User talk:Qed237/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Brad Jones career

Why did you delete my edits on Brad Jones carrer they were accurate and correct as he played his first game today Jamiekg88 (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jamiekg88: First of all it was a partial update, you did not update entire table (totals). Secondly the timestamp above the table was not updated and it currently says "as of 17 August" and he had not played then. The edit when you added text was removed as it was unsourced. Qed237 (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

What about the rest ?? The fact he played his first game today — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiekg88 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Since you clearly don't go on facts I will be writing about all this in my artical in a uk national news paper and I will advise no one edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiekg88 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

We can not have unsourced content on Biographies of Living People, so if you want to add it you must have a source, for example BBC Sport. Just read what I wrote. What do you mean with I dont go on facts? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that relies on reliable sources. Qed237 (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Since worryingly I can't delete something I wrote on your wall can you please remove as 1 I have a right to and 2 more to the point I know where I went wrong now thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiekg88 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There is really no need to remove it now, it will be archieved (removed) shortly. Qed237 (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

thank you I do have one question before it is archived how I add a source when I try it added a bog standard link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiekg88 (talk • contribs)

Try reading Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and look at other references in other articles. Qed237 (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

2015-16 Premier League positions by round

Hi, Could you elaborate more on what you mean by my edit not being constructive? Defman30 (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I answer at your talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Ibrahimovic

I really respect you, because you have more time than me as an editor. But you are calling Time.com unreliable. All Time's articles are blogs but that 's still the most reliable source in the world. I really can't understand how you can call unreliable an article of the most readed magazine in the world and written by a journalist. It's not even a blog because it's not a discussion of normal people around the world, it's an article because it's written only by a journalist and normal people can't writte on it. Pleaase see for your self and I hope you understand. Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Either way I dont think it is notable either and the type of pushing in "Albanian" on every article is annoying. Qed237 (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I also think that according to Albanians "everyone is Albanian" is annoying. But this time is according to an great American Time.com journalist. Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

We could open a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football later if you want it discussed (I am busy now), but I think it is a mistake from the writer, he is Bosnian and I have never seen anything about him being Albanian anywhere. Qed237 (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

There are many Albanians around Balkan and Sweden, especially in Croatia (where his mother comes from). We don't have to open a discussion because it will take time. The source is reliable and the journalist is a senior editor. I also have sources that Zlatan used to speak Albanian with his Albanian team mate at Malmo and he also supported Albania during their match against Serbia. Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I am Swedish and I am well aware of the situation. I just dont think he is albanian. Qed237 (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes and I'm American and I assure you that Time.com is reliable. Please I'm a Wikipedian too and I would never add a source if im not 100% sure. Just believe me. Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me one reason why we should delete it, the source is reliable, it is an article for the most readed news source and is written by a specialised and senior edit journalist. Not me or you are in the position to accuse the source as unreliable cause we are not journalist of his level (I don't know if you are a journalist). I study journalism if it makes you feel better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk • contribs)

For me to believe it I would need more reliable sources as this could have been a mistake by the author. As I said, there is no other info Zlatan is Albanian. If you dont agree, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football for more input. Qed237 (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jjapanesitalianbritish: I have now opened discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Zlatan Ibrahimović albanian?. Please bring your view there. Qed237 (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and please stop calling me a vandalist because you are the one that doesn't belive it only because you never heard it. Jjapanesitalianbritish (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not called you a vandalist, have I? But your edit warring behaviour is not good. Qed237 (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

Glad we got the St. Jakob-Park issue sorted out. Meanwhile, I note you have used rollback on a large number of my corrections. The wiki article on rollback says "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning". As far as I can see, you did not give any summary of the reason for using rollback.

In addition, you have freely conceded that you don't know much about the subject you rolled back (saints).

I therefore hope you will on reflection agree that rollback was not the right way to proceed in this case, and I invite you to revert the rollback. Thank you.Tdls (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

FC Basel

Why did you revert my modifications to the FC Basel page? They were all correct and up to date. How is it possible that Wikipedia is still using an 11 year old logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisixx (talk • contribs) 12:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I reverted you mainly for two reasons, first of all |clubname= should be the name of the article and secondly the logo you added was just uploaded and I could not see any copyright-message (saying it was a free logo), so not sure it can be included. Qed237 (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Why did you revert my correction to the name of St James's Park? I explained my reasons, you didn't explain yours. And, of course, the park is very obviously not named after St Jacob, who was a 19th-century missionary in Alaska. I am curious.Tdls (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Err... it is clearly named after a St. Jacob. For St. James' Park, please see Newcastle United. Any other suggestion is bizarre. Goodbye. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Which St Jacob do you believe it to be named after? And why do say it is "clearly" so? "Anything else is bizarre" is not a reason.Please explain.Tdls (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I dont know what St Jacob, but the stadium is clearly St. Jacob park. Qed237 (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep. The source calls it St Jacob so we will call it that. St. James is WP:OR at the least. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. Please read mine, I'm sorry it's a bit long but the story is complicated.

Qed237 says it is "clearly" St. Jacob Park. It is not clear, since the German "Jakob" translates into English as both "James" and "Jacob", who are completely separate people; for proof you may consult any Bible.

Fortuna IM says that source calls it "St Jacob Park". It does not. It calls it "St. Jakob-Park". In other words, the source uses the German name. We can either leave it in German or translate it. The wiki article on the park itself leaves it in German. The stadium's own English-language website leaves it in German (http://www.fcb.ch/en-US/Home). However, the article on FC Basel attempts to translate it. So we need to decide which person is meant here, St James or St Jacob. Why do I think the correct English translation is James rather than Jacob in this particular case? Firstly, because the stadium is named after the settlement St. Jakob an der Birs (see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Jakob-Park#Name), but the settlement dates back to the 11th century and the only man known in English as St Jacob was not born until 1802 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Netsvetov). Second, even if we suppose that German wiki is wrong about the origins of the name, and the stadium is not named after St. Jakob an der Birs at all (there is no reason to think that, but suppose we do), it is extremely unlikely that a stadium in Switzerland would be named after a little-known Russian missionary to Alaska. Third, because, Qed237, your remark that you "dont know what St Jacob" suggests you aren't terribly interested in saints or translation.

If you like, we can compromise but just using the German name, as FC Basel themselves do. Problem solved.

Thank you both for keeping the discussion polite.Tdls (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No. We will continue using sourced material. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The sourced material is St. Jakob-Park, not St Jacob Park. Did you, by the way, read what I wrote? If so, why did you ignore every word of it? Tdls (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Qed237, I still have your talk page on my watchlist because of the you-know-who fiasco of a few weeks back, and noticed this discussion. Tdls definitely has a piont regarding FC Basel's stadium, and may have a point on many/most of the articles you've been disagreeing about. The sources overwhelmingly call it St. Jakob's; few sources (and almost no reliable sources) call it "Jacob's" or "James". So there's no benefit to translating it, it's clear just leaving it as "St. Jakobs-Park" everywhere is best. The hyphen looks odd, but that's definitely what the sources are calling it.
  As described at St. Jacob (disambiguation), the translation of Jakob to Jacob or James is complicated, and I doubt it makes sense to call all of the occurrences "Jacob" and I doubt it makes sense to call them all "James". I strongly suspect some of the uses you two are disagreeing about are translated one way and some the other. Tdls, the same St. James appears to actually be referred to as "St. Jacob" in at least some places. You'll have to follow reliable sources on each usage. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Are you talking about TeaLover1996? Anyway, I will be honest and say I dont have much knowledge of saints, but everywhere I read the official name is St Jacobs Park (dont know about the hyphen) and changing the official name to St James Park is very incorrect and the reason why I started reacting. Qed237 (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Geez, don't say the name out loud! :) To be clear, I didn't mean Tdls' changing it to St James was right - it wasn't. I'm saying his point that calling it St Jacob was incorrect (and not supported by the source) was right. I'm not saying change it to St. James Park. I'm saying leave it as St. Jakob (with a "k"). That basically solves everyone's problems for this article. For the long list of other articles, I think you're likely right on some and he is likely right on some; you'll have to look at the sources for each. Sometimes churches called "St. Jakob" in one language really are translated as "St. James" in English. Other times they really are translated as "St. Jacob". There doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule either way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's true that etymologically James is cognative of Jacob, but they are (certainly in popular usage, such as this) still distinct names. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. St James is from the New Testament and Jacob (not a saint) is from the Old. Since both are called "Jakob" in German, you need to think every time whether a German text is referring to St James or to Jacob. When it's a church, or a street or park or hospital near a "Jakob" church, it's 99.999% certain to be James.Tdls (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their input. I think we have a solution, as proposed by Floquenbeam. The stadium is neither St James not St Jacob. It is not named after any saint. It is named after a former village, St. Jakob. There is no need to translate the name. In fact, it would be wrong to translate is, since place names are not translatable (with a few obvious exceptions for international cities like London or Geneva. Or of course Basel). I therefore propose to use the sourced name, in its German form (with a dot, and with a k, and with a hyphen, German punctuation is very different from English) and will add an explanation of where the name comes from, translated from the German wiki article. Everyone happy?Tdls (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Floquenbeam has done it already. I've added the etymology to the article on stadium.Tdls (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Referencing

Hello Qed237! Could u please help me in entering a refernce to a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The spectactor (talk • contribs)

@The spectactor: Sure, I will give you a message at your talkpage on how to add references as soon as possible. Qed237 (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing Valid Information

What are you doing editing long-standing information on the Sir Alex Ferguson page as well as sourced information into unsourced information on the Levski article? A citation was required to list 70-whatever trophies you pretend they have, it wasnt found, so an accurate official source was used as an edit and a further editor agreed. You have no business making these changes and will be reported if you persist. Davefelmer (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, please sign at BOTTOM of posts. Secondly, stop edit warring with everyone, that is not how discussion and collaboration works. Also the items you remove are sometimes sourced and when they are not sourced it is better to tag it as unsourced first and then let the other editors get time to add source, at least a month is a good practice. Qed237 (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how to sign at bottom of posts as I am very new to wiki. Secondly, I am not trying to edit war but rather have a duscussion with other editors. Sometimes when I go onto their talk page and post comments to start a discussion, they are merely deleted as if never posted and so I dont get anywhere. All changes I make I try to do with reliable sourcing and facts. For example, with the Levski article, I listed the need for a citation next to the stated trophy haul, gave it 10 days and then when nothing was found, removed the information and replaced it with the best official sourcing. Why do you persist on editing it back to the unsourced information? Davefelmer (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You say you dont try and edit war, yet that is what you do and you have already been blocked twice for it. Stop reverting. Qed237 (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Eden Hazard Premier League goal tally for 2015-16

Hi Qed237,

According to the Premier League Goal Accreditation Panel, the goal scored by Eden Hazard against Arsenal was credited to Calum Chambers as own goal. You can check it. As of October 3, 2015, Eden Hazard has 0 Premier League goals. Verify it and change it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunk6 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Then as I said, update the timestamp. Qed237 (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yohan Cabaye

Hi, You had it right the first time. :) 8 games is correct. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Check the timestamps Eagleash (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Beg pardon, my mistake, thought it was the infobox that was wrong... Eagleash (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Eagleash: How can 8 matches in PL column, and one league cup match, be a 8 in total? When I count 8+1=9. Qed237 (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Qed237 (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

2015–16 KHL season

Help to develop this page,2015–16 KHL season — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.110.7.147 (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I am currently very busy, but I can put it on my "to do"-list. Qed237 (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A Lyga

Hello. I Don't understand what's wrong with editing 2015 A Lyga table. I'm lithuanian and I watch all A Lyga matches and update table correctly after them. I Watch them at futbolo.tv so I know the results , goals and who scored right after match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurioLazdele (talk • contribs) 08:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@SurioLazdele: Timestamp was not updated. You must update the date so others know it has been updated. Now I looked at date and it said September and I added the same matches again, before spotting the error. Qed237 (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

2015-16 Premier League Page Error

HI, this Dk.ar.yr. I am thankful to you that you have been helped me correct my mistakes. As I am new here, I wasn't able to understand what was the problem with edit(s) in 2015-16 premier league page. I am sorry,if I made some error and i would be grateful if you could please help to know my mistake in that Page. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dk.ar.yr (talk • contribs) 17:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Fb rbr footer

I noticed your revert on Template:Fb rbr footer. I'm happy to leave it as it is but I don't see how "Extra space was added" as you wrote in the summary. I'm looking at both versions now and cannot see any extra space caused by my edit. Please clarify. Jodosma (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jodosma: After your edit, there was an extra empty row on the articles where the template is being used. I think it was because of the hidden comment you left after </small> that started alone on a new row making that "empty row" display on articles. Qed237 (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I'll keep it in mind. Ciao. Jodosma (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

About the Template:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round Group A table

You send me a message that I've made some mistakes in editing the page named "Template:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round Group A table".You told me that I am unfamiliar with the wiki policies and guidelines. Then, You reverted the edition. However, I disagree with what you did yesterday. First of all, I wanna let you know that I started to edit this page at about 6 p.m. on Oct.5 (UTC+8). Before my edition, I noticed that this table was not correct. Because on FIFA.com, the game between Malaysia and Saudi Arabia on Sept.8 have a final result and the final score is 0-3, the match was forfeited because of the violent action from the home fans. After that, I noticed that the wiki page was not updated yet and the result was still written "ABD". So I have to update this information. The reason why I edit many time is because when I am editting the page, the website told me that some other users was also editing this template and that user disagree with my edition! So I had to edit it again. Now, you can view the page "2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)". That table is same as what I edited. USERS ALL AGREE WITH MY CORRECTION.

WHO'S RIGHT AND WHO'S WORONG??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwq950117 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zwq950117: First of all, please dont WP:SHOUT, I can read without you writing with big letters. The edit I was referring to was this edit that completely messed up the table. Why would you put Saudi Arabia on the Malaysia stats and the other way around? Also the rows with win, draw, loss... should not be moved. The third issue with that edit is that not a single source was provided, how could I know that a decision from FIFA had been made without source? And in this edit you kept on moving rows that should not be moved and you removed the correct WP:NDASH to insert a small dash in the 3–0 score (3-0 instead of 3–0). Qed237 (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

2015-16 Premier League

Hi Qed237. I see that you have changed some of the information that I myself have changed on the article. You should be able to spot that Tottenham Hotspur have in fact been on a seven game unbeaten streak, after their 2-2 draw with Swansea on 4 October 2015. Also, Eric Dier received his fifth yellow card of the season and this was also listed by me on this article. I would ask you to change my edits back because the information that you changed is now, as of 4th October 2015, incorrect. Sean0254. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean0254 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sean0254: And the rest of the infobox? For example attendance was not correct as of your timestamp, as well as other stats. EVERYTHING will be updated at in a single edit as soon as the sources has been updated. Qed237 (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for clearing that up. Sean0254 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean0254 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Qed237 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. 13:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)– Gilliam (talk)

@Gilliam: Thank you! This comes as a real surprise as I have not requested this right, but I have thought about doing it. I promise I wont abuse it. Qed237 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

IAR for Klopp

Please WP:IAR regards Klopp and stop edit warring. He is the next Liverpool manager. JMHamo (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Jurgen Klopp reversion

Hey Qed237, I realize you get a lot of unsourced edits but that edit was sourced - In the 'Personnel and Kits' section it states that all the manager references are handled by this page List of English Football League managers which Klopp is indeed on, with a reference. Thanks, TZealot (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Still the transfer section had not included Klopp as in. Qed237 (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

yet, there are no deadlines... JMHamo (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks!

I think that's the first time I've been thanked for an edit (this one on the 2018 FIFA WCQ AFC 2nd round group C table). Really made me feel good, and you're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PsyMar (talk • contribs) 02:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@PsyMar: No problem, when someone does good edits a thank you is a very simple way of showing appreciation, and you deserve it. Qed237 (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of Radamel Falcao's page

Hi Qed237, take note that i have reverted Radamel Falcao's page to the original copy that doesn't have any signs of vandalism. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpy4606 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

What was vandalism of the things you removed? Qed237 (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Sorry for the bad editing. My bad. Jjd89 (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

No big problem, but you should have looked at why you were reverted before doing the same thing over and over again. Qed237 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry about my confusion about Turkey, you're absolutely right. Jeppiz (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: No problem. Qed237 (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying - Group A

Why Turkey in the table with status Y? No one else but Turks! In my opinion Turkey has also Z. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmir (talk • contribs) 14:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Redmir: Because they can still qualify as best third-placed team. Qed237 (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Turkey ??? No chance to be the best third-placed team!!! Ranking... --Redmir (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you're right. When Latvia 6th place finish, Turkey still has a chance of being promoted as the third best team. My Sandbox.. --Redmir (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Redmir: Good table, you can also read Talk:UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying#Current third place possibilities. Qed237 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.. --Redmir (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Euro 2016 qualifying Summary

If the current third-placed team has no chances of qualifying, nor, in this case, do the teams above. They are all gonna have the same maximum potential points if they finish third as the current third-placed teams, unless they have a worse record against 6th ranked teams (which they don't in this case). ^Ol^Ja 23:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: I am sorry, you lost me. But that is not entirely true, you have to look at all groups and their possibilities. Currently the lowest possible points for a team to be highest on third-placed ranking is 13pts. Every team that can reach 13 points, can still be best ranked third-placed team. Qed237 (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Wait, isn't it 15? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talk • contribs)

@Oldstone James: If Hungary passes Romania in Group F, Romania will be in third-placed table and they will only have 13p and not 15. Qed237 (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: What about Ireland or Poland? ^Ol^Ja 23:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: Both of them can get 13p in third-placed ranking just like Romania from group F. IT would be up to goal differential. Qed237 (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Poland still can't though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talk • contribs)

@Oldstone James: Yes they can. Qed237 (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237:They'll be second in case of draw and will have 12 points in case of loss. ^Ol^Ja 23:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: If Germany wins and Poland play 2–2 with Ireland, then Ireland is ahead on head-to-head away goals and Poland is third on 19 points. With 6 points against Gibraltar dont count they get 19-6=13 points in the third-placed ranking. Qed237 (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: So, they can be third with any draw where both teams score two or more goals. Qed237 (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and I am sorry for editing without taking every possibilities into consideration. :) Centaur271188 (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Centaur271188: No big problem, but you probably should have checked first why the tables were as they were before editing. For your information I have started a discussion at Talk:UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying#Current third place possibilities that might help you. Qed237 (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

. To all of you, you don't have to ping a user if you are writing on their talk page. They will receive a notification that a message has been posted on their talk page anyway. Tvx1 22:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Euro 2016 qualifiers: tiebreak criteria

Hi, my edit is needed because, as I said in my justificatory comment, at that point UEFA's wording, as originally given, isn't as meaningful (& so helpful to the reader) as it is when it is read in conjunction with the clause I inserted ("(e.g. three teams tied on points get whittled down to two)").

As you didn't give an explanation for your action please say below why you think my revision doesn't help the reader understand straightaway the repetition involved in applying criterion 5.

As a reminder, this is the whole passage constituting criterion 5 as amended by myself:

"If, after having applied criteria 1 to 4, teams still have an equal ranking (e.g. three teams tied on points get whittled down to two), criteria 1 to 4 are reapplied exclusively to the matches between the teams in question to determine their final rankings. If this procedure does not lead to a decision, criteria 6 to 10 apply;"

As you didn't offer a reason for deleting my edit I have been rational & put it back in.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.91.251.174 (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit is not needed as it is the official rules we follow. I see no use for the extra text that does not come from the rulebook. Qed237 (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

We follow substantive rationality, not formal rationality: if official wording is not readily intelligible then it is rational to add wording that makes it easier for readers to grasp the intended meaning.

This is not a matter of personal opinion: we act rationally in terms of the substance at hand. Here the substance is making it plain why, counter-intuitively, a set of criteria need to be re-applied in particular circumstances (e.g., in the second instance to 2 teams when in the first instance they were applied to 3 or more teams). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.91.251.174 (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The text is very clear and it is the official rules and not something for us to modify. Qed237 (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you and partially agree with the IP. I cannot make any sense of criterium 5 as it is currently presented in the article. It looks like they are going to reapply criterium 1 to 4 exactly the same way and I can't see how that would produce a different result as the first time round. The IP is clearly not trying to modify the official rules, but rather to clarify. Moreover, nowhere is it suggest that we must copy them word for word. Quite in the contrary. Such an edit could be seen as plagiarism. We should really strive to make them obvious to everyone. Currently criterium 5 isn't obvious to understand at all. The IP attempted to help out, but didn't make a good effort. There clarification was unsourced and I can't see anywhere why and how a three-way tie would suddenly be whittled down to two. If there still is a complete three-way tie, how will the set be trimmed down. Which team will be dropped from a three way tie, and why, if they are all still tied? This really needs sources clarification. Tvx1 20:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, rules are clear. Qed237 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Great that they are clear to you, but they clearly aren't for other readers. And you really should think about more readers than just yourself. Tvx1 22:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

But then why change the official rules? Qed237 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting to "change" the official rules. How could we even do that? We can't alter the source. We're suggesting to clarify the rules because they are currently confusing. Tvx1 22:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

We have the official rules, like we always do. Qed237 (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

And part of it is confusing, so we should add some clarification. Tvx1 23:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No ,it is the true official rules. Qed237 (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, but that doesn't make them any less confusing. Just being official doesn't exclude something from being confusing. Tvx1 23:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

We are just going in circles, so if you have nothing more to say I suggest we stop clogging up my talkpage. I am not going to change my mind, the rules are official and we should not make our own comments in them. It is just like every other tournament. Qed237 (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

So you want to stick to the official wording just because they're official, despite them being obviuosly confusing to some. That is very very selfish. There are no policies on the wikipedia that force us to copy sources word for word. Nevertheless, there are many ways available to clarfy them without changing the actual wording, let alone the meaning. We could for instance add a note. Mind you, we don't need your permission. You don't own the article or any other one. Tvx1 11:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The official wording is clear enough. No you dont need my permission, but you need consensus since mopre editors than me reverted the addition. Qed237 (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

We are having this discussion exactly because the official wording isn't clear enough. Why do you utterly refuse to accept that multiple readers have difficulties understanding that rule as it currently is presented. Tvx1 12:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Mirco Colina

The information on the Curacao page is wrong, if you check the references on the players profile FIFA.com, National-Football-Teams etc. He now plays for CSD Barber since the beginning of this season. Not Centro. Caps were also not up to date. (Subzzee (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC))

@Subzzee: The club should always be the club the player was at when he or she was called up. For this player it says latest was 2014 Caribbean Cup, at what club was he then? Qed237 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing UEFA Euro 2016 Qualifying Group C

Ukraine should be second as their goal difference is superior to that of Slovakia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fungusandfurball (talk • contribs)

@Fungusandfurball: Then may I suggest you read the rules? (Hint: Goal difference is first tiebreaker?). If you dont know rules I suggest you stop editing. Qed237 (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Ukraine's goal difference is higher than Slovakia's which is why I am trying to put them up to second because I read the rules.

@Fungusandfurball: Then read the rules again. Head-to-head is before goal differential. Qed237 (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Right, ok then. I'll double check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fungusandfurball (talk • contribs)

@Fungusandfurball: Read UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying#Tiebreakers and read tiebreaker number 1. Qed237 (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: The match between Ukraine & Slovakia was a draw which means that the points were shared & the next tiebreaker "goal difference" is brought into effect surely.

@Fungusandfurball: First match Ukraine–Slovakia 0–1; Second match Slovakia–Ukraine 0–0. So Slovakia has 4 points in Higher number of points obtained in the matches played among the teams in question; (criteria 1), while Ukraine only has 1 point. Slovakia win on head-to-head. Qed237 (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: You're completely right I missed that. Sorry stupid mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fungusandfurball (talk • contribs)

@Fungusandfurball: Mistakes happens, no worries. Qed237 (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Seeing that you worked things out, you might want to retract your unjustified vandalism warning on Fungusandfurball's talk page. None of their whopping two edits to the article question seem like deliberate attempt to damage the wikipedia. Just honest mistakes. Tvx1 18:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

EMF miniEURO

Can you help editing the seasons here : EMF miniEURO. Thank you.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to much other things to do. Qed237 (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The Indian in the Cupboard

You've twice reverted 82.132.233.163 (talk · contribs) at the article The Indian in the Cupboard. I don't understand why. Both categories added (Category:Works about Native Americans and Category:Native Americans in popular culture) would seem to apply to the novel. Why did you remove them? — fourthords | =Λ= | 14:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Fourthords: Hi, I probably should have explained why in the edit summary sorry. This editor has been going around multiple BLPs adding categories without any support in article and also added unsourced content about heritage, despite several warnings (he will be blocked upon next edit mos likely). For that reason I reverted all edits from this user, which may have lead to this edit being reverted even if it was correct (I am not sure). Qed237 (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2016 Qualifying

Well done for all your editing on this - you've done a great job keeping us all in order! This 'week of football' makes qualifying more entertaining but it does drag out the various permutations of future scenarios and annotations... Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Updates

Sorry, I didn't realize there was a rule against live updates during games. Now the matches have finished I trust that you will reinstate my hard work? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.105.208 (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, it is not easy to know for a new editor. I hope you want to stay and make more edits in the future. I will take a look at the articles as soon as possible. Qed237 (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying

Please refer to WP:INFOBOXFLAG, namely this passage: "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many". Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: These flags are always used, please continue reading: However, the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport. Qed237 (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And If you read even further, you'll see: "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag". Mattythewhite (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And if you read the notice on top MOS:ICON you'll see very clearly: This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus. It's a guideline, not a law that has to be abided to the letter. Apply common sense. In this case the country name for that particular flag (or for any flag at all) is used more than enough in the entire article for that to be a genuine concern. Tvx1 00:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Creation of articles

HI. I created many article , I just want help me ? Kurdistantolive (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kurdistantolive: If you have questions I will try and help you and answer them. Qed237 (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kurdistantolive (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

International events lists

Dear Qed237, recently I spent some time to give an extra value to the pages of some footballers representing their national teams at "major" international championships. In football, it's pretty clearly separated, you either have youth, friendly or major competitions, like the World Cup and Continental Championships. Unfortunately, just like that you decided to revert all those edits. Such lists exist at ice hockey players' pages and I think they look good and give a reader a good idea of how a player performed at particular events. I don't see anything wrong in such lists and I feel disappointed that you strached my work "just like that". Ksihoo17:22, 14 October 2015

@Ksihoo: I can understand your disappointment, bbut I dont feel that they are needed as definition of "major" may change from person to person and it is not in the footballers MOS (manual of style). If you want to do this over a lot of articles, may I suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, for discussion and consensus before editing? Qed237 (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Ok, I will put it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, maybe there are others sharing a need of having those kind of lists. Ksihoo 14 October 20:54 (CET)

Merge

Seems fine to me! GiantSnowman 16:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Great. Qed237 (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Euro 16 qualifying

When I go to UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying a blank screen appears on both its article page and its talk page. Submitting an edit is impossible. Is that an issue with my computer or does the same happen to you as well? ^Ol^Ja 18:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: I just looked and it works for me. Maybe some temporary problem from wikipedia. Qed237 (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

FCFanclub1

FYI, I have re-opened an old SPI for FCFanclub1, as I believe it's a sock of Newestcastleman. Please keep an eye out for other socks who edit season articles like this user. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Thanks for the info, I will try and keep this on my mind. Qed237 (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi again

Can you revert please on Copa del Rey, an anonymous deleted the Runners-up. Thanks.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

2015–16 KHL season

Hello, Qed237. Can you help me in 2015–16 KHL season? 95.110.63.249 (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I will give you same answer as last time. I am very busy and it is not a league I have much interest in, but I may take a look when I have the time. Exactly what do you want help with on that article? Qed237 (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Premier League may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{about|the English association football league}
• ] was the most recent title sponsor, having sponsored the Premier League from 2001 through 2016 (until 2004, the title sponsorship was held through its [[Barclaycard]] brand before shifting to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

2015–16 Russian National Football League and other

Hello, Qed237.

Can you help me in 2015–16 Russian National Football League? At this page there is League table in old format. Can you make it in new format? Can you add section of results? GAV80 (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: I added it to my to do-list and will take a look at it when I have time (probably tomorrow). Thanks for letting me know about this table so it can be fixed. Qed237 (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: I am currently doing the new format. Is it enough just to add it in article or do you want template? In my mind just adding in article is enough. Qed237 (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think just adding in article (without template). GAV80 (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: Okay, I have now updated the table and added results section. Does it look okay? I did not have time or strength to update all results so if you want to do it yourself that would be great. Qed237 (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Qed237, thank you! I will add results today. GAV80 (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I added all past results. May I will write you again, if I found something dificult on other pages? GAV80 (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: Great. Of course, you are free to write to me whenever I want and I will try and help. Qed237 (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Qed237.

It's me again. About Template:UEFA Women's Euro 2017 qualifying Group 1 and other groups from 2 to 9. If your open this templates, you'll see under the table red link "Template:UEFA Women's Euro 2017 qualifying group talk" (page does not exist). If you open very similar page 2017 UEFA European Under-21 Championship qualification Group 7, you'll see under table "To edit the group standings and fixtures: Group 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Runners-up". Can you make also in UEFA Women's Euro 2017 qualifying groups? GAV80 (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: Done. I did not add runners-up as there was no template for it? Also I could only see 8 groups and not 9? Qed237 (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Qed237, thank you very much. I made a mistake with 9 groups. Only 8 groups. GAV80 (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, let me know if you need more help. Qed237 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should make a template for runners-up? Because there will be a page "UEFA Women's Euro 2017 qualifying play-offs" and "2017 UEFA European Under-21 Championship qualification play-offs". Similar "UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying" and "UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying play-offs". One template in two pages. GAV80 (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe later, but I dont think it is needed now as it is currently only used in one place. Qed237 (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I need your help

Hi Qed, just wanted to ask you, what do I have to do to revert edits? I've seen alot of vandalism in pages lately and i can't revert the edits like other users do, please help me with this, thank you TheSoccerBoy (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheSoccerBoy: There is two different things you can do. The one I recommend is to become a rollbacker. First read Wikipedia:Rollback to see if you unserstand what it means and then add a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. The second alternative is to add a gadget such as Wikipedia:Twinkle, but you should be careful with that as any WP:TWINKLEABUSE could risk having one's account blocked. For that reason I recommend the first alternative, to become a rollbacker, so you dont risk abusing it for not knowing how to revert. Also a little tip, please be very careful when reverting (more careful than me, I have been getting in to trouble sometimes). Even well experienced editors finds themselves in editwars when reverting sometimes and may be blocked. Qed237 (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

FK Liepāja

Do you think that that team will get a UEFA licence for the next season? Last season they were denied one because they were "affiliated with the Latvian Football Federation for less than three years after reforming from the dissolved Liepājas Metalurgs", so would that mean that they wouldn't get a licence until 2017 (since they were affiliated in 2014)? LICA98 (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@LICA98: Good question, I would have to investigate that. I dont think we should eliminate them until we are completely sure, but definately worth looking in to. Let me know if you find something. Qed237 (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)