Jump to content

User talk:Lsw10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, Lsw10! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Luizdl (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Lionel Messi

[edit]

Re: your unexplained revert in Lionel Messi. Please discuss your reasoning in the article's Talk Page or if you want more exposure and consensus in Footy which is probably a better place for this. you probably already know this but we need to write from a neutral point of view and may I remind you that YouTube is not a valid source (also see WP:YOUTUBE) -- Alexf(talk) 17:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pelé, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atlantic Cup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

[edit]

Your recent editing history at Diego Maradona shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. This message is directed as both parties, and doesn't represent a view on the edits. I advise taking this to dispute resolution and not continuing this pointless edit war. srushe (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the use KevinMcE should be blocked since he deletes perfectly legit references repeatedly. I have many posts on the talk page of that article explaining my edits. Lsw10 (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This last comment is exactly why I recommend dispute resolution. Both of you hold positions and are unlikely to persuade the other. Recommending that each other is blocked for deleting references is pointless, especially as both of you have been deleting each others references. srushe (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was add references. My version has many more references. KevinMcE deleted prestigious votes references on Maradona. The one I deleted was the one who was contradictory to the article phrase before it, since the Website Castrol Rankings does not state that Maradona was the best player ever, which was what the Wikipedia article was saying. Lsw10 (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user KevinMcE is prejudiced against me, because I have edited other articles as well. I have explained to him that not all athletes have the same description in their articles and gave the example of Tennis players Federer, Sampras, Nadal, Borg who are all considered all time greats but Federer's articles puts him on a higher standing. KevinMcE from the beginning has not "assumed good faith" in my edits, Wikipedia´s suggestion, ignoring that my actual references were very legitimate. Lsw10 (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pelé, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Campeonato Brasileiro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pelé, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page World Soccer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pelé, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intercontinental Cup. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Lsw10. 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]


[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of players with the most goals in an association football game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santo Amaro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Lsw10. 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]

December 2018

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pelé, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pelé, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Mundo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on the article "List of association football players considered the greatest of all time"

[edit]

Your edits today on this article were mostly incorrect, and it is becoming increasingly difficult ot believe that this is coming from honest mistakes rather than bias. To give some examples:

  • You wrongly said that Di Stefano's comments in support of Eusebio were made in 2008, when the source clearly stated that they were made after Eusebio's death in 2018.
  • You claimed Bobby Moore has implied Pele was the greatest player ever, but in the supporting source he only said he was the most complete. This is not the same.
  • You added Teófilo Cubillas as having called Pele the greatest player ever, but in the supporting source he only said he that there was nobody like him. Clearly that is not concrete evidence of Cubillas believing Pele was the greatest ever.

There were many examples of these 'mistakes', so the page has been reverted to the last fully correct version. Feel free to re-add any genuinely correct and appropriate comments explicitly calling Pele the greatest player ever. But do not make any more non-constructive or potentially biased edits, or you might find yourself banned from editing the page (and I don't mean by me).

If you're not sure about a comment, then put it on the article's talk page; I and multiple other users will see it and we can come to consensus on it. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was the link that is from 2008 and was in the article: https://esporte.uol.com.br/futebol/ultimas/2008/03/09/ult59u149025.jhtm Lsw10 (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That link may have been on some old version of the article yes. But this was the link about Di Stefano's comments on Eusebio which you wrongly removed: ""He was the best player of all time," said Alfredo Di Stéfano after Eusébio's death in January 2014." Source: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=2253538.html The Raincloud Kid (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no other meaning in the phrase "there has never been anyone like him" than that of being the best ever. You take phrases out of context. Teófilo Cubillas and many people use terms like that. Not everyone will think to use the terms "greatest", "best". "there has never been anyone like him" can be seen as a great compliment to a player placing him at a complete different level from all competition. It is very emphatic Lsw10 (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously there are other meanings to that phrase. If I say of Adolf Hitler, "there has never been anyone like him", I am completely correct, but I am certainly not calling him the 'best ever' in any sense.
In your example which is very unfortunate you have not established what the topic is about, so of course the term "best ever" is not established as a talking point. Cubillas had clearly established a topic, the topic of the best player ever, and had also said in the article that "Lionel Messi no es mejor que Maradona" (Messi is not better than Maradona), so in the same topic he talked about Pele. He was not talking about height, beauty, or anything else. He was talking specifically about who he considers the best.Lsw10 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Cubillas didn't explicitly call Pele the best ever, or some variant of that, then he can't be listed as a supporter on this article. It's as simple as that. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he called him a variant of that, as simple as that. Lsw10 (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, he didn't. For the umpteenth time, saying that there ahs never been anyone like someone is not calling them the best, otherwise any description of someone as unique would mean they were being described as the best. Obviously this is not the case. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So wrong. First of all the word unique was never used. He said that there was nobody like him. Everybody is considered unique, even twins. Even Frank and Ronald de Boer were different, so saying Pele is unique is redunant and pointless in the way you understand it. The words used were "nobody like him" which means nodody as good as him in this context.Lsw10 (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, 'unique' literally means that there is nothing like something. That there is 'nobody like him' means the subject is being described as unique, and not (though not necessarily exclusively) great. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you try to define words completely out of context. People use expressions(manners of speach) and so did Cubillas, and I explained before why unique the way you define it makes no sense.( Everybody is unique so calling Pele unique makes no sense and is redundant hence your argument falls flat)Lsw10 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to waste any more time explaining the obvious to you. We both know you're a vandal, obsessed with Pele for some reason. You've been reported, and will be blocked shortly. Edit the article however you like, I'm going to revert it as soon as you're blocked. Trolls like you never win here. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have also been reported and you are the one who reverts blindly. You can´t hide the truth. Just read the sourced material: Sir Alex Ferguson[1][2]

José Mourinho[3] Mário Zagallo[4] Carlos Alberto[5] Robinho[6] [7] Alcides Ghiggia[8] José Macia (Pepe)[9] Neymar[10] Lsw10 (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A proof in the same article of the double standard that you hold. In the Ronaldo section you have not removed Sandro Mazzola´s opinion which is vague and does not specifically say if he means that Ronaldo is best of all time or the best between those he competed against. Mazzola said: "He was above everyone else." The context of his comment shows that he is not comparing him to players of other football eras: "He could do whatever he wanted with the ball. If he decided to score, then he'd score. He had strength, technique, and could play anywhere, on any pitch, against any opponent. He was above everyone else."Lsw10 (talk)
You also ignored in the Cubillas interview at https://www.marca.com/2012/04/04/futbol/futbol_internacional/america/1333541155.html where the video has a caption where Marca asks him the question of who is the best of all time. Cubillas responds Pele. That is the evidence that you asked for earlierLsw10 (talk)

You are completely right that Cubillas' comments "can" be seen as calling Pele the best ever. But crucially, they could also not be seen in that way. If it is your subjective interpretation that these people are calling Pele the greatest footballer ever, that's fine. But your subjective opinion is not enough to use something as evidence on Wikipedia, where we always have to err on the side of caution, which is why those comments are not appropriate on this particular article. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of association football players considered the greatest of all time. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

References

  1. ^ https://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/03/football-politics-team-tony-2
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/oct/22/sir-alex-ferguson-autobiography-live-coverage-manchester-united
  3. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/4518960.stm
  4. ^ https://www.marca.com/2013/01/02/futbol/futbol_internacional/resto_de_america/1357127228.html
  5. ^ https://elpais.com/diario/2002/10/28/deportes/1035759621_850215.html
  6. ^ https://elpais.com/diario/2002/10/28/deportes/1035759621_850215.html
  7. ^ https://ronaldo.com/pt/2018/09/10/robinho-pele-e-incomparavel/
  8. ^ http://meristation.as.com/zonaforo/topic/378665/
  9. ^ https://www.skysports.com/football/news/15241/6184048/footballs-greatest/
  10. ^ http://globoesporte.globo.com/sp/santos-e-regiao/blogs/especial-blog/blog-da-tri/post/rei-pele-recebe-os-parabens-de-neymar-o-melhor-de-todos-os-tempos.html
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of association football players considered the greatest of all time, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at List of association football players considered the greatest of all time. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 16:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

[edit]

Please see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lsw10 reported by User:Dawid2009 (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. I notice that others have complained to you directly about some of these issues on your talk page (in January), and it is unclear whether any agreement was ever reached. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Their complains were unjustified and I explained to them why. Their reverts were inconsistent and contradictory, cherry picking certain players in that article. Lsw10 (talk)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lsw10&oldid=926851508"