User talk:Anaxagoras13

User:ToonLucas22 and User:Sportsfan 1234 have no right to edit this page, anyone who detects edits by them on this page, can revert that. Any edits by them on this page will be considered ...

Welcome!

Hello, Anaxagoras13, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! LGF1992UK (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anaxagoras, I don't know whether you are aware of it but when moving pages like Rot-Weiss Frankfurt, you will also have to fix the double redirects you are creating. Otherwise you end up with a couple of links that don't work. An example is Helvetia Frankfurt, which redirects to Rot-Weiß Frankfurt which in turn redirects to Rot-Weiss Frankfurt. Double redirects don't work on wikipedia. Have fun, take care, EA210269 (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the reversions in Template:EHF teams [1] and Template:EHF women's teams [2]? Needless to say that the European Handball Federation and the International Handball Federation are using the appellation "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". --157.228.x.x (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It came to my attention that you are following me around with a somewhat edit-warring mood, thus making it extremely hard for me to assume good faith. An early, but telling, indication was your editing pattern in Template:EHF teams, specifically this one, followed by this one and finally that one the next few days or weeks. In all of the above you were blindly reverting, claiming that we are supposed to alphabetise FYR Macedonia under 'M'. All of your reversions though were restoring a version, which as of the time of this post, it still stands [3], listing the country in question as "Macedonia" plain. We both know that this is not correct. --157.228.x.x (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See [4] Gnevin (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 2007–08 Cuban National Series requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2007–08 Cuban National Series has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page doesn't have any citations or references, and does not seem to be notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea, what you are doing, do you?--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to share how I'm wrong, or do you just want to spout that I'm wrong without explaining yourself? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's that easy: the 1972 Dolphins are the only perfect team in NFL history, that's it. No other team has won all their matches.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you never read perfect season. Like I said in my edit summary, prior to 1932, four teams completed their seasons with no loses and ties were simply discarded in regards to the win percentage and did not count as half a win and half a loss like it is today. Their records stand as 1.000 in the history books. So indeed the 1920 Akron Pros, the 1922 Canton Bulldogs, the 1923 Canton Bulldogs and the 1929 Green Bay Packers do have perfect seasons. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article you cite states that "A perfect season is a sports season including any requisite playoff portion, in which a team remains undefeated and untied." Further, it says, "only one team has played a complete perfect season," the Dolphins. It goes on to say that there were "four teams who completed seasons undefeated, but with one or more tied games," which is not a perfect season, as defined by the article itself, no matter how they dealt with winning percentages then. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So because "it's how the article defines perfect" as compared to how history actually happened, teams that went undefeated and had no losses and a perfect winning percentage are now not perfect. Okay, I see I'm dealing with history revisionists, I'll stop trying to add the word "modern" to NFL history when it's clearly true that back in the 1920s a perfect season included ties. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who cited the article on perfect season as support, not me. And you in turn are defining the term by the winning percentage rather than common usage of the term. If you want to say those teams were undefeated, fine. But the common use of the term does not disregard ties. Lastly, it isn't the 1920s any more. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes ties because in most, if not all, of modern sports a tie counts for something (usually a half win/half loss). In today's world, yes, a perfect season can't be accomplished with a tie because it affects the outcome. "This isn't the 1920s anymore" is the most piss-poor response you could come up with. Yeah, it's not, but that doesn't retroactively change the past. You can't just write an article on Wikipedia in 2013 and say "Well it was 1920, they didn't know better" and call it a day. It doesn't work like that; that is history revisionism. In 1920s and 30s in the NFL, a perfect season could be accomplished by winning every game and having a tie in the standings, period. No amount of "the article says different" changes that. Trying to compare "common use" of a term that has changed over time (particularly in the NFL) to something from 90 years ago doesn't work. You have to apply how it was defined then to how it was, and back then those teams had a perfect season. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikpedia, we use the most common current usage of terms, not those in use at some point in the past. The Vikings never called themselves Vikings, and citizens of the Byzantine Empire called themselves Romans, yet we have pages using those terms. At any rate, your argument should be raised on the page for perfect season, not in regard to the Super Bowl champions list. And even there, find a current, reliable source that refers to these pre-1932 seasons as perfect, and then you'll have an argument. Otherwise, what you are proposing is WP:OR. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Literally laughing out loud. Did you even see my edit? I'm guessing you didn't considering you didn't since you're shouting WP:OR. Don't worry, if I actually care enough about defending my point, I could do it pretty damn easily and have an unreferenced "common usage" term on Wikipedia altered for accuracy. However, nincompoops are one reason why I'm no longer a frequent contributor anymore, because I have to debate them on a point on a website where a nincompoop with the same opinion will go back and change it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without a supporting source, your interpretation of the term perfect season is OR, and the modification "modern" is unnecessary. And personal attacks on other editors are always inappropriate. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy.. first I'll just say you can't personally attack other editors as a whole. That's missing the element of "personal" and becomes an oxymoron on your part. Second, the burden of proof is on you right now, not me. The article as it stands says:

A perfect season is a sports season including any requisite playoff portion, in which a team remains undefeated and untied. The feat is extremely rare at the professional level of any team sport, and has occurred more commonly at the collegiate level in the United States. A perfect regular season (known by other names outside the United States) is a season excluding any playoffs, where a team remains undefeated and untied; it is less rare than a complete perfect season but still exceptional.

Now that is fine and all, but where is your supporting source for this interpretation of the term? Because a reference doesn't exist at the beginning of this article. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lead does not have to include citations for material that is not likely to be challenged and is discussed in the body, WP:LEADCITE. Again, it seems your argument is with the page on the term perfect season. I invite you to raise the issue at the talk page there. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You act like I haven't read the article, which you're mistaken. Since you're pointing the LEADCITE where you don't have to have a reference in the lead, because the body of the article discusses a perfect season, with references, please cite the passages. I really must have missed it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{sigh} You were the one who cited that page as support for your position. When I pointed out that the opening sentence of that article directly contradicts your position, you began attacking that page. I have never edited that page. If you have a problem with that page, please discuss it at the talk page there. Beyond that, if it is common usage to refer to those early seasons as perfect, then it should be no trouble finding a reliable source supporting the addition of the modifier "modern." So why are you still arguing about this here? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did, because Anamagoras13 incorrectly said that the Dolphins were the only one to win every game, and in the 1920s ties didn't count, resulting in four teams that also had seasons with nothing but wins. I cited the page since it actually referred to what I was talking about. However, the article is also incorrect and I have already proven that considering your lack of response to where the citations for what the actual "common usage" is. I really have nothing left to debate now honestly, I think I've proven my point. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was just curious about what this edit means.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I think I just figured it out. Extra Time right?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why my edit on Template:2015 AFC Asian Cup Group D table is wrong. The first tiebreaker is clearly "Greater number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned". // Mattias321 (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a 3-way-tie between Japan, Iraq and Jordan, Japan can end up 3rd in the group, e.g. Jordan beat Japan 2-0 and Iraq win by any score. Palestine can win a 3-way-tie with Iraq and Jordan, e.g. Palestine beat Iraq 8-0 and Jordan lose by any score.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're posting incorrect information about his table. Please refer to the Official AFC Asian Cup Group D standings at: http://www.afcasiancup.com/standings/en/ It clearly states that Iraq is 3rd and Jordan 2nd at the current date (17/1/15). Just to make the information accurate and correct. Please explain if you think I'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noidberg (talk • contribs) 13:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the tie-breaking-criteria. Head-to-head is the first tie-breaker.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a link to the tie-breaking criteria? Because the tie-breaking criteria as listed on the Wikipedia page says something completely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.251.213 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

??? The tie-breaking criteria in the article says head-to-head, and there is a source linked, or direct here: http://www.afcasiancup.com/i/AsianCup/img/pdfs/2015_Competition_Regulations.pdf Page 23.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Official AFC Rankings from the source, which supports my claim. If you still think I'm incorrect, please find a reliable source to support your claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noidberg (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source are the rules of the tournament, read it.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then can you clarify why the Official website of the AFC Asian Cup Australia 2015 has Jordan 2nd and Iraq 3rd?--Noidberg (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the issue on the talk page of the tournament, discuss there.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your help on undoing premature edits by IP's. ;) Was thinking about asking for a protection by Admins, any thoughts?... Kante4 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you removed the 'See Also' links a couple of times in the articles 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool A and 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool B which were connecting to each other. The two articles are quite a lot related to each other. We would like to direct the readers to see the other article too. This was the reason why I added the See also links. About which navigation bar are you talking about? It is okay to add them there. But, I don't know what a navigation bar in Wikipedia is and was unable to make out. I bet other users will have a difficulty too. The see also links make it easy and efficient to navigate from one related article to the other. Please give me a brief explanation why really do we need to do this. Thanks. Kashish Arora (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Template:2015 Cricket World Cup at the bottom of the sub-articles is enough (and a better way) to navigate between the articles. Maybe the term navigator bar is not 100% correct in en-WP, but I think anyone who wants to navigate, finds this template in the article.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that called a navigator? If it is called or not, it is alright. But actually, no one even scrolls down the references. Everyone will just stop scrolling when they see the references have started. That is uneasy now.--Kashish Arora (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this question on the talk page of the main article.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! Thanks for considering.--Kashish Arora (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can appreciate that you are trying to update the statistics for various sports activities, but you still need to reference a source whether its a website or news article. Continuiung to force your updates without sources will simply get you blocked for violating policy. Please either cite sources or update the date/time stamp for the one that is in place if it has been updated. Thank you, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to 2015 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits also seem to constitute factual errors (e.g. removing that Colombia was eliminated). Thank you. TL22 (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2015 Copa América shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Also please don't remove information that is correct, Colombia was eliminated yesterday. Thank you. TL22 (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The final postion of Colombia is not known yet, so they are NOT to be included until the last quarter-final. So stop that nonsense!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So? If it qualified as a live update, it could be reverted. But it is not a live update because it was after the match ended. We can simply move Colombia after Brazil vs. Paraguay ends. --TL22 (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can list Colombia only after the final QF ends. If we list a team in a position which they don't have for sure, is nothing else than livetickering.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy against what I am doing? I don't think so. Information must always be up-to-date, so that is techincally allowed. --TL22 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Anaxagoras13 reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: ). Thank you. TL22 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just see [5].--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an excuse for breaking the three-revert rule. It still doesn't qualify per WP:3RRNO. --TL22 (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, it just shows, that you are wrong, very embarrassing for you, that another user reverted you too.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not forget your unwanted revision of my previous edit from the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup when it was actually a valid edit. If you didn't see the live event, then you shouldn't be undoing a valid edit, especially when monitoring the current matches. CrowdingShark19 (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you better wait until the game is over to fill in the result.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except the game is over yet you made an unnecessary revision, so I'm afraid that you are wrong. CrowdingShark19 (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to say that the rules were applied wrongly. Consulting the tournament regulations for other tournaments indicates it works the same: http://www.ibaf.org/en/infopage-detail.aspx?id=c202a5a5-ebd9-48f6-8b72-c4877880862d For example, at the U-12 Baseball World Cup later this month, under section C11, it says: "If three or more teams are tied and when criterion 1 [head to head] does not break a tie, a team or teams with lower TQB will be eliminated so that criterion 1 [head to head] can break the tie between the teams." MrArticleOne (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see, what a complete nonsense, unlogical and unfair new rule!!! One could also set the team with the best TQB on the first position and the result between the other determines 2nd and 3rd in this tie. That illustrates how nonsense that rule is! Very sad for baseball and logic.--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 09:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are the tournaments from the 2015 Pan American Games so different? One based on templates, allowing us to work just once: we fill the template once and the templates in the nations articles are updated. The men's article seems ok, but what happened in the women's? Osplace 14:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due, in part to FIFA's insistence, the Men's Olympic football tournament is an U-23 tournament (with three players allowed over that age). CONCACAF and CONMEBOL have agreed to use the same birth date requirements for the Pan American Games. Since the Pan Americans are held a year prior to the Olympics it is technically an U-22 tournament, but effectively they field the same teams. --MorrisIV (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Anaxagoras13. Thank you. --TL22 (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anaxagoras13. I see that you've banned ToonLucas22 from commenting on this page. You're within your rights to do so, but could you please remove the bit about vandalism from the notice? Though it would be disruptive for them to post here in defiance of the ban, it would not be vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND), and calling things vandalism that aren't can be an actual problem, due to the special exemptions that reverting vandalism gets. Just removing the second sentence from the notices on your user and user talk page (Any edits by him on this page will be considered vandalism.) is all I'm asking for. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Anaxagoras13,

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. You are adding contentious material to this articlke without a reliable source.

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. You should not make accusations of vandalism lightly. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism, if you change the citation of the source!--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 23:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• WBSC Premier12 → WBSC Premier 12
• 2015 WBSC Premier12 → 2015 WBSC Premier 12
• 2015 WBSC Premier12 rosters → 2015 WBSC Premier 12 rosters

I am Taiwanese, You convert to the correct entry. --223.136.139.100 (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct is Premier12, NOT Premier 12. See sources.So stop your edits!--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 15:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:WBSC Premier 12 and Category:WBSC Premier 12 players and Category:2015 WBSC Premier 12 players??? --223.136.139.100 (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WBSC Premier12 and Category:WBSC Premier12 players and Category:2015 WBSC Premier12 players??? --223.136.139.100 (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am Taiwanese man, very much like baseball. --114.136.241.64 (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that lately you have been reverting the latest position of football team articles even though the team have guaranteed the mentioned position before the season ends. Could you please point out the regulation at Wiki, where it is mentioned that the latest position of football team articles can only be updated when the season ends? MbahGondrong (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anaxagoras13. Sorry, for my edits. I mistaked with dates. GAV80 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 18:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at UEFA Euro 2016 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Qed237 (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Savvyjack23 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Copa América Centenario. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you completely nuts?--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 07:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know you are completely nuts.--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 09:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If you continue with vandalism you will be reported to administrators... you are removing sources, and giving your unsourced claim. FR Yugoslavia was Serbia and Montenegro name from 1992 to 2003, and there was 95% Serbian players. Serbia is successor state of FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro and there is source from official FIBA website. So once again, please stop with vandalism.--Bozalegenda (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who vandalizes! Stop that! Your source is from 2006!!!!!!!!!! 10 years old and way outdated. FIBA doesn't consider Serbia as successor of FR Yugoslavia. Just look at hte FIBA-site: [6]. You are the one who will be reported.--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 16:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

So now it is your turn to correct your error.--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 16:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This is thoroughly discussed on the article's talk page and consensus is reached years ago. Wikipedia is consistent with treatment of all Serbia national teams, which are almost universally legal successors of Serbia and Montenegro. The practical compromise has been reached years ago that Yugoslavia national teams before 1992 have separate articles, while the information under "Serbia national teams" contain the Serbia&Montenegro (FRY) results as well. The matter was also at the article's talk page, at #Final disscussion: Results/medals history back in 2014, which seems to have reached similar conclusion.

In my latest edit I provided the source from FIBA site that clearly says that Basketball Federation of Serbia retains seat of previous Basketball federation of Federal Republic of Yugolavia (1992-2003) / Serbia and Montenegro (2003 - 2006) i.e. it is the direct and sole successor.

If you want to re-open discussion about this, please feel free to do so and try to reach a new consensus. Until then, please refrain from edits or I will be forced to report you and block you from any editing.

Regards--Klačko (talk)

You did not provide any source!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LEAD of an article summarizes the content in the body. When we have a winner of the 2017 WBC, the lead will be updated, more in line with 2013 World Baseball Classic. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Galatz^Talk 16:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have left an explanation as to why Germany should be ranked ahead of Italy. In your edits you have cited a rule that I have never heard of before, but perhaps you have found some rule listing that I could not. In any case please interact on the 2017 eurobasket talk page so that all interested parties can easily way in and it can be resolved without further reverts.18abruce (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Galatz^Talk 14:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anaxagoras13. You've been reported a lot at admin boards. In fact, you finished a one week block only on August 30. Your new appearance at AN3 can't be a good sign. (The complaint is about warring at EuroBasket and EuroBasket 2017). You might consider responding at the noticeboard and telling us if you are planning to do better in the future. If an administrator decides to close this report as a violation, a much longer block is possible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned per the result of this report. If you revert again at either EuroBasket or EuroBasket 2017 without getting prior consensus on the talk page you may be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anaxagoras13. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a mixed event if no women compete. Do you mean because technically they can? I hope you are fixing bobsleigh as well then.18abruce (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See [7] "Both men and women can slide in this competition.". What have bobsleigh to do with it?--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No women compete, really? [{Maria Isser]]--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes technically they can, I stated that, please try to actually read what I write. The qualification rules state that it is an "open" event. But if no women compete in it now, or even tried to qualify, what is the point? 4-man bobsleigh is open to women as well as men, some competed last year but opted not to try to qualify this year. But I would think a small note to that affect, for both luge and bobsleigh, would be more appropriate then calling something mixed that only has male competitors.18abruce (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please report User Mayerroute5 in the administrator's board for his continuous disruption in the IPL page? I'm currently stuck with my exams so thought of asking for a little help from you. Regards. Cricket246 (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in your page there was block tag. Since you aren't blocked anymore and that tag may be misleading, I removed it. Hope you are fine with that. Regards. Cricket246 (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should remain there.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anaxagoras13. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anaxagoras13. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the "Superior goal difference in all matches of the group" criteria apply first for teams with the same number of points (in preliminary round)? JonnyZwiki (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Head-to-head points will apply and Germany will have 3 points in a 3-way-tie with Brazil and Russia.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, why RUS is above BRA right now? BRA has 2 head-to-head points against RUS's zero JonnyZwiki (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This means that my fist edit (which you cancelled) was correct. JonnyZwiki (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it was not correct.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As long as a group phase is not completed, overall goal difference counts, after completion of all group games head-to-head will count.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! It's incredible! :)) Thank you very much for clarification. And sorry for the inconvenience. JonnyZwiki (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Each sport has its different qualification systems that need to be approved by the IOC first before the host nation is guaranteed a spot in the tournament. Japan did not automatically earn a spot in each tournament the day Tokyo was awarded the games. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your nonsense!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is the usual way we do it in wikipedia, if you want to change that, you have to discuss it firts!!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please learn how to respond a respectful way, secondly, please contribute in a constructive manner. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It says at the top of this page @ToonLucas22 has no right to edit this page. Something is confusing here. Please help me just for my interests. Thank you.211.27.115.246 (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please report the Braceabby at WP:SPI. The user is editing IPL match templates despite warning. You seem to have suspected him as a sockpuppet. Please raise the issue. Thank you. Human (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the relevant SPI so please post your evidence there. Spike 'em (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Me and many others want to see rankings on the 2019 CONCACAF Gold Cup page, but every time we add them, you erase them. So I’m wondering why can’t you just keep it? Subaryan (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can say this, back in 2006 I silenced the argument that there was no source material. I provided FIFA published rankings for the 1930-2002 World Cups yet people are still deleting the tables under WP:NOR. CONCACAF has also published rankings in the past. Libro0 (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make edits on my talk page again, thank you. MaxVerstappen33 (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the previous message did you not understand? MaxVerstappen33 (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mayerroute5, as long as you vandalize Wikipedia as long will you have edits on your talkpage.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leave only your messages then, not add previous messages sent by others. That's not your right to decide what messages appears on another talk page, other than yours. I'd consider keeping your messages up if you didn't add the previous ones back. MaxVerstappen33 (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, you don't touch any IPL article beginning right now, and I'll do the same? MaxVerstappen33 (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result: see User:MaxVerstappen33--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge you to use edit summaries, especially when deleting cintributions of others - which you can anticipate may be subject to disagreement. --2604:2000:E010:1100:CC41:3469:F5ED:4222 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obvouius things need not to be mention in the edit summary.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all obvious. --2604:2000:E010:1100:CC41:3469:F5ED:4222 (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the actual directive is as follows (contrasting with the one you created): “It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it.”--2604:2000:E010:1100:CC41:3469:F5ED:4222 (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep undoing my edits? Only 3 matches were played, however, an additional draw result was awarded, without another game being played, hence the abnormal match numbers and the references down to the note explaining the situation. So, why undo that? BDigs153 (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cancelled games are already counted in the table. Please do not continue with this false edits.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not false if that's exactly how it played out. They've only played 3 games, not 4. They were both 'awarded' an extra draw, hence why there are 3 games, their 3 results, then an additional draw on the table. These are all then referenced down to the explanation at the match details section, where it explains the circumstances for this. It's common sense and logic. The 'canceled' games are in the table; as a draw. As they didn't play the games, they can't be counted in the matches played column, but the draw can be awarded. Your edits are false, as you're misleading the public to believe everyone played 4 games, which is not the case. I've seen you have a history and a habit of undoing any edits you don't personally believe are correct. Please be considerate. Thanks for your time and understanding. -BDigs153 (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if the matches played is displayed as 4 instead of 3, you're misleading the reader as they will think the tries, points scored, points against and points deficit are what was scored for 4 games, which is false. The stats displayed are for 3 games played, which should be reflected in the matches played count. Thanks - BDigs153 (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 Major League Baseball season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlos Carrasco (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there is a script to correct dashes as there should be no spaces between numbers. Kante4 (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And there are hundreds of tournament articles in which are spaces between numbers and dashes. It's roughly par between with and without spaces throughout wikipedia.

Especially in baseball: 2005 European Baseball Championship, 2007 European Baseball Championship, 2010 European Baseball Championship, 2012 European Baseball Championship, 2014 European Baseball Championship, 2016 European Baseball Championship, 2019 European Baseball Championship. And i.e. rugby league and rugby union. Why not just let the authors choose in any case what design looks better?--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:ILIKEIT. There is a MOS on how to display the dashes, but ok... Kante4 (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two incidents I've noticed in the history of the 2019 Rugby World Cup article:

• [Undo 1] [Undo 2] Reverting the correct change from "less" to "fewer".
• [Undo 1] [Undo 2] [Undo 3] Reverting the correct change from "knock-out" to "knockout", crossing the line of 3 reverts constituting an WP:EDITWAR.

In summary, please stop starting editwars built on the completely fallacious idea that the official RWC web page is a paragon of spelling and grammar. Indeed, deleting a hyphen or changing "less" to "fewer" would be a really strange type of vandalism; so if you're not 100% sure these changes are wrong, you should perhaps give the benefit of the doubt. Based on all trustworthy sources I can find (i.e., dictionaries), these particular reverts are wrong and a complete waste of other people's time. --RobertStar20 (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @RobertStar20: The spelling "knock-out" is not incorrect; both "knock-out" and "knockout" are acceptable variants. – PeeJay 07:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

could you explain your comment about the final ranking of the 2017 World Women's Handball Championship on French Wikipedia? "No ; both have 2 points and 83-81 goals in the deciding stats". You may be right, but where does those 2 points and those goals come from?

Even though Montenegro defeated Denmark, Denmark had a better rank in group phase and better results (4 wins and 3 loss for Denmark while only 3 wins, 1 drawn and 3 loss for Montenegro ). Hence I totally don't understand why IHF considered that they both ended on 6th rank. I would be grateful if you have an explanation and even better a source about it. Thanks ! --LeFnake (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, for the places 5-8, quarterfinal losers, the teams were ranked by their results against the top 4 teams in the preliminary round. In 2015 World Women's Handball Championship, it is shortly explained, see also 2017 World Men's Handball Championship or 2013 World Men's Handball Championship.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the answer, I don't know why IHF chose a such complicated way for ranking, but everything is clear now ! --LeFnake (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Anaxagoras, I just wanted to clarify before I undid your revision that the ABL website (standings, stats, rosters) is notorious for not being updated in a timely manner. The edit I made was from this update. I'm a regular editor on the page and if they don't update the official standings by the end of the next round to reflect this, I will add it as a reference source. I appreciate all your edit work on Cavs, Australian and international baseball! Cheers JRA^Talk 23:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rules for classification states that head to head points is above goal difference. Iceland should therefor be above Portugal, since Iceland beat Portugal, not the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.17.150.216 (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the rules. Head-to-head is used AFTER the completion of the group.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2012 NRL season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Josh Morris and Ashley Graham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please pay attention of this article (history page). I suppose the same user changes the teams criteria qualifications constantly into the table without respecting the right criteria. I reverted it too many times. Island92 (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FIBA considers the results from 1992 to 2006 as for Serbia and they should NOT be removed. I mean, come on, even on tis quiz FIBA considers Serbia as a successor of FR Yugoslavia.^[1] So please, put the champion titles of both Eurobasket and World Cup back because they ARE COUNTED. And don't remove them ever again. 009988aaabbbccc (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2021 (CEST)

FIBA does not consider the results from 1992 to 2006 as for Serbia, so stop to write such lies please.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Anaxagoras13:

I am just wondering why you deleted my standings for the 2019 CONCACAF Gold Cup and 2021 CONCACAF Gold Cup? It is recquired to have standings just like all the other ones before 2019 that actually have standings. Please respond to me as quick as you can so we can resolve this. Thank you.

Subaryan (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Subaryan: For the same reason that I reverted the anon who restored it: lack of a source. Also, if you check the FIFA 2018 World Cup. FIFA has not published a final ranking and so all of the attempts to calculate one based on the methods used in previous finals rankings have been reverted. Until CONCACAF supply a ranking, we should not either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"eliminated means elim. from winning the tournament, meaningless placement games doesn't matter; we had already disc. that in earlier tourn. undothank Tag: Manual revert"

Where can I find this discussion? --Sb008 (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the rest of the topics on this page, I see you have a habit of not answering very often. I can't force you to answer me, but not doing so will leave me no option but to conclude such a discussion doesn't exist. --Sb008 (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Djbolkas can place such comments as, and these are direct quotes from their edits: "you're a virgin" "do you have sugma m8" "sugma balls" "you should have been swallowed" and not be banned over it, yet you directly accuse me of vandalism over what is NOT vandalism and have to be formally warned. How about an apology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.125.200 (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the IP left a similar message on my page, and I warned Djbolkas about the edit summaries. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]