Fred Zepelin (talk | contribs) →Reliable sources: correction |
Fred Zepelin (talk | contribs) Warning: Three-revert rule on Cowboys–Vikings rivalry. Tags: Twinkle Reverted |
||
Line 272: | Line 272: | ||
:I'm perfectly within my rights to remove any messages from my talk page. In fact, per Wikipedia guidelines, you should take its removal as tacit acknowledgement of the message. Now stop making threats and explain, using your big boy words, why the source I added isn't reliable when its numbers can be corroborated. – [[User:PeeJay|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay|Jay]] 20:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC) |
:I'm perfectly within my rights to remove any messages from my talk page. In fact, per Wikipedia guidelines, you should take its removal as tacit acknowledgement of the message. Now stop making threats and explain, using your big boy words, why the source I added isn't reliable when its numbers can be corroborated. – [[User:PeeJay|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay|Jay]] 20:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
:: That discussion is ongoing at [[Talk:Cowboys–Vikings rivalry]]. I would also ask that you, again, refrain from reverting the article to add things that aren't backed up by a reliable source. And that you refrain from personal insults as you did in your comment here. [[User:Fred Zepelin|Fred Zepelin]] ([[User talk:Fred Zepelin|talk]]) 21:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC) |
:: That discussion is ongoing at [[Talk:Cowboys–Vikings rivalry]]. I would also ask that you, again, refrain from reverting the article to add things that aren't backed up by a reliable source. And that you refrain from personal insults as you did in your comment here. [[User:Fred Zepelin|Fred Zepelin]] ([[User talk:Fred Zepelin|talk]]) 21:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
== February 2023 == |
|||
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:Cowboys–Vikings rivalry]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK|how this is done]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. |
|||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.{{Break}}''Keep in mind you have now reverted 3 times in order to add unreliably-sourced material. One more will trigger 3RR. Please don't do that. I'm posting this so that you are not surprised, as a courtesy.''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Fred Zepelin|Fred Zepelin]] ([[User talk:Fred Zepelin|talk]]) 22:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:03, 17 February 2023
Football box collapsible
Does the format "football box collapsible" look not better than the normal "footbal box" format? Who decides that it is ugly? regards...Magawla61 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- It definitely doesn't look better when there are horizontal bars between each template already. Didn't you look at your edits after you made them? Also, per MOS:COLLAPSE, we shouldn't be hiding content in collapsible boxes if it can't be found anywhere else in the article. It's not fit for purpose. – PeeJay 17:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Of course I am looking my edits after I made them. Well, OK. According the above manual, I won't hide the content from now on. I think that "collapsible" format looks better though.
Competitions by country and most played teams
May I ask why you deleted the "competitiions sorted by countries" and "most played teams" from the page Trabzonspor in European football? Is there a policy for that? Because I really gave quite an effort for those statistics. Regards... Magawla61 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- That info was unsourced. – PeeJay 21:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Look. The info was derived from the games they played. They can be calculated from the results. I did the calculations. Does that not count? Magawla61 (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- And there are many team pages alike which contain such statistical information. Magawla61 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Scorers in FC Twente in European Footbal Deleted
You also removed the scorers from the FC Twente in European football page. Why is (was) that? (You missed some of them too.) It is really tiring to struggle with such things while I want to make contributions. Highly discouraging. Can you please tell me your point(s) on that? Magawla61 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Reference for the football scores
Hello PeeJay. I would like to ask you something: The "football box" template contains a "Report" field. And that field contains the link of the result of that game. Do we need to add another reference for the score of the game? According to me, the "result" field is enough and we don't need to add another reference for thae score. What do you think? Thanks in advance. Magawla61 (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)mgwl Magawla61 (talk)
- Adding a link to a reliable news report, or the organisers' official match report should be enough. – PeeJay 21:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
footballdatabase.eu reliable?
Hello PeeJay. I would like to ask another question: Is "www.footballdatabase.eu" a reliable source? According to me it is. What do you think? Regards... Magawla61 (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)mgwl Magawla61 (talk
<b.r. /> to <b.r.>
Sorry for bothering again. I was converting the <b.r. /> to <b.r.> because it will take less bytes like that. Something wrong with it? Magawla61 (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)mgwl Magawla61 talk
- Yes, you shouldn't make edits just to change something that won't be represented to the reader. Changing from <br /> to <br> does nothing to change the outward presentation of the article, and it saves only two bytes for each one you change. It's not worth storing an entirely new version of the page on Wikipedia's servers. – PeeJay 13:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barbarians vs New Zealand, 1973, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Sutherland.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Sourced info only.
Please don't revert again. You didn't even have the numbers right (it's 19-15 including playoffs). The rest has to be sourced. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources
Please read up on WP:RS. You added what is basically a personal website. I've now asked you to discuss on talk, which you ignored, and posted an edit warring warning on your talk page, which you removed. Next step is a formal report, and likely, a block for you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly within my rights to remove any messages from my talk page. In fact, per Wikipedia guidelines, you should take its removal as tacit acknowledgement of the message. Now stop making threats and explain, using your big boy words, why the source I added isn't reliable when its numbers can be corroborated. – PeeJay 20:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- That discussion is ongoing at Talk:Cowboys–Vikings rivalry. I would also ask that you, again, refrain from reverting the article to add things that aren't backed up by a reliable source. And that you refrain from personal insults as you did in your comment here. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
February 2023
Your recent editing history at Cowboys–Vikings rivalry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Keep in mind you have now reverted 3 times in order to add unreliably-sourced material. One more will trigger 3RR. Please don't do that. I'm posting this so that you are not surprised, as a courtesy. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)