explains the stats. QED237 (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

ok i got it but whats about consistency ? Adnan (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Every article should folllow the same standard, we cant say it is okay for some articles and not others. QED237 (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

And what of WP:CALC? 208.81.212.222 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not routine calculation when you have to look up yourself if player played whole game or were substituted or something. Just because it displays a score does not mean player has let all goals in. QED237 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not true , It says exactly when the goals have been scored and the exact minutes the player played just saying . Adnan (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not without having to look at every match detail and click around which should not be needed. QED237 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

edinson cavani

hello, Qed237 I noticed that you changed some information about Edinson Cavani and asked for a source. I believe there is no better source than the oficial web page of PSG http://www.psg.fr/en/Equipo-profesional/300002/Ficha-jugador/3178/Cavani-Edinson ,the team where he plays. The source you put may be right but still, is not an official page (of the player or the team) If you think I made a mistake or if you have any suggestion, leave a message in my talk page — Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

When a reliable source already exist you should take it to the article talkpage to discuss what height is correct and support your case with sources. QED237 (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPT

I have read the article and I don't fully understand the meaning of disruptive editing. Could you give me some examples to help me perceive it better? Thanks TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 20:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: It is hard to explain, but it is sort of one level below vandalism. Vandalism is when writing obscene words and writing nonsense text like "agasfhnab" and so on. Disruptive is more when people refuse to understand and keep editing same thing even if wrong, for example making an edit against consensus despite being told a consensus. A disruptive edit can be a edit in good faith also if someone may not know the rules while vandalism is never good faith. I hope this may help. QED237 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

3RR

In the edit warring article here it says a user must not perform more than 3 edits on a single page within 24 hours, does on a single page mean each article? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 23:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Yes, you should not revert more than 3 times on each article. But remember that you can be edit-warring WP:EW without doing 3 reverts, especially if you revert a user on several articles. Say you revert one edit 2 times on article A, 2 times on article B, 2 times on article C and so on you may be blockmed for edit warring without breaking 3RR. You may also not push the limit and revert 3 times, wait 24 hours, and then revert 3 times again, because that is editwarring. But as I said not mor than 3 reverts on a article. QED237 (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help appreciated TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 00:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

?

If you don't mind me asking, are you male or female and how old are you? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 04:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Not sure how that is relevant for my editing here on wikipedia so if you dont mind I will let that stay a mystery. QED237 (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay sorry about that TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 18:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Vaselineeeeeeee

If you look on the user page of Vaselineeeeeeee I placed This user is currently blocked from editing from edit warring on both the user page and the talk page, but the user has undid the edit on the talk page, and the edit summary it says (unnecessary), who is correct me or them? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 19:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: A first look and I would say him even if I am not totally sure. You are not an admin and should let the editor be and let administrators ad block messages if needed. QED237 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ander Herrera

Hello you have removed my stat of Ander Herrera yet he has scored 3 goals 1 against qpr 1 against Leicester and 1 against Yeovil please let me edit this stat back thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calum19 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Calum19: The reason your edit was reverted by Qed237 is because the game against Yeovil was a cup game and player statistics are for the clubs domestic league only for example, Manchester United players statistics are goals and appearaences are for the Premier League only TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 01:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I gave you an response on your talkpage. As User:TeaLover1996 says infobox is domestic league only and cup match against Yeovil dont count. Infobox is always league only, which in this case is Premier League, and no cups. QED237 (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Link

Why is a colon placed in a link to an article? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 01:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: I dont know exactly what the colon is used for but I now that when using colon the link is not added on that page, for example in a discussion if someone talks about and article and write [[Category:X]] the category is added to the talkpage while [[:Category:X]] does not add the category to the article. In discussions I think it is common by experienced editor to have the colon first in discussions to not include the article itself (otherwise it shows in "what links here"-lists and such) but I am not sure why. Perhaps you should try asking someone else. QED237 (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Zelalem

Hi, I'm new to editing as you can see. Is there a reference page for how sports edits (and maybe football/soccer ones specifically) are done? I was merely following the style of his first appearance, but I assume the reason Ox's name is kept in in that one is because it was Zelalem's first appearance? Thanks! Sunsheeppoplar (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to wikipedia! It is always fun when new editors come to help improving the encyclopedia. There is no specific guide for how to edit sports articles it is more following regular guidelines such as WP:RS (reliable source) and many more. I reverted your edit because I felt that in an article about Zelalem you dont need to know who he came on for, it is article about zelalem and not his teammate, but I can see your point about the first appearance, there should be no difference between the two. If the player assists to a goal it could be good to mention name of goalscorer but in this case I dont think it is needed, but that is just my opinion. Also if every sentence is the same it does not look good so changing the words can be a good idea. QED237 (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I'm just trying to get a feel for everything. I started reading through your archived stuff and conversations you have with others about stylistic preference and reference principles and all that. Thanks for the materials on my talkpage, I'll be working through it. I guess the biggest reason I thought it would be interesting to note who he came on for so that one could sort of have a map of the game and see who he might come on for and what his role within the team is, but maybe you consider that irrelevant or, better said, not an accurate expression of that? Sunsheeppoplar (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

2014-15 FA Cup

Why make issue where there is none? (Liam_Barnett (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC))

I saw several issues:

You removed A for Bradford making a wikilink to incorrect page (they are AFC).
You added dates ehn dates have not been confirmed, one match may be on 9 March for example.
You added stadiums that should not be there

I am not "making issues". QED237 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I never removed the A as the teams weren't there in the first place unless they had been added while I was editing? Incidentally without the A it is simply a redirect to the correct page not an "incorrect page."
The dates currently scheduled are 7/8 March regardless of whether they actually turn out to be different.
Why? (Liam_Barnett (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC))

Look at your diff you clearly removed the A for Bradford City.
The matches are to be played during the weekend of 7/8 March which can also mean friday 6th or Monday 9th and should not be included unless sourced and verified.
Because we dont know what team will play that round and in those cases we never show stadium.

@Lbarnett-bl: More questions? QED237 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry there was an edit conflict, had copied & pasted in case that was to happen, really should've looked it beforehand, apologies, a very pointless rule for the stadium one though! (Liam_Barnett (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC))

Okay, yes we should always take a extra careful look when there is a edit conflict. QED237 (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Stack

I would like to ask you why you reverted my edit, could you not just delete the "yes"? --1969 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@1969: True I could have done that, I just got you confused with an other editor who always does this wrong and I am tired of fixing edits after editors. And this way you got notified of the issue. QED237 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@1969: For explanation gow to use stack please read User talk:Qed237/Archive 6#Stack or unstack QED237 (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding HockeyAllsvenskan

Hi, I just read today that they didn't have the right to change the name. I am aware of how sponsor names and Wikipedia works but I reasoned that since it is a new competition without a prior established name that it would be the right thing to do, for example Swedbank Stadion which has only had a sponsored name. But I guess it doesn't matter now since the name change was denied. --Reckless182 (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just went on what I have seen, like Premier League not Barclays Premier League and so on. Not sure why stadiums often has sponsor names. However as you said it does not matter now. QED237 (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Mascherano,Ter Stegen

Hi,you've reverted back the changed I made to these two players' heights.The citation is of the official FC Barcelona website,the result being from the medicals conducted by the club,thus,the most reliable source of info on that topic,as of now. So,those should changes need to be made.Please don't revert them back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaustav11 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kaustav11: When source already exists you sshould go to talkpage of that article and discuss height. Also Barcleone signed and had a medical with Macherano years ago so it is not sure that source is best, for example FIFA from last summer world cup may be better. QED237 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Undone Edit

Hi, just wondering for why it is that you undid my edit? I updated it at the end of the match. I could be wrong, but I don't think this is the first time you've unnecessarily reversed one of my edits without any explanation. Not that it matters much, just trying to figure out why. Thanks in advanced for your response. Reeves92 (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Reeves92: I gave you an explanation in my edit summary. We follow sources here on wikipedia and as long as source say 5 goals, we say 5. You may be right about goals and match minutes but so far it is unsourced. When sources update, we update. Dont say I did not use explanation. QED237 (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright man if you say so, I see your explanation now. Wasn't looking to accuse you of anything so my mistake. Is there always a specific source you wait to see updated before you allow the page updated? There are already many sources confirming that he got his sixth today, does that not matter until uefa.com itself updates? Just wondering. Reeves92 (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries, the source is given below the table and is the official stats from UEFA. QED237 (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Tag Question

Hi friend, I was just wondering but what are the nowiki and /nowiki tags for? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 00:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

They prevent the wiki code from working ... [[Canada]] instead of Canada...see Help:Wiki markup for more. -- Moxy (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: just like Moxy says it is to prevent wikicode from working like in his example. @Moxy: thank you for the answer. QED237 (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia user

Hello, can you please check out this user Alirezaz1993 (talk). He edits aren't source, but keeps adding unsourced content. He has been told numerous of times in the edit summary. I honestly believe that he might be a vandal. Could you please help? Thanks! -- BlueRedPurpleGreen (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@BlueRedPurpleGreen: I do not believe he is a vandal, he just does not know that sources has to be used. Let me know next time he does something so he can get a new warning if he continues (or you can give him one yourself) and if he contiues despite a final warning we can report to WP:AIV. QED237 (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Assuming Good Faith

Does assuming good faith basically mean assume that when someone makes an edit to Wikipedia they are doing it for good reasons? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 18:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is. We should always try assume that editors are trying to help and improve wikipedia. QED237 (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thought it mean something like thatTeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 19:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

2014–15 Manchester City F.C. season revert

Hi Qed237! Would you mind giving me a brief explanation of why putting 'y' in all of the entries for 'stacks' is not an editing test? In my experience, if an edit has only repetitively added one consonant, it is likely to be vandalism. Iwilsonp (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Iwilsonp: Because all matches when put on top of eachother should be stacked (except bottom match) to avoid double lines, this is done by either using |stack=y or |stack=yes which gives same result. For more info on stacking read User talk:Qed237/Archive 6#Stack or unstack. I later reverted more edits as we are not allowed to display upcoming league matches in the UK due to copyright laws. QED237 (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you please direct me to where Wiki says we cannot add upcoming league matches? Because I noticed that 2014–15 Norwich City F.C. season has all their matches listed. I'm not questioning whether you're right/wrong, I just like to have a source if I'm going to have to delete all the upcoming dates on there. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have looked through some archives as this has been discussed on several occasions. The best explanation is probably given here by inbrief, but it has also been discussed at

There has been more discussion (some linked in discussions above). The copyright and need of license has been challenged from what I have heard, but wikipedia as a free organisation can not afford to take any risks of getting a lawsuit and have to pay fees for showing fixtures, so we stay on safe side and dont include it for England and Scotland. QED237 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. So, as 2014–15 Norwich City F.C. season lists all the fixtures for the season, then I should delete the fixtures, and reference these discussions/articles? I'm happy to do it, as long as I have evidence that what I'm doing is correct. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Yes, that sounds like a good idea. QED237 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Thank you for your help on clarifying the matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem, let me know if you need more help. QED237 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Source

Shouldn't you remove these two as well? I see no source in those articles either. SovanDara (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:WHATABOUTX I can not keep track of everything in every article and I dont have the time but if it already exists on article I often add unsourced tag and reomve if no source added, when new content it is removed directly. QED237 (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

National Team

When a player has statistics for their national team what appearances and goals are counted? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 22:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: I believe it is all matches approved by FIFA. QED237 (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

So this would include international friendlies and the world cup? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: In general yes, but not all friendlies are counted. Sometimes associations agree on not counting it towards FIFA (to not affect ranking) and sometimes it has happened to manu substitutions. QED237 (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What websites show player statistics do you know? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 22:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: Too many to count. QED237 (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Can these websites be used as sources for player statistics? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 22:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There are many websites that are reliable enough to be used as source for player stats. I often use google and good judgement to find a valid and reliable source. QED237 (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok cheers thanks for that — TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 01:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. QED237 (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Busy

Looks like you have been busy, reverting edits by IP addresses today, keep it up! :) TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 16:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Not more than ususal. Takes more power to go to my talkpage and read/respond to messages (if not important). QED237 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Bullshits about players playing ONE DAY of holiday in a team in a year

So, if a player is sold on 1 January 2015, you post that he spent the 2015 in that club. Can I say that it's an unbelievable bullshit? Note that Swedish championship starts in March/April, why should be referred a year only for a day of holiday? Anyway I'll write also in WikiProject Football.

P.S. you said I don't cite any source for caps, but look at the description of my edits: "stats according to the official website svenskfotboll.se" Link to that website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OLW älskare (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You are free to say whatever you want (as long as it is not personal attacks directed towards someone). I can understand your point of view I really do, but if a player has contract with the club 2015 that should be shown and that is how it is according to consensus. QED237 (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works, and it isn't by consensus. Please see the Football talk page for more information [[1]]. Basically the Swedish league runs March to November within 1 calendar year. Sharbel Touma and any player in the Swedish league who represents a team within a specific year will obviously only have played for that team in that year. As Touma left prior to the start of the new season it is illogical for him to be included as a 2015 statistic or to force a reference to something non-existent in his biography. Koncorde (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:CSD

As per WP:CSD, where administrators have the right to bypass deletion discussion and delete a page straight away, in cases where articles are suggested for deletion does a discussion have to take place first to comply with consensus? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 20:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: If an article fullfills any of the CSD criterias it can be deleted without discussion. QED237 (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League

Oops - I revised the edit, should have written here first, to confirm that adding a couple words would clarify. I'll check back, here, for your thoughts on the re-revision.Jmg38 (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Carlos Rojas77 has picked up on this, and cleaned it up better than I did. Thank you, Qed237, for keeping me honest on my original, messy, edit.Jmg38 (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACK

I have made a request for rollback rights at Requests for rollback rights and it has neither been approved or denied, I posted the request this morning and it has still not been answered any help? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 18:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Just relax, things dont happen immediately. No rush. QED237 (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For all your efforts to help me in any way you can Cheers!!!! TeaLover1996 (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Valencia CF

What edit do you want the sumamry removed for? Giant Snowman 12:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Giant Snowman 12:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. QED237 (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Dejan Lovren

Dejan Lovren did miss a penalty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFC99 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@LFC99: Then add a reliable source and write in a neutral way. And please dont attack editors writing nonsense characters at their talkpage. Next time you may be blocked. QED237 (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)