User talk:Fenix down/Archive 10

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

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

Please note that the wrong Diamond Stadium link is being used. many thanksRacingmanager (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I understand. Fenix down (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello friend. 2A02:8084:E81:9400:F54C:8021:9489:E4F2 (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Do I know you? Fenix down (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, sure, sorry. (Rhinen)

No problem, it wasn't a difficult fix. Fenix down (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I should calm down. Template in [[Category:Lao Division 1 League]]. Is this a mischief?--O1lI0 (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Fenix down. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Hello, I was the person that made that article. In my attempts to delete the page it gets reversed. I just realized that it's archived and I'm not allowed to delete it.That's my mistake and I'm sorry for that. However, I'd like the name mentioned (my former username) to be changed because it can be tracked back to me and that's something that worries me. Is it possible to delete that or at the very least change the username to my current one?

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthEditor221 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does that worry you? All other edits made with that account name would point back to your new user name, plus the old name is still visible in the page history. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Because search engines point to it, specifically to the talk page. I really wouldn't like that to be known. Is it possible to remove the whole article in itself as the author or perhaps just edit out my name in the talk page? I would really appreciate your help here.--NorthEditor221 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, so is it possible for us to edit my name out and replace it with my current username? If I wasn't clear. Thank you again.--NorthEditor221 (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't really serve any purpose, because, like I said, it would still be there in all of the historical versions of the page. I'm not sure how it identifies you in any way really, nor how someone could stumble on that page as it is not something that shows up in a google search unless you are excessively specific. Could you please explain what the purpose of this account is? This seems to be you as well. I am not sure what the legitimate reason is for having two accounts here. Fenix down (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware that one isn't allowed to have two accounts. If this is the case, I'll stop using one of them. Yes, I understand that it would be in the historical versions of the page, but it wouldn't be directly visible which is what I am trying to do. I don't understand your trouble, as I said the name can be used to identify me and that concerns me. You haven't really answered my questions, is there anything we can do about it?--NorthEditor221 (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Would it be okay with you if I undid your last edit on the talk page?--NorthEditor221 (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I suppose so, please only make changes to your user name though. Could you please also let me know what account you intend using, as I should block the alternate as there is no real need for you to have two. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll stop using this account.--NorthEditor221 (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fenix down, as an uninvolved admin who frequently edits on football-related discussions would you be interested in taking a look at the discussion to merge Omod Okwury with Oumed Oukri and possibly closing it? As someone who is not an administrator I cannot close the discussion and merge the article. If you do not feel comfortable merging the two pages because the discussion has too few participants or some other reason that's fine just let me know. Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Pheuntsholing FC Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Pheuntsholing FC Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Atkinson (Olympic footballer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Atkinson (Olympic footballer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SuperJew (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jim Bartley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Bartley until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SuperJew (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Bollington is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bollington until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SuperJew (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Briscoe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Briscoe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SuperJew (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Brown (footballer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Brown (footballer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SuperJew (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

Hi, just wondering, was your WP:OWN comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force directed at me? Kosack (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kosack, no, not at all, it was aimed at the other Editor who was trying to tell people not to edit the discussion. SOrry for the confusion, I'll clarify. Fenix down (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the reply. Kosack (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Ulaanbaatar University Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I've honestly never seen a list of results for any other under-21 team, but I'll take your word for it. Personally, I don't think under-21 teams need this kind of list, so maybe I'll take them all to an AfD later. – PeeJay 23:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

England national under-21 football team results was what I first thought of when I saw the prod. I would assume WP:LISTN would be satisfied by coverage in Estonia. Fenix down (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tony Ackerman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Ackerman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SuperJew (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The latest 4 comments on this AfD show exactly the kind of behaviour that the NFOOTY guideline brings about which makes it seem that the Wikipedia is even more biased against women footballers. --SuperJew (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't agree with your logic that an AfD about a male footballer shows bias against Female footballers inherently, but I do sympathise with you here. I don't see how someone who plays only 4 games in an FPL can ever receive sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. Furthermore, the deletion rationale indicates the subject passes NFOOTY but fails GNG. My only advice here would be to let the discussion play out and, if kept perhaps take to DRV. If I was closing this, I would close as delete on the basis that GNG is not shown (there is one source that shows the potential for non-routine secondary coverage) and that in this instance, GNG is not possible given the incredibly short length of his career. Fenix down (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The point though is that two players who have received the same amount of coverage and played the same amount of games in the top level league - one gets an almost automatic pass (which is spoken out against only by a handful of editors) while the other doesn't, and the difference at the end of the day is gender. --SuperJew (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Again I sympathise, but your logic is faulty. Your first error is to assume the two "top level leagues" are of the same level of notability, I'm not sure you can compare competitions separated by almost half a century, but I'd be interested, for example in comparing attendance figures for Leyton Orient in the late sixties to the W League three years ago as a yardstick. Secondly, the fact that one "gets an almost automatic pass" is not a fault of the guideline, but a fault of the individual editors in the discussion (and I would forecast a fault of the closing admin if they place greater emphasis on NFOOTY than GNG). I presume that you are making comparison between Ackerman and Bianca Gray. If you are I would observe, though I disagree it equals GNG, that despite there being 50 years since he last played, editors have been able to find non-routine sources discussing the player. For Gray there is nothing to be found at all despite her playing much more recently. Fenix down (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand these specific cases. I'm talking with you on a more broad spectrum. Yes, I know the fault is of the individual editors, but it's perpetrated by NFOOTY. The real problem is when a player playing in the W-League who received more coverage than a male player with the coverage of Ackerman doesn't get an article but Ackerman's is kept. --SuperJew (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you're not quite seeing the full picture with this "automatic pass" thing. W-League players don't get an automatic pass because there is a relatively low level of interest in that league – average attendances are around 1,400, below those of clubs in the National League (1,871 last season), another league from which players don't qualify for articles. Non-international footballers are only notable because the game is a spectator sport, so player notability is indelibly linked to the number of people coming to watch them rather than the level they're playing at (for instance, players in the top division of field hockey in England don't get articles because barely anyone watches the league). The reason relatively few female footballers qualify for articles compared to male players is caused by societal reasons, not bias in Wikipedia guidelines (as I recently pointed out in another discussion, an equivalent to the sort of arguments we're hearing around footballers would be to claim that WP:NPOLITICIAN is biased because more men qualify for articles under it than women; in reality, it simply reflects the fact that there are more men in politics than women because of the kind of society we live in). Wikipedia is not the place to try and correct this problem by artificially promoting one group of people compared to another because of their gender. Number 57 16:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fenix down. An IP on the Arab Club Championship article keeps switching round Espérance de Tunis with Al-Rasheed in the infobox (where it says most successful clubs). Al-Rasheed should be listed first due to alphabetical order (Iraq is alphabetically before Tunisia and Al-Rasheed is alphabetically before Esperance so I don't know why the IP keeps switching it). It know it's a very small and insignificant issue but I've reverted it so many times and he/she keeps changing it without explaining why. Are you able to protect the page for a while to stop this? Thank you, Hashim-afc (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Done, with two runners up spots as well Al Rasheed are clearly the most successful. Fenix down (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fenix down- I saw you reverted my edit adding the Christine Sinclair goal list to the Abby Wambach goal list links. As far as I can tell, these are the only two such lists in women's soccer, so I don't think it'll lead to a slippery slope like your edit summary seemed to imply. I'm not strongly attached to including the link, but I thought it might be useful for readers, and the linking the other direction was already present.Cleancutkid (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Appreciate your point, not going to get too precious if you do add it back, but would expect there to be more than two lists in future. General consensus is that a list of goals is notable if the scorer has at any time been their countries all-time top scorer. Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Totally cool - after sending this reply I looked at the category and saw how many lists there were for men's players. I'll leave it off (at least until 2 years go by and I forget this conversation...) thanks for responding, too; I'm relatively new and still have a lot of "why" questions which I recognize can be annoying.Cleancutkid (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem, feel free to ask me any questions you have. Fenix down (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

Have you seen my thoughts at Khong Chee Mool F.C.. The same is presumably true at Bangsai_F.C. but I wasn't going to comment without any feedback - but time passes. BTW, any searches for anything about Khong Chee are hampered by two things. First the name of the club in the article was "สโมสรฟุตบอลโขงชีมูล" however official sources say "โขง ชี มูล เอฟซี" which normally translates as "Khong Chi Mung F.C." however the club itself is using "Khong Chee Mool F.C." which is more literal.

As such any GNG searches may have been hampered. I'm certainly finding some stuff, but haven't dug as much as I should; but it is a very new team. However, if there is a new team in a league that qualifies for FA Cup, and can even advance to Champions League ... don't we generally assume that notable? As for other matters ... on the advice of my wikilawyer, I can't comment. :) Nfitz (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, uhm, y did u revert my edit? I didnt said bulls**terry , it was all true. So can you explain me why did you reverted my edit on FCSB? Cheers, mate!

If the claim is according to someone or other, you need to add a reference supporting it please. Fenix down (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I have two questions to ask you.

1. Please view the articles about S.League, which were edited by the user today, because I think some edits are unsourced.
2. I saw an edit[1], but I think agg is not Position, please review the article, too.

TEAMBK: but ALL AFC Club put agg as their group postition, please make it standardise. Therre is no Agg in group stage as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teambk (talk • contribs) 03:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, they are unsourced, but I don't see any reason to call them vandalism and as far as I can see none of the original claims were sourced. I'm not sure there is anything that should be done there unless you can provide sources to support the original version, in which case you should revert and add the source. on your second point, that addition looks OK to me. Fenix down (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, agg is the result of two legs, and position is the result of group stage or the competition. And I suggest that we can make a rule about this. What do you think?Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, was just hoping to get your opinion on the notability of individual pages for finals of the Welsh Cup. I haven't really been able to find a definitive answer in the talk archives or Wikiproject notability guidelines. The List of Welsh Cup finals page has attendance figures for the finals with it averaging around 10,000 during its heyday but obviously considerably lower than that these days. Do you think they would meet notability requirements? Kosack (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. In this instance I think you have to go with GNG. How widelt reported are the cup finals? If they, as I suspect are getting national level coverage in Wales and pages can be creared that discuss the final not just in terms of match reporting but build up and aftermath, so that articles can be created with sourced prose, not just line ups and score boxes. Fenix down (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Fenix, thanks yesterday for protecting the Atletico de Kolkata page from being moved. At the time the move wasn't official but since then, as of today, the club has changed its name to ATK. Official source from the Indian Super League website while all mentions of the club are now as ATK while on social media they are known as ATK only. Anyway, would it be possible to get the protection off so a page move could be made? Preferably to ATK (football club). Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem. New name confirmed and page moved. Fenix down (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks mate. And thanks for being quick about it too. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi! He removed some references [2], so please review the article. Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, not sure why they were removed, they seemed relevant. Have added them back. Fenix down (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

And he also did this [3] and this[4]. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay then? Why u keep track of me, get a life.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teambk (talk • contribs)

@Teambk:I am afraid because you do some vandalism again. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Because your editing is disruptive from time to time, please note if you remove other people's messages from my talk page as I suspect you did here you will be blocked for sockpuppetry. You should not remove other people's comments at all, and you certainly shouldn't try to hide behgind an ip address when you have an account.

Hhhhhkohhhhh, regarding those two edits, the first one I kind of agree with. It is unreferenced, plus, lists of sponsors in my mind stray into the promotional space, probably best to leave it out. On the second one, it does seem like the errors have been corrected by TeamBK. Fenix down (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok! Please track this editor, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to stalk him, but if you see anything that you think is not right then let me know and I will act if I see anything myself, but do please try to engage with Teambk as well first. @Teambk: please pay attention to this thread and to requests from other editors, whilst you are making a significant amount of positive contributions, you are still making a number of edits which are not helpful (such as the removal of references noted above) and are causing disruption. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

OK! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Today, User:Teambk removed references and destroyed Top scorers setions, such as [5] and [6] and [7], please review these articles, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

And he also destroyed this article [8] by removing the overview of FIFA Club World Cup section. Please review, thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you just stfu, im updating. Mind u top scorer including other cup match. thats for s. league only. so i minus the cup goals. nothing wrong, get your facts right. _|_— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teambk (talk • contribs)

@Teambk:The list of top scorers is mostly not writen only one, and Why you removed some references? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

After User:Teambk removed some references [9], 2002 S.League are unreferenced now! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If your dont know the difference between league and cup scorer, please keep quiet. The reference is not even accurate, whats the point. Wake up. Stop being a dog behind me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teambk (talk • contribs)

Please do not engage in personal attacks. Fenix down (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

For the record, I originally drafted that AFD crediting you for the previous examples, but then after reviewing some I wasn't sure whether it was you or GS that originally dug them out, so went with a neutral credit. ClubOranje^T 11:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC) It was GS, I stole them from him in the main! It is difficult to see amidst all the AfDs listed, but I think they are talking about players with specific career trajectories that the current AfD doesn't really align to. Fenix down (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

If, as in the case of Chishmy, you dispute the outcome of a move request, you can contact the move closer to ask to reopen the discussion or you can request a move review. However, unilaterally reverting a move just completed through the RM process is bad form. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  06:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

on the contrary, closing an RM where there has been very little input as if there is consensus is what is bad form, particularly when the naming proposal goes against the established naming conventions for Russian places. That RM should have been closed as no consensus given the lack of involvement and complete lack of evidence of the claimed primary topic. Fenix down (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you points about the Chishmy proposal in particular and the discussion has been reopened. My point about your edits regarded your methods. If you have a problem with an RM close, contact the closer, and if that doesn't work, open a move review discussion. By unilaterally reverting the move, you are compounding the problem as no one is notified of this move and there is no opportunity for other users to discuss the issue. This is not merely my own sentiment but is both stated and implied in Wikipedia policy and guidelines. —  AjaxSmack  14:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fenix down. The IP is back... he is removing the Iran 0-1 Iraq match from the Iran national football team and Iraq national football team pages and adding it to the Iran B national football team page even though it is listed on FIFA.com as a full international game. He's also removing an entire well-sourced section on the Iran page about their rivalry with Iraq. At this point it's clear that he is bitter over the results of Iraq against Iran in recent years! I think the pages may need protecting if he continues this behaviour. Hashim-afc (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Have protected those pages for a month, though I'm sure the ip will be back! Fenix down (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I never saw that on the Footy project AfD list, also, why wasn't merge and redirect suggested? Because that's what I would of put down. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

O wow, I see now, it was only just added to FP AfD list, you closed it way to early! Can you unclose ? Why did you close something when it was added to our AfD list on the same day? Isn't that really bad admin? Govvy (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Not really, it had been open for two weeks, being added to the project list doesn't really mean anything and in my mind sufficient sourcing was present in the article and AfD to indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That shouldn't matter, if you only just add it to a project page afd list for more input aren't you suppose to wait one more week. You can't just close a case the same day it's added, a little more common sense is needed. Can you please remember that for next time thanks. Govvy (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense, project listings have nothing to do with how long and AfD should stay open. This one had been open two weeks and all significant contributions had only served to enforce the idea that GNG was met. There was no indication whatsoever that any reasonable arguments would be put forward that would indicate that this was not a notable subject. Fenix down (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably because not many people on the football project knew it was there because it wasn't added to the AfD list on Football project, again this is about judgement, please give others a chance, this whole stupid thing wouldn't of happened if you didn't close it so soon, for two weeks it wasn't on the AfD list, I don't know how you expect people to contribute if it's not on the correct lists to begin with. Use some logic please. Govvy (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Will do, but it probably won't be till the weekend as I'm super busy... GiantSnowman 12:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I'm not back until next week really anyway. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Fenix down:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

	Hello Fenix down: You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 16:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Can you please explain on how to proceed with the article not to be removed? This is my first time adding an article on Wikipedia. I provided a link to our website www.naxxarlions.com with details on Yuri de Jesus Messias. Player is staying in Malta and playing with us. He provided the information. Thanks :)

No problem. To show notability you either have to show that the player passes WP:NFOOTY, either by having played in a fully professional league from the one's listed here or to have played senior international football. To my knowledge however, this player satisfies neither of these criteria hence the original nomination and therefore you must satisfy WP:GNG by showing significant independent coverage of the player, i.e. interviews with the player, dedicated articles on his career, etc. In general consensus is that stat sites, match reports about teams the player has played for which merely mention him and general transfer talk is not sufficient for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Please find below some links for Yuri De Jesus Messias showing that he played with the mentioned clubs.

https://www.mfa.com.mt/en/leagues/leagues/24/bov-first-division.htm?feature=players&mp=2142 https://www.transfermarkt.com/yuri/profil/spieler/288017 http://www.eurosport.com/football/yuri-de-jesus-messias_prs376703/person.shtml http://au.soccerway.com/players/yuri-de-jesus-messias/311476/

Are these sufficient please? I also inputted photos of this player and other Naxxar players but they were removed. I sent this link https://www.naxxarlions.com/senior-squad showing that the players are playing with the club.

Thanks Shaun

Unfortunately not. Firstly none of these are significant coverage. We're not looking for proof that the player has played for a given club, instead that their career has received significant coverage In independent media. Regarding the sources you have listed, mfa.com and naxxarlions.com are primary sources the other three are just stat sites, and transfermarkt itself is not recognised as a reliable source. Fenix down (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)