User talk:Qed237

UEFA Euro 2016

Hey, will the matches be on the main article with the footballbox or just the results (without the box, just a wikitable) like it was in previos tournament? Kante4 (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kante4: Not thought about it, but I would probably follow previous tournament. Qed237 (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kante4: Just took a look and am I starting to hesitate. I kind of like the footballboxes, but I am very openminded for comments from other editors. I see no problem in keeping the football boxes as it is used as standard in so many other places. Qed237 (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Was just curious. Is an article i will not edit often so it can stay as it is. Kante4 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Liga I promotion/relegation

All matches begin with 0-0, what a big mistake, incredible... Rhinen

All matches begin as unplayed without score. Qed237 (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Re-directs

Hi, although those edits at the various Fittipaldi cars are by our long-term disruptive (former) IP, it is conventional for re-directs for F1 cars to be placed into categories. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Eagleash: Yes, you are right, and this is the reason for reverting myself a few minutes ago. I trust that you know what is best in these articles, I just have a bad habbit of reacting against socks and/or returning discruptive editors doing same old thing again. Qed237 (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I got an (edit conflict) whilst saying thanks. This guy is even more of a pest now he has an account. I can't keep up with his general disruption. As for knowing best haha, well maybe (possibly not!) Cheers Eagleash (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you were involved with him at the time of the March 87P edit warring/protection? He's recreated that again today, (making several moves in the process). Eagleash (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Eagleash: Yes, I have a vague memory of that. I was mainly trying to keep articles at status quo as there was no evidence of notability at that time. Qed237 (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That page has no notability whatsoever (one race which it did not start). He does so much of this stuff and has no concept of any sort of guidelines at all. Regards. Eagleash (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Eagleash: Yes, I know. Unfortunately I dont have enough knowledge of this area to decide what is rubbish and what is notable and "sort out the crap". Qed237 (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

99.9% of his stuff is below par. If in doubt shout one of us or post at WT:F1...it's doubtful anyone would disagree with you about his edits as we've become rather weary of him. Eagleash (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverting for no reason

Undoing someone else's edits without having the courtesy to explain why is highly disruptive. What was your reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.212.99 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Participation of Kosovo in UEFA competitions

Hello. It seems to me that both champion and cup winner of Kosovo are allowed to enter the 2016–17 UEFA Champions League and 2016–17 UEFA Europa League: [1] [2]. Both pages are protected, that's why I can't edit them. Are you going to edit them? -- Thermicien (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Thermicien: We are waiting for confirmation from UEFA. Qed237 (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Britannia Stadium

You do realize that Britannia was a sponsor name?--Add92 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Add92: Yes, but it is also the first name and a well established name for the arena just like Emirates Stadium, so it is an exception to the rule. However other stadiums such as City of Manchester Stadium is not moved to "Etihad Stadium". This is a controversial move and should not be done without WP:RM on the article talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This is similar to when Walkers Stadium changed name to King Power Stadium.--Add92 (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Add92: I can not answer for every move, but in that case I would say "King Power Stadium" is the commonname used by almost everyone, while I am not sure that will happen for Bet365 and it is speculation. Feel free to make a move request if you want the article moved but it is not an uncontroversial move. Qed237 (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Volleyballbox2 revision

Hi Qed237, I recently made an edit to your Template:Volleyballbox2. I added a trigger function to automatically add bold format to the winning team based on the score result. You can see some test trials from my sandbox or you can edit on it as well. Let me know what do you think of it.TjBison (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@TjBison: Hi, and thank you for your message. I think automatic bolding should be discussed first before being added. In cases where teams are already manually bolded the automatic bolding you added destroyed that and these kind of things needs discussing. Perhaps teams should not be bolded at all? Qed237 (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how many have used the template considering it is relatively new and the Olympic VB match templates have not been manually bolded. Also on the WP Project Volleyball talk page you were involved in the discussion of bolding the winning team, so I wonder re-discussing the same issue again. TjBison (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@TjBison: Yes it might not have been used much yet, but it still should be discussed more and be compatible with manual bolding. Qed237 (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly the point of the proposal -- to eliminate/lessen manual encoding for editors. Here's the transclusion count of the template. So far, the only event that uses the template is the volleyball tournament in the Olympic, which has not started yet. So if the concern is to the pages that have included manual bolding, I don't think there is no need for such. If the concern is for the future transclusion to other pages, there is the template documentation to inform editors of manual editing. TjBison (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@TjBison: Dont forget the fact that there might very well be situations where bolding is not preferred and should not be done. Qed237 (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of possible situations. But the only possible situation in the sport of volleyball that I can think of is when a match is overruled by technical committee to be a)a void match, b}reverse the result of the match due to a team penalty incurred (25-0, 25-0, 25-0 is usually the standard scores given when such happen), c) win by default to which manual bolding can still be done without forcing an input to the parameter score TjBison (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@TjBison: There could also be other tournaments or consensus in the future not to bold matches. But with risk of repeating myself, a wider discussion is needed and nothing will be resolved at my talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. I guess its best to have it discuss on the WP Project Volleyball talk page. Have a great day. TjBison (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics

Colour being an issue for the visually impaired is an issue across all articles, not just the NOC pages. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234: Yes, but you are missing the point. The lines are preferred when separating matches at NOC's as they are on differenty dates and it is the better to separate using lines than colors for those with color issues. However, in the main sports articles the lines are between days as standard and in those cases it does not hurt to separate the matches using colors. To sumarize, matches on different days/rounds use lines, matches on same day add color. For those with color problems, the color does not hurt it is just that lines are better if possible, but the color does not have to be removed. Qed237 (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234: When the colors are this weak we could use both colors and lines (lines for dates/rounds and colors for all matches). Qed237 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your requests at WP:RFP

If you have not done so, would you be so kind as to read our protection policy? The goal of Wikipedia is not necessarily to have stable articles, but to stay the Encyclopedia that everyone can edit. Kind regards. Lectonar (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Are you refering to my requests on a lot of BLP's from yesterday? The articles have been subject of many disruptive edits from dynamic IPs (and a few sock accounts) and after trying an ANI report (at which no admin even bothered to respond) I thought that protecting the articles would be the best idea. I am very familiar with our protection policy (and some admins have come to my talkpage saying they would support a potential RfA as my help is needed). I am just losing faith in the lack of response. Qed237 (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Just want to add that, when looking at BLP footballers I often see transfer rumours for a player and then immediately two or three edits per minute for hours with pure vandalism and disruption without any response at RFPP so trying to find an active admin is required. Nothing personal against you, sometimes the lack of response when needed is frustrating. Qed237 (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the pages you requested protection for yesterday were far from being heavily edited, let alone vandalised. Some of them had just one vandalism edit yesterday, most were not edited at all for 10 or more days; rest assured frustration is very much part of an admins job here. Lectonar (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lectonar: I see your point, but all requests yesterday was not for this problem I had. For example look at Jonas Hector which was heavily vandalised after transfer rumours before I took controll over it and it was not protected for 16 hours. Qed237 (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem is the number of admins clerking the page. I would say there is no more than 10 regulars, perhaps 15. And...we are all volunteers. Lectonar (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Yes, I understand that, and as I said it is nothing personal it is just frustrating sometimes. A while back several admins (I think four) all came to me within two months asking me if I wanted to run for adminship and they said my reports at ANI, AIV, RfPP and so on was good and that I showed good knowledge of policies. Also I had a personal RfA page created by inexperienced editors (they did not even ask me first), so I guess there is a shortage of admins and that more are needed to help at this kind of places. However at a Optional RfA candidate poll there was concerns about my habbit of reverting with twinkle (I am very active in vandalism hunting using my watchlist) so I put that thought for rest for a while. However in these transfer periods between football seasons and a lot of rumours and vandalism to BLPs, it would be good to be able to protect some pages quick myself and most important help others. Qed237 (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Sweden National Football Team

Yes, I should have used the sandbox but I do like to just mess around with pages from time to time. Just thought a bit of Zlatan humour would have been appreciated. Use wikipedia everyday so it'll be useful to edit something that it incorrect and editing it correctly. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.39.156.97 (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to "mess around" on. Qed237 (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Arsenal Transfers

I was unsure why you removed both the summary on Granit Xhaka's transfer, and the release clause activation for Jamie Vardy. I notice you mentioned the Vardy news was a rumor, but it was made official by Claudio Ranieri. 50.98.164.35 (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)