User talk:Mattythewhite/Archive 53
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mattythewhite. 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Rizespor editor back again (been quiet for a while). Already on 2 RVs. Eagleash (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Eagleash: Blocked for 31 hours. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Cheers; though I expect they'll be back, from another IP possibly later today. Eagleash (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Back... never shows the slightest inclination to heed advice or engage - at all. Probably needs a long-term range block. Eagleash (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Eagleash: Blocked. Agreed, although that's not something I've much experience of. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- They're back again. I'll ask Snowman if he can help, if that's all right with you. Eagleash (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Updating numbers without date changes on three other Turkish football related articles, no surprise they are contracted to Yannick's current club but on loan. It is worth checking all contributions of the IP address as well as just the Bolasie article since those people are not as well known as Bolasie who had played in England before. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Iggy the Swan: This tends to happen every set of Turkish League fixtures and involves Rizespor players or former players or those out on loan etc. Usually involves a dozen or more edits all of which get reverted (usually) and then redone, an IP gets blocked, redone again from another IP, and so on. Eagleash (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Seems like that has been going on since at least a few months by looking at the article history. As before, having that page protected would at least solve that part of the problem. I'm guessing both of us have left that page alone at this moment due to the edit warring going on here as this happened twice to both of us already today. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Well over a year in fact, perhaps more. It involves multiple articles for Rizespor players so protection would be an involved process but may have to be part of it. Eagleash (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- At least I have found a way to keep an eye on the development without adding numerous pages to my own watchlist for long-term issues regarding the same disruption.[1] Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Well over a year in fact, perhaps more. It involves multiple articles for Rizespor players so protection would be an involved process but may have to be part of it. Eagleash (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Seems like that has been going on since at least a few months by looking at the article history. As before, having that page protected would at least solve that part of the problem. I'm guessing both of us have left that page alone at this moment due to the edit warring going on here as this happened twice to both of us already today. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Eagleash: Blocked. Agreed, although that's not something I've much experience of. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Overlink at Hazard
Hey, i thought one link to each competition in one table is enough in a table, so yeah that for me was overlink. It seems like i'm wrong? Kante4 (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Kante4: Generally speaking, one link to a particular target is sufficient. However, with a list that is sortable I don't think that's practical, as readers will be viewing the rows in different orders, with the first instance not always being the first linked. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, ok. Neuer thought about that. Kante4 (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
possible request?
Hi Mattythewhite
Not related to Manchester United or premier league teams.
I wanted to ask if you possibly know how to convert PNG football logos to SVG, I want to do so for a non league club, as PNG images look blurry on mobile, thank you very much. Joseph1891 (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2022 Joseph1891 (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
- An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
- The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
- The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
- AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
Miscellaneous
- The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
- You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
- Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like
{{rangeblock|create=yes}}or{{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
This reversion you made here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F%C3%A1bio_Vieira_(footballer,_born_2000)&diff=1120434056&oldid=1120432754) is the aforementioned banned sock. Did the same - at least - in Vítor Oliveira (footballer, born 2000), where i noticed they copied the text from the web VERBATIM!
Attentively 2001:8A0:7643:2400:154C:F20C:581A:B109 (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Nuno Tavares: has soon has the protection was lifted, they are at it again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.137.135.5 (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
To watch out for?
"Interesting", just added a sourced storyline in Ricardo Sá Pinto (quoting what he told after winning the trophy, it's in the newspaper piece), it was summarily removed by this Iranian user, no words at all! Maybe a pro-regimen guy? That would be a hoot...
Continue the great work, attentively 2001:8A0:7643:2400:DCDD:B9FD:C461:665C (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- @2001:8A0:7643:2400:DCDD:B9FD:C461:665C: Reverted and warned for unexplained removal of content. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! In the meantime, will source the rest of the honours (LOL, i turned off my computer and my IP changed again when i turned it back on). --2001:8A0:7643:2400:9CC8:DA9C:3734:4A5B (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Done (honours), thank you very much for the assistance. --2001:8A0:7643:2400:9CC8:DA9C:3734:4A5B (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Said user vandalised the article again ("contributing" logged off), removing what Mr. Sá Pinto SAID IN THE REF and calling it "written nonsense"! --2001:8A0:7643:2400:31E1:E92:75BC:56FE (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
This person (which you welcomed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:31.22.149.51) is this banned sock! You have been briefed, attentively 2001:8A0:7643:2400:5D3:23A:E28:22FD (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
- The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
- An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
- A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
- Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
- The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
- The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
- The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
- A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
- Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add
/64to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
Luka Modrić - "one of the greatest midfielders of all time"
Hi Mattythewhite! The recent edit from 19 November 2022 in the introductory part about Luka Modrić which lower the tone from "one of the greatest midfielders of all time" to "one of the greatest midfielders of his generation" is very underestimating and unfair towards Modric. First of all, the very idea of using the total number of provided reliable sources as a factor in deciding Modric's place in football history (because most sources do not say "of all time") is ridiculous because the date of creation of these sources is completely ignored! Age of source certainly matters!
15 out of 21 links provided as sources (therefore more than 70%) regarding this issue (Modric's place in football history) are from period prior 2018 World Cup! (and some of them apart from being old, are not contextually related to the topic at all). Since the creation of the vast majority of these clearly outdated sources Modric won multiple Champions Leagues and other club trophies, and most importantly Modric led Croatia to the 2018 World Cup Final where he received the FIFA World Cup Golden Ball for best player of the tournament, and later he won Ballon d'Or, UEFA Men's Player of the Year Award, The Best FIFA Men's Player and numerous other individual awards. Modric had NONE of that at the time of the creation of these now outdated reliable sources.
On the other hand, it is important to emphasize that all provided post World Cup 2018 reliable sources on Modric wiki page under references citations specifically state or imply that Modric is one of the greatest (midfielders) of all time therefore that claim is clearly backed up with reliable sources. Here are some post World Cup 2018 reliable sources provided on Luka Modrić wiki page under references citations: [2]:
- 90min Staff (20 January 2020). "Luka Modric: The Most Dominant Midfielder of His Generation". 90min.com. Retrieved 13 April 2022.
The first sentence in provided source is "Luka Modric is one of the best footballers of all time" which is even greater than "one of the greatest midfielders of all time".
- HS, Shreyas (12 February 2021). "10 greatest midfielders of all time". Sportskeeda. Retrieved 15 13 April 2022.
Article is about 10 greatest midfielders of all time and Modric is described as "One of the most complete midfielders to ever play the game".
- Doyle, Mark; Garganese, Carlo (13 November 2021). "Modric, Xavi, Pirlo and the top 20 central midfielders in history". Goal.com. Retrieved 13 April 2022.
Article is about top 20 central midfielders in history and Modric is #10 and his name is even in the title of the source.
- Mackenzie, Alasdair (8 April 2022). "Ranked! The 100 best players of the 21st Century". FourFourTwo. Retrieved 13 April 2022.
In this article Modric is 14th best player of the 21st century and he is described as: "Croatian is regarded as one of the finest midfielders of all time."
Modric is unquestionably "one of the greatest midfielders of all time" and that should be returned to the introduction. His numerous individual accolades and trophies won confirm that and the same is also backed up with numerous recent reliable sources provided on Luka Modrić wiki page under references citations as I have shown. Toshiro8 (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Toshiro, too much recentism, and all of these links of yours I'm looking at are websites--not that reliable, too focused on recent events, too parochial. Also, I wish I could have seen him more, followed his career better. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Drmies, judging Modric's football career while deliberately ignoring the events from 2017/18 onwards that define him and put him in the context of the greatest midfielders of all time, and all this under the guise of recentism is frivolous. Provided links are from Luka Modrić page from references sections (I didn't put them there). Links that do not describe Modric as one of the greatest are among others from 2014 (Whoscored, FourFourTwo), 2016 (Diario AS, ESPN), 2017 (Goal) etc.
By comparison, Toni Kroos wiki page (also maintained by Mattythewhite) lists Kroos based on 4 references as "widely regarded as one of the greatest midfielders of all time." and 3 of mentioned references could be also used for Modric by the same principle (without going into the evaluation of their wiki reliability), especially since Modric is considered a better player than Kroos (individual awards over the years confirm this). For example this Kroos reference which is used as wiki source for Kroos all time greatness lists Modric above Kroos...
Casemiro is also listed on his page as one of the greatest of all time based on 1 reference. Modric, who is the most appreciated of the mentioned three and who won the most individual awards of the three, is now, based on ancient outdated articles while ignoring a number of recent ones (from practically the same sources as the old ones), demoted to lower rank!
In a recent interview with Diario AS, Iniesta praised Modric and said: "Modric is one of the best midfielders there is and will ever be. He is a reference for his team and it is not easy to spend so many years at a club like Madrid making a difference." (english source) and that is completely in line with how Modric is perceived in the football world: as one of the all-time greats.
Here is another article about Modric's "all time great" status from BBC. Toshiro8 (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)- Well, Toshiro8 , "while deliberately ignoring the events", have you stopped beating your wife? (I don't know if you understand this--the point is that you're talking nonsense. I didn't ignore any event, because I didn't discuss any event. Read carefully: I didn't talk about Modric, I talked about your arguments.) But by all means, try to convince me of the quality and temporal scope of your sourcing by citing "therealchamps.com", "goal.com", and an article from the BBC. Drmies (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- 1) Drmies, sentence "Modric is widely regarded as one of the best midfielders of all time" was in Luka Modrić page for years with provided references (none of mine!). 2) The judgment about the career of any athlete should be based on his complete career (or at least that crucial events are covered), and in the case of Modric, now, suddenly, a method is applied that gives priority to counting sources from 2014, 2016 or 2017 that do not have an "all time great" citation, and perfidiously it ignores the significance of crucial events from 2018 onwards which, in addition to everything before that, are precisely the key to his all-time great status! That says more about Wikipedia and the editors who do it than about Modric. 3) I did not put a single source on Kroos' page, so "therealchamps.com" is not my link. I listed Kroos and Casemiro exclusively as an example of double standards and absurdity. As a source of Kroos' "all time great" status, the links that state that Modric is also "all time great" have been used, and one of them also says that Modric is better, and you have not deleted those links there, as you deleted my BBC source about Modric, Diario AS Iniesta interview in which he talks about Modric (goal.com contains an English translation with a link to the original interview in Spanish). 4) Given that I have explained my point of view, and on the other hand, I think that you are not acting in accordance with good faith, I withdraw and apologize to Mattythewhite for filling his talk space. Toshiro8 (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- That's a lot of points. If Matty gets tired of this, they'll let us know. It doesn't matter whether you "originally" added that stuff or not; you restored it, and so you take ownership. "The judgment about the career of any athlete should be based on his complete career" is incorrect: first of all, it's not exclusively male, and secondly, we're on Wikipedia, and so anything should be based on reliable sources, keeping in mind the difference between short-term opinions and long-term scholarship. Whether some single person says "he's the best" may be interesting, but it is not on such a scale that we should start stating things in Wikipedia's voice. Now, I had a look at the BBC source you mentioned, and it's plain to see that you are, eh, well, not being very correct: "Modric, however, is the one who has produced the regular magical moments of creative brilliance to really stand out, and he now probably has only Zinedine Zidane - whose playing career at the Bernabeu was much shorter - as a serious rival for the status as the club's best-ever midfielder". That's what it says. NOTHING like "best ever"--so I'm sorry, but you've really undermined your own argument here, and I think you shouldn't be talking about "good faith" if that's the sourcing you use for "best ever". Drmies (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- 1) Drmies, sentence "Modric is widely regarded as one of the best midfielders of all time" was in Luka Modrić page for years with provided references (none of mine!). 2) The judgment about the career of any athlete should be based on his complete career (or at least that crucial events are covered), and in the case of Modric, now, suddenly, a method is applied that gives priority to counting sources from 2014, 2016 or 2017 that do not have an "all time great" citation, and perfidiously it ignores the significance of crucial events from 2018 onwards which, in addition to everything before that, are precisely the key to his all-time great status! That says more about Wikipedia and the editors who do it than about Modric. 3) I did not put a single source on Kroos' page, so "therealchamps.com" is not my link. I listed Kroos and Casemiro exclusively as an example of double standards and absurdity. As a source of Kroos' "all time great" status, the links that state that Modric is also "all time great" have been used, and one of them also says that Modric is better, and you have not deleted those links there, as you deleted my BBC source about Modric, Diario AS Iniesta interview in which he talks about Modric (goal.com contains an English translation with a link to the original interview in Spanish). 4) Given that I have explained my point of view, and on the other hand, I think that you are not acting in accordance with good faith, I withdraw and apologize to Mattythewhite for filling his talk space. Toshiro8 (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well, Toshiro8 , "while deliberately ignoring the events", have you stopped beating your wife? (I don't know if you understand this--the point is that you're talking nonsense. I didn't ignore any event, because I didn't discuss any event. Read carefully: I didn't talk about Modric, I talked about your arguments.) But by all means, try to convince me of the quality and temporal scope of your sourcing by citing "therealchamps.com", "goal.com", and an article from the BBC. Drmies (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Drmies, judging Modric's football career while deliberately ignoring the events from 2017/18 onwards that define him and put him in the context of the greatest midfielders of all time, and all this under the guise of recentism is frivolous. Provided links are from Luka Modrić page from references sections (I didn't put them there). Links that do not describe Modric as one of the greatest are among others from 2014 (Whoscored, FourFourTwo), 2016 (Diario AS, ESPN), 2017 (Goal) etc.
- Matty, I don't know where you live but I had to get up at 4AM to watch Modric vs. Ziyech--and it was not worth it... Drmies (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Matty, I don’t think you’re being very fair to Modric’s recognition as one of greatest midfielders in the sport… Footballfan777666544 (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Ban warning
In the same references there are some of them than list Modric in the best midfielders of all time instead of the ones in the best of his era. How come is that "disruptive editing"? How can u compare that with vandalizing? FCBWanderer (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Gareth Southgate
Hi, as an administrator can you advise whether one is not allowed to change the language from Engvar B to British English for a subject who is British? Thanks, Billsmith60 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Nicky Ioannou for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Ioannou until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
York City honours section
I believe the format of my edit of the honours section makes more sense because:
It is used by the majority of other English clubs, allowing one to compare the honours of different clubs more easily
It is the same format as the top clubs in the country; Manchester United, Liverpool that have also achieved featured article status
'Bolding' draws more attention to the honours won.
Joseph1891 (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Joseph1891: Such use of boldface wouldn't be in line with MOS:B (our Manual of Style which lays out how we should apply boldface in articles). And I don't think other club articles using a certain format necessarily means that all similar articles should have to do the same, or that they are actually correct with their layout in the first place. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Do what you want. Personally I think the majority of editors feel that the: MOS:B is outdated, and see no harm in bolding the honours section. I think it looks far better when it’s “bolded., plus if it were a major error, then surely the Manchester United and Liverpool, Chelsea, etc.. articles would not have maintained this format? But do whatever you want to Joseph1891 (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- I find MOS:BOLD anything but outdated. The honours sections at Manchester United and Liverpool make excessive use of bold formatting. The one at York City looks better than most club honours sections I've seen. The formatting we have for players at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players is a good model for how we should be formatting club honours. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Then surely the Manchester United and Liverpool honours section need changing. You don’t think we should even link the leagues? Seems a bit basic. Joseph1891 (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, they do.
You don’t think we should even link the leagues?
How did you arrive at that assumption? Robby.is.on (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)- Because @Mattythewhite said that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players is a "good model for how we should be formatting club honours." but no links to leagues are present. Joseph1891 (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Surely Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs is how we should be formatting clubs honours sections? Joseph1891 (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Because @Mattythewhite said that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players is a "good model for how we should be formatting club honours."
That was me. ;-)but no links to leagues are present
Oh, indeed, that must have been an oversight. You will find that in practice we do link league in players' honours sections. I've added links there now.Surely Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs is how we should be formatting clubs honours sections?
I don't think that template has seen anywhere as much discussion and continual improvement as Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players has. With all the variations we are seeing in club honours sections it would good to achieve a consensus-based honours section for Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs. I have been meaning to start a discussion for a while but my motivation has been low because I hardly ever edit club articles. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)- Do you think "promoted" or "runners up" should count as an honour? I thought an honour meant winning a trophy, the likes of getting promoted does not. Not sure if it would be better to include this in a clubs "records and statistics" section rather than honours? Joseph1891 (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Let's discuss details at the WT:FOOTY discussion you started. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Do you think "promoted" or "runners up" should count as an honour? I thought an honour meant winning a trophy, the likes of getting promoted does not. Not sure if it would be better to include this in a clubs "records and statistics" section rather than honours? Joseph1891 (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Surely Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs is how we should be formatting clubs honours sections? Joseph1891 (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Because @Mattythewhite said that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players is a "good model for how we should be formatting club honours." but no links to leagues are present. Joseph1891 (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Honours in infoboxes
I see that you have reversed my recent self-reverts. On looking further, I think that user:Radioactive39 was correct. Look at José Leandro Andrade and the rest of the Uruguay team from 1930, for example. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Daemonickangaroo2018: I'm sure there are many instances where tournament locations are included (and also not included), but I don't see that it's necessary or beneficial to our readers to include them: we don't include them in honours sections, and the example infoboxes on the football biography infobox template documentation don't include them. If readers are curious enough to know where a tournament was hosted, they can find out quickly enough through the relevant wikilinks. Personally, I don't get why we include them in the infobox to begin with (and then limit them to only international tournaments), but that would be another discussion for another day. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
David Webb
I've created a page for our new manager. One thing I'm curious about is how the managerial stats update, many seem hard coded, is there a way to auto populate. Chrismf (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Mattythewhite!
Mattythewhite,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Replying to your message about jesse Lingard
He scored in the FA cup about a month before i made the edit, as i thought someone would have added it by then. However, I did not realise that only Premier League goals were counted. Higgins 2007 (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Higgins 2007: No worries. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello I dont know if this should go here I apologize if this is in the wrong place or is of any inconvenience; on my first edit I accidently entered private information into the page, could you help me remove it from the edit history page thank you so much for any help! it is under the College of Coastal Georgia: Revision history, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_of_Coastal_Georgia&action=history and is the latest two edits from me containing the personal information — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteLeaf95 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Stats
Can you stop I put the correct sats for Antony Ayden henbury (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ayden henbury: Can you remind me what page this is in reference to? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
- Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.
Arbitration
- Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
- The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
- The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.
Miscellaneous
- Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
- Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Removal of phonetic transcription
Hi, I have replied on my talk page. Isoglosse (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Isoglosse: I've replied on your talk page. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
paolo di canio
So you allowed other edits for stfc thats not true but not mine I work at the club and talk to the ceo a lot 86.4.5.103 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- @86.4.5.103: What edits that aren't true did I allow? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorba Thomas
Hello, hope you're well.
I'm wondering about whether it'd be fair to assume that Sorba Thomas is a 'Welsh' professional footballer and not just professional footballer as he has gained 7 caps in representation with the Welsh national football team WelshOfWallStreet (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- @WelshOfWallStreet: It's pretty standard to omit nationalities from the opening sentence of the lead for players who've represented the national team of a country in which they weren't born, hence why the 'a professional footballer' wording was used at Thomas' page. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh right ok WelshOfWallStreet (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Ayoze Perez mistake
I apologize for making my first edit, making a mistake on ayoze perez page. I hope it hasn't caused too many inconveniences on behalf of the team. I'm totally new to this, so i'll use my sandbox in future. Capego (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Ramsdale
Can you kept the details about incident involving Aaron Ramsdale and a Tottenham fan who kicked the goalkeeper in the back on the page? (22:20pm, January 15, 2023; 2A02:C7C:5ADE:9E00:6D9A:10CD:3CB5:E384) 2A02:C7C:5ADE:9E00:6D9A:10CD:3CB5:E384 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Rewrite?
Can you rewritte Aaron Ramsay's page about incident in Tottenham vs Arsenal (22:29pm, January 15, 2023) 2A02:C7C:5ADE:9E00:6D9A:10CD:3CB5:E384 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Steve McManaman: What do you think?
Hi, I believe that this page needs some improvements: Macca is such a staple of English football yet is not very well represented by his page: I detail this here –> Talk:Steve McManaman#Improvements Scientelensia (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Jürgen Klopp
I have recently rediscovered the Peer Review on the article I requested about a year-and-a-half ago and am simply following the advice on it. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Stefan Bajcetic
Hi mate, how do I add references to his appearances, he has 9 appearances according to the official Liverpool website: https://www.liverpoolfc.com/team/academy/player/stefan-bajcetic Hariiiiiis (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Hariiiiiis: The infobox accounts for appearances and goals in domestic league competition only. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, 4in the Premier League, 3 in the Champions League and 2 in the EFL Cup = 9 Hariiiiiis (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Hariiiiiis: Of those, only the Premier League is a
domestic league competition
. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Hariiiiiis: Of those, only the Premier League is a
- Yes, 4in the Premier League, 3 in the Champions League and 2 in the EFL Cup = 9 Hariiiiiis (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Leandro Trossard
Can you change Trossard's profile pic from Brighton to Arsenal please ?. Also yesterday's game was not added to the players career section. He should have played 1 game with no goals, it has not been added. Can you look at this please ? Regards 31.200.163.9 (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @31.200.163.9: Hi, we can only use images that are released with a licence that is compatible with our image use policy. As Trossard has only been at Arsenal a matter of days and has only made one appearance, it's unlikely a usable image is out there yet. And I see that the career stats section has now been updated. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Removal of Thomas Partey controversy
Please respond to my comment on your post. There is no alleged difference between BLP and controversy, yet thousands of pages have Controversies in there. If you’re not a part of Thomas Partey’s legal team and don’t have a scrubbing order, this seems bizarre. Mccloudo (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Enzo fernandez
Not nice getting a factual edit removed is it 2A02:C7F:4C7D:BD00:914B:643B:6410:F5AF (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
- Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.
Technical news
- The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
- In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
- Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Advice on Portsmouth F.C.
Hello, I was looking for some advice on next steps. I recently added an 'importance section' maintenance template message to the Portsmouth F.C. page due to the excessive amount of irrelevant question under its history section (especially in the 2017-present section). However, the template message was removed twice by an IP account without being addressed or discussed. To avoid edit warring, what would you suggest? Michaeldble (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- ^Irrelevant information not irrelevant question sorry Michaeldble (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for James Milner
James Milner has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Rizespor editor, part II
Hi Matty. The Rizespor editor (see old Talk page discussion) has returned as 46.221.104.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and has been making disruptive edits at John Mary and Farouk Miya. cc @Snowflake91: and @Eagleash: Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked by Ohnoitsjamie. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Category:People by city or town in Barbados has been nominated for merging
Category:People by city or town in Barbados has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Good evening Matty,
per this list of contributions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:7643:2400:CC17:7F1C:9EC:B9EA, that's my IP for the day, when i am at home it changes everyday, beats me why), notice - other than the one you just blocked - another IP starting with 41, it's also them.
So, obviously they are not going to respect the block, another one who does not so... Attentively (and sorry, forgot to log in before starting to revert) RevampedEditor (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- They continue at it, here's newest one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/154.180.129.161)! --193.137.135.5 (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
And another (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/154.180.33.127)! I give up, these people don't understand that they are not welcome :) You continue the great work --2001:8A0:7643:2400:9416:3578:5589:5FE8 (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Here's newest one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/154.180.114.231), never talked to anyone while with the account, and they probably will never stop with this either! Attentively --2001:8A0:7643:2400:19F9:D2:685D:B94A (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Six years! |
|---|
Administrators' newsletter – March 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
- Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
- A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.
Technical news
- The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.
Arbitration
- Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
- The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
- A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.
Miscellaneous
- The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
- Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
- The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a
[p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing
. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
Block question
If this is block evasion, is there a reason you didn't block the /64? They'll just cycle to a new IP in their allocated range.-- Ponyobons mots 22:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ponyo: No reason other than that I've no experience in making range blocks. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- It'll be an exercise in frustration to block them one by one, so I rangeblocked here to (hopefully) save you some grief. If you do want to do an rangeblock on an IPv6 range, you just need to append /64 to the IP you're blocking. It's not necessary, but is more effective at stopping the disruption. There's more at User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64 if you're interested. Cheers, -- Ponyobons mots 22:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
A quick and hopefully not irritating question
Dear MattytheWhite,
What is your opinion on this question? Talk:Kyle Walker#Important Question
I am not sure whether to re-add the information or not… Scientelensia (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
March 2023 discussion relevant to you
Greetings, there is a relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#EFL_Cup_Honours, where I only now noticed that none of the previous mentions of you have been properly formatted, thus you may never of been aware of the discussion. Please come by and weigh in on the discussion. Thank you, Gecko G (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Gecko G: Thanks for making me aware, I've now contributed to the discussion. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Paul Gascoigne
Hi, the section I changed was source-referenced already I simply made it clearer and more readable. If you look on there you can see the links. Firestar47 (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
New IP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/154.180.19.246). Attentively 193.137.135.5 (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- And another (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/102.46.51.162)! Just say the word and i'll stop. --193.137.135.5 (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
New IP here (User talk:154.180.117.223), unstoppable! --RevampedEditor (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Technical news
- Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
- The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
- A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.
Arbitration
- The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
- A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.
One last chance or block asap. I can see from the page history problems occurred about copyvios which I wasn't aware of till now. (by the way: not sure if the image in the SL Benfica website is actually allowed there itself since I guess the recording was taken by the club he currently manages but at least it doesn't look like footage from the Champions League broadcaster.) Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello!
Can you please check the latest edits of the user NextEditor123? I reverted three edits he had made (on three different articles), which all were obvious vandalism, at least to me, because his edits were removals of content that included references.
I am not willing to engage in edit warring, because I don't come to WP for this.
Thanks in advance.
Kind regards,
Lorry Gundersen (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Did you actually check articles before accusing somebody of vandalism? There are many reasons why edits were made there (articles about Dani Alves, Denis Cheryshev and Marco van Basten):
- 1) When Bahia won Campeonata Baiano and Copa do Nordeste in 2001, Dani Alves had not debuted yet. He was not called up for Trophée des Champions in 2018. Copa Catalunya and Supercopa de Catalunya are not considered as major trophies. Therefore, the correct numbers of titles won by Dani Alves is 41 (43 if you include accomplishments from youth squads). The link that says that he won more trophies than 41 are incorrect.
- 2) Denis Cheryshev left Real Madrid in February of 2016. He cannot be recognized as 2015-16 Champions League winner because he was not registered as a part of the team after the group stage.
- 3) Marco van Basten was not called up for any single match after 1992-93 season. If Marco van Basten was not called up for any single match after 1992-1993 season, it means that he gave absolutely no affect on further accomplishments of the team at all. Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that he gained new team trophies after 1992-93 season. He also was not called up for European Super Cup in 1990.
- One more thing, the link was given to you. Look there and follow the consensus. NextEditor123 (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
- Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Arbitration
- The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.
Miscellaneous
- The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.
Just a hunch (i did not delve into it, to be honest), but could User:Armstrong.wiki be the new sock?
Attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hello RevampedEditor, I just want to know why you called me the new sock and who is User:HazemGM? Armstrong.wiki (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Quack. General Ization Talk 04:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- If i was wrong, then i apologise. RevampedEditor (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- That 's OK RevampedEditor, I understood with that. And I will do my best to get Wikipedia in Football better, but I just want to know more about Wikipedia community If Mattythewhite could help me. Armstrong.wiki (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- For future reference: I have created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HazemGM around two weeks ago, when I reported an IP making similar edits to the blocked account. Having a look at some edits like this, I think we have sockpuppetry.
- One useful/helpful tip to HazemGM: this page should contain useful information, not following point 1 in "The standard offer" section will only reset the timer back to six months for the original account to re-edit again. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- That 's OK RevampedEditor, I understood with that. And I will do my best to get Wikipedia in Football better, but I just want to know more about Wikipedia community If Mattythewhite could help me. Armstrong.wiki (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Iggy the Swan:, these two are definitely them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/154.180.137.211, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.236.146.21)! --RevampedEditor (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- As always, good observing. Apologies @RevampedEditor I was not pinged in that reply so didn't see it yesterday. Will keep an eyeout of future disruption as always. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Play-off appearances
Hello! I've been updating career stats for some players and found an ambiguity. Sometimes playoff appearances and goals are included in league stats columns, while sometimes playoffs are included in other columns. I see you look after current and former York City players pages, and count play-offs as other matches, but it is contradicts with source (soccerway site), i guess you make calculations manually. Do have have some common consensus about it? Also i'd like to know if we use the same rules for stats tables and for infoboxes. Thanx in advance!Martinklavier (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Martinklavier: Hi, it is convention for appearances and goals in play-off competitions to not be included in infoboxes. See the infobox documentation, which states that "Playoff matches are not counted as league matches by most statistical sources . . . , so they should not be included in this infobox". Mattythewhite (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi and... AGF
Hi Mattythewhite! First of all, I can assure you I have no intention whatsoever to disregard MoS, so please assume just a wee bit of good faith in your edit summary. I was not aware, and will check out, at my leisure, what the consensus is regarding that prticular height template. Secondly, the imperial figure you object to is precisely the measurement given in the reference, which is precisely the reason I used the template. But do as you wish. After having just reverted three vandal consecutive edits on that page, I'm done and you're welcome to it. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Technopat: Hi, when you're making a change that is contrary to our MoS, especially after the MoS in question (MOS:UNIT) is specifically referred to in an edit summary, it's quite reasonable to conclude that you are disregarding said MoS. And whether the source used to reference to height uses a particular system is neither here nor there; per MOS:UNIT, "The choice of primary units depends on the circumstances, and should respect the principle of "strong national ties", where applicable". Mattythewhite (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Again, even if I unwittingly made a change contrary to MoS, AGF cancels that, especially when it is clearly not a vandal edit. Secondly, you and I may know that 5' 11" is 180cm, but any casual reader going to the reference may not and that difference can (and just has) result(ed) in a misunderstanding. BTW, "my" version does in fact show, as your link points out, "the primary units for personal height and weight are feet/inches and stones/pounds;". But, no problem. Moving on. --Technopat (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Technopat: The passage you quote relates to "non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom". Per MOS:UNIT, "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units". Ten Hag is Dutch and has spent the vast majority of his professional life in the Netherlands, so I'd say it's reasonable to put him in the latter category. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Football=non-scientific; Ten Hag=strong ties to the UK. But really, please, let's just leave this issue as yet another step in my learning process at Wp. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Technopat: The passage you quote relates to "non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom". Per MOS:UNIT, "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units". Ten Hag is Dutch and has spent the vast majority of his professional life in the Netherlands, so I'd say it's reasonable to put him in the latter category. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Again, even if I unwittingly made a change contrary to MoS, AGF cancels that, especially when it is clearly not a vandal edit. Secondly, you and I may know that 5' 11" is 180cm, but any casual reader going to the reference may not and that difference can (and just has) result(ed) in a misunderstanding. BTW, "my" version does in fact show, as your link points out, "the primary units for personal height and weight are feet/inches and stones/pounds;". But, no problem. Moving on. --Technopat (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Mauricio Pochettino
Can you extend the protection till end of August? Govvy (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Govvy: I think it's too early to think about extending the protection. Once it's made official by Chelsea and the mad rush to update passes we can probably think about unprotecting the page and monitoring it from there. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Europe League Final
Can you added confirmation that Anthony Taylor will referee Europa League Final 2023 between Sevilla and Roma on his main page? https://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/news/0281-1812c8522348-74c57a629b1d-1000--europa-league-final-role-for-taylor/ 2A02:C7C:5ADE:9E00:5C7D:2CED:C557:5BBD (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
May 2023
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Special:Diff/1156424619 - I believe you've typed in the wrong year which makes a career over straight after match played on 5 September 2021. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well spotted, fixed. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Question about Coman's Coupe de la Ligue
Hello Mattythewhite, thank you for leaving the message in the User-talk page. Is the reason that Coman's Coupe de la Ligue results cannot be accepted is that the winning medal can be given to the players who has been in the field more that 1 minutes through the Cup matches or he wasn't inside the final match? Transfermarkt and Soccerway say that Coman was on the bench at the 2013-14 Coup de la Ligue round of 16 match between Paris and Saint-Étienne, but didn't show up in the field at the rest of the cup matches. But they all say that Coman's Coupe de la Ligue award is acceptable. --YellowTurtle9 (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @YellowTurtle9: It's possible he did receive a medal, it would depend on the rules of the competition that season. To restore it we should use a reliable source saying he received a medal or that confirms he was deemed to have won the competition that season. Bear in mind that Transfermarkt is not considered a reliable source (see WP:TRANSFERMARKT), and Soccerway, while generally a useful source, should be avoided for honours, as they include trophies for every player who was at a club in the season they won that trophy, regardless of whether the player actually won a medal. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I see... Thank you for the reply. --YellowTurtle9 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Cancelo and EFL Cup 2019-20
João Cancelo played every game of EFL Cup 2019-20 with exception of the final. Why it cannot be mentioned in his honour section? He was called up for every EFL Cup games (minus the final) and even started in second leg of the semi-finals. And stop constant threatening to block me for your disagreements instead of discussing about edits. NextEditor123 (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- @NextEditor123: Whether he played in every game except the final is neither here nor there: what matters is that we add content which is supported by reliable sources. And if you want to stop receiving warnings then stop making edits that warrant them. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- So, it is useless to talk with you at all. NextEditor123 (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think Cancelo is in the picture when the team celebrated but he certainly was not included in the lineup. However, if we look at the "SW" ref ([3]), you can see in the trophy section that "2019/2020" is included, as well as the Taca de Portugal for 2013-14. The BBC Sport website, I don't think, should be used for honours for every squad member since not everyone gets included in team sheets. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Iggy the Swan: Agree with you about BBC Sport, it should only be used when a player's name is actually mentioned as having been included in the matchday squad. However, I would avoid using Soccerway for player honours, as they include trophies for just about every player who was on a club's books in a given season, regardless of whether the player was involved in the final or won a medal. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Just as well I didn't restore that myself. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- In that case, Soccerway can be used as a source if primary sources are not there. It is considered as a reliable enough source in Wikipedia, isn't it? NextEditor123 (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I've explained above why Soccerway shouldn't be used as a source for honours. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- But you were saying your own opinion. I would like to know if it is considered suitable enough source for Wikipedia (not only for players' performance statistics). If it is not at all, we will not use it. NextEditor123 (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's generally considered a reliable source, which we already know. But I'm advising caution when using it in certain instances, such as with honours. Id we did use Soccerway for honours, we'd be awarding Premier League titles to players who didn't play a single minute in that competition (and therefore weren't actually eligible to receive a medal). For example, Soccerway list Mitchell Beeney as a winner of the 2014/15 Premier League, by virtue of him having simply been on Chelsea's books that season. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- If you recognize that Soccerway is a reliable source, that means it can be used for the honour section when a citation is needed. We don't talk about the Premier League right there as we all know the rules and only they can recognize someone as a champion if they want. We are talking about EFL Cup 2019-20 where João Cancelo played every match except the final. NextEditor123 (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't work like that: see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which says
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
Soccerway is reliable for appearances in competitions (or rounds of competitions) that they cover in full. However, because they allocate honours apparently indiscriminately, as mentioned above, they're not reliable for whether a particular player really won a particular honour or not. My favourite example is Curtis Davies, who according to Soccerway was a winner of the 2010/11 League Cup with Birmingham, but was actually cup-tied because he'd played in the early rounds for his previous club before joining Birmingham in the January window. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)- With that and the above in mind, I have removed the Manchester United EFL cup win of Martin Dúbravka from the honours section - since he did not participate - and also the basic principle of that not being sourced anyway. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't work like that: see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which says
- If you recognize that Soccerway is a reliable source, that means it can be used for the honour section when a citation is needed. We don't talk about the Premier League right there as we all know the rules and only they can recognize someone as a champion if they want. We are talking about EFL Cup 2019-20 where João Cancelo played every match except the final. NextEditor123 (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's generally considered a reliable source, which we already know. But I'm advising caution when using it in certain instances, such as with honours. Id we did use Soccerway for honours, we'd be awarding Premier League titles to players who didn't play a single minute in that competition (and therefore weren't actually eligible to receive a medal). For example, Soccerway list Mitchell Beeney as a winner of the 2014/15 Premier League, by virtue of him having simply been on Chelsea's books that season. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- But you were saying your own opinion. I would like to know if it is considered suitable enough source for Wikipedia (not only for players' performance statistics). If it is not at all, we will not use it. NextEditor123 (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I've explained above why Soccerway shouldn't be used as a source for honours. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Iggy the Swan: Agree with you about BBC Sport, it should only be used when a player's name is actually mentioned as having been included in the matchday squad. However, I would avoid using Soccerway for player honours, as they include trophies for just about every player who was on a club's books in a given season, regardless of whether the player was involved in the final or won a medal. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think Cancelo is in the picture when the team celebrated but he certainly was not included in the lineup. However, if we look at the "SW" ref ([3]), you can see in the trophy section that "2019/2020" is included, as well as the Taca de Portugal for 2013-14. The BBC Sport website, I don't think, should be used for honours for every squad member since not everyone gets included in team sheets. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- So, it is useless to talk with you at all. NextEditor123 (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Is this probably the latest
HazemGM IP address which is using a very similar to one reported in May running through another batch of random football articles - I probably think so. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I also have to add this in as well since that also appeared on another set of the histories of random pages. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
John Stones
Please stop with your disruptive editing. Removing referenced edits is forbidden and is considered vandalism. The information on John Stones positions has been referenced multiple times but you keep on removing my edits. On my talk page i gave you multiple sources on his new position and told you to choose whichever one you wanted but you ignored me. If you continue with this i will have to report you to other admins for vandalism. Mrjazz123 (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's fine, WP:AIV would be the most appropriate forum to report vandalism. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Robert Lewandowski
What is your problem? Its about six titles in one year not sex (its 6 in latin) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leocadii (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's unsourced, and even if it were winning a 'sextuple' isn't a trophy in itself and as such shouldn't be included. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
| | Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Mattythewhite! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 01:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC) |  |
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
| | Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Mattythewhite! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC) | |
HazemGM again
here, thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- +1 to add to your to do list... Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Which includes this as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- And this one as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Which includes this as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Another! --RevampedEditor (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- They can't take a hint, can they? Blocked. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like another one has surfaced... BRDude70 (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- I bet there will be a brand new IP address returning tomorrow.
- If we keep adding IP addresses in this section, it will never be archived, which I noticed the other HazemGM thread already has. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Iggy the Swan Indeed there is another one... BRDude70 (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- @BrazilianDude70: the admins notice board appears to be notified of this socking as well but no rangeblocks are currently active. I'm guessing the IP addresses reported here and the notice board are part of different ranges and once you type in /20 or lower, you'll realise other editors have edited based on different editing habits. Normally most of these edits I don't notice but there are always some pages I keep an eye on and therefore notice the editing patterns going on. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Iggy the Swan Indeed there is another one... BRDude70 (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like another one has surfaced... BRDude70 (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)