User talk:Abcmaxx

Retired.

Welcome!

list of useful links, the main stuff is at WP:5P. Plus: welcome, glad to have you here.  :-)

Hello, Abcmaxx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Getting Started Introduction to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page and How to develop articles How to create your first article Simplified Manual of Style Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bayrampaşaspor (January 6)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bayrampaşaspor.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Abcmaxx, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

newspaper articles about Turkish teams

Hello Abcmaxx, saw your message to Hasteur, and found you a couple sources to beef up your article, plus a list of places you can use to find more, with any luck. Please see here:

User_talk:Hasteur#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBayrampa.C5.9Faspor.E2.80.8E

Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia. p.s. See WP:GNG and WP:RS for the usual rulz, which are summarized in WP:42 decently well; pretty much any professional-media-sources are usable, they don't have to be English-language-sources. Televised matches, newspaper stories, magazines, that sort of thing. You can ask for help at WP:TEAHOUSE, they should be able to direct you to somebody that knows the local lingo, to help improve your machine-translation, and also to help seek & verify some sources. And of course, feel free to leave a message on my talkpage, if you want to gab about anything. See you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I've replied on the original point of query though to keep it all in one place. User_talk:Hasteur#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBayrampa.C5.9Faspor.E2.80.8E

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abcmaxx/Bayrampaşaspor (January 16)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at User:Abcmaxx/Bayrampaşaspor.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Rankersbo (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Asteras Exarchion (March 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Asteras Exarchion.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to link to the submission!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Asteras Exarchion was accepted

Asteras Exarchion, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Basket ROW Rybnik (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ROW Rybnik

Jerzy Makula (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ROW Rybnik

Rybnik (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ROW Rybnik

ŻKS ROW Rybnik (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ROW Rybnik

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SK Sturm Graz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red Bull Salzburg (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) 08:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of fan-owned sports teams may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *{{SV Austria Salzburg]] - The club was formed in 2005, by some of the supporters of the original SV (Austria) Salzburg

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to KKS 1925 Kalisz may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• nickname = Cebulorz (''The Onionists''|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of association football rivalries (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Göztepe and Stomil Olsztyn

Kujawiak Włocławek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Athletics

List of fan-owned sports teams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jeju

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Perkasa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malays (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) 08:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Favoritner AC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian (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) 08:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Football Rivalries

The onus is on people adding information to ensure it is sourced per WP:V and WP:N. I will be looking to return to my edits if you have re-added unreferenced material or deleted CN tags. I would request you consider a number of the changes you made and potentially self-revert, and/or look to add significant references ASAP. Eldumpo (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well done you managed to ignore everything I said. If you're just so intent on deleting information why become a Wikipedia editor if you contribute nothing but delete other people's inputAbcmaxx (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow up - I added about a hundred or so references in a few minutes, it is that easy it actually took me less time than reverting your destruction. Eldumpo I would suggest you take example in the future.Abcmaxx (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added a significant number of references to that page over time. Hopefully the references you have added are suitable/reliable, and that you have learned that any material added should be sourced, and if it is not it will be subject to deletion. I will aim to have another look at the page in due course, but potentially have some concerns over the size of the article. Eldumpo (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The pages I have added are newspaper articles or supporter sites, and the reason it was so easy to find them they were real well-known rivalries. You're still ignoring everything I'm saying and are of no help at all. Rather than looking to delete, how about looking for some sources yourself to make the article more comprehensive Eldumpo? This article can't be too long, it's a list. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Newspapers will generally be regarded as reliable, but club sites, fan sites, blog posts etc are not reliable as sources. I'm not ignoring your comments, I have addressed them i.e. I have added sources in the past, there is a need to always follow WP:V, down to the author to add references at the time. Eldumpo (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for treating me like an idiot, I know what sources are reliable thank you. Supporter sites are not the same as fan sites, anyone who knows about supporter culture will know that supporter sites are merely an internet form of supporter magazines and are usually a great source for information that cannot be found anywhere else, as any clued up real fan will know rivalries are kept out of media spotlight as much as possible for obvious reasons. Plus most of these rivalries are so well known it's a wonder how they have not been listed before. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:SCMacau emblema.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:SCMacau emblema.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 12:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Piast Nowa Ruda, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Swimming and Athletic (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) 08:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Eugenio Cruz Vargas

Friend Abcmaxx

Please can you see additional citations in this article [[1]]

Thanks I wait your answer

Thank You

--Historiador1923 (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC) --Historiador1923 (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's best to ask someone else who is clued up with references and the topic. I'm mainly just a sports guy and I add stuff, I don't really review articles or their sources, I stumbled on the deletion debate on this article by accident and added my two cents in but that's about it. Sorry I can't be of more help but it would not be beneficial to claim otherwise Abcmaxx (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Friend Abcmaxx

Thanks a lot and regards Your new friend

--Historiador1923 (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Relocation of professional sports teams may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{main|[Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Legia Warsaw may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• = template mess, requires expansion, inadequate summary, incomplete sections, needs new talk page (separate from Legia (football) talk page}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relocation of professional sports teams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenix club. 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) 09:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Article about RB Leipzig and section about fan protests against Red Bull

Hello

Very good edit, but I think too much weight is put on the individual supporter groups that initiated the protest. Perhaps that part of the section could be summarized a little bit?

Best regards

EriFr (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I do not mean to be negative. I will, myself, work on expanding the article by writing more about the criticism and protests against RB Leipzig and Red Bull. The German article is much more informative regarding this. EriFr (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps but maybe if the section is expanded enough that emphasis will diminish? As this is an ongoing and growing movement I was editing with the view that the section will be expanded and probably gain in importance as time goes on, so I didn't want to summarise it quite so concisely. I think it's noteworthy which groups started it, firstly it gives credit where it's due, secondly if I were to put just Braunschweig for example, it wouldn't really be correct as most groups in that city joined much later on and therefore would be given credit for initiating it, whereas the Cattiva Brunsviga are the ones who initiated it. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Newspapers in Sweden have been writing a lot about Red Bull during the last weeks (because of the UEFA Champions League Play Off-match between Red Bull Salzburg and Malmö FF) and this morning there was an entire article about "Nein Zu RB" in one of the largest newspapers. EriFr (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback - Wimbledon

Hello, Abcmaxx. You have new messages at Cliftonian's talk page.
Message added 15:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for adding your list of challenges. I agree with most of them. Clifton I an has fixed the gross ones, If I gat time I'll fix some more. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Bias Opinion

Don't you think Blake Gripling for whatever reason is being biased on some articles Chveawful (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it ok for me to start a more concise article on the Sindikato if blake does succeed in deleting it,for me its injustice to hush up the fact that a group well organized crime syndicates operates unimpeded in the Philippines i want to expose this if so can my article be safe from deletion whats the guidelines in particular is to be followed,i dont want my article to be deleted needlessly Chveawful (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Add whatever you think necessary, you'll need a lot of good references though. I mean there should be an article on the Filipino underworld crime syndicates, just like there is on the Azeri mafia or any other countries. However my knowledge in this field is pretty limited, I stumbled upon the article by accident, I just think that claims of an elaborate hoax are bit far-fetched. I don't want to get into any feuds though, I have no idea who Blake Gripling is and I don't really want to especially the fact it is the mafia we're talking about :D Abcmaxx (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

i think his overzealous on this particular matter either he doesn't want to accept the fact that there's such a thing as a sindikato,like the triad or he want to cover it up is there some higher ups i can go to, his acting like a dictator is he really that highly placeed that he can single handedly and arbitrarily delete articles,he has put delete status on several articles related to the Sindikato,i really think his trying to cover it up and repressed the true facts and wrongly accusing someone of sock puppetry his seem dangerous to Wikipedia for me Chveawful (talk — Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Radomsko

added a link pointing to AL

Sport in Milton Keynes

added a link pointing to Rye House

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to List of one-time The Simpsons characters, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of association football rivalries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Jutland. 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) 09:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Czuwaj Przemyśl, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Swimming and Athletics. 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) 09:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Southern Rhodesia / Rhodesia topics navbox

Thanks for moving this. I agree that locating the template at "Southern Rhodesia topics" rather than "Rhodesia topics" is clearer, though "Rhodesia topics" was not entirely incorrect. An unqualified reference to "Rhodesia" almost always means the southern territory unless otherwise specified, and the government used the name officially from 1964 (there being no Northern Rhodesia anymore after it became Zambia, it seemed silly to go on calling itself "Southern"). Anyway, I have altered the title at the top of the box to read "Southern Rhodesia / Rhodesia" to cater for the fact that both names were used. This also allows us to tidily deal with any problems regarding the legal name of the country between 1964 and 1979 (the UK didn't recognise the name change and continued referring to "Southern Rhodesia" in official correspondence). I have changed the "country name" in the template code back to Rhodesia so the links to categories, portals and so on are back in sync, but this doesn't show up to readers so I think it's okay. I hope this is all right with you. Cheers and thanks again, keep well. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course, thank you, that probably deals with the complex naming problems, and also my fears of screwing up codes and links across the Wikipedia. For me Rhodesia always meant to be the undefined region of that part of Africa with no specific borders, encompassing Zambia/Zimbabwe, as that's what the Europeans called the region when they first arrived, and the two countries do share quite a bit of history together under the name Rhodesia. However for the purposes of the box, I did consider adding "Northern Rhodesia" and Zambia's history to it, but I decided against it, as a very impractical and lengthy solution though, although I would have no complaints against somehow encompassing the "Northern Rhodesia" into it and reverting my changes. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The borders weren't "undefined", they were the same borders Zim and Zambia have now. They do share much history, yes, but they were always separate nevertheless from the beginning, even under Company rule. After Company rule Southern Rhodesia was a self-governing colony and Northern Rhodesia was a protectorate governed directly from London—a very different proposition. In my opinion merging information on the two Rhodesias is just confusing, not to mention somewhat misleading, and better avoided where possible. I think a better solution is for a separate "Northern Rhodesia" box to emerge if it proves necessary. Since we have a "Zambia" box too I'm not sure we need one—this goes for the Southern Rhodesia box too, incidentally, as we also have a Zimbabwe box with a very much similar scope. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

FC Coburg

Could you please enlighten me why you moved DVV Coburg to FC Coburg? The new club is a completely seperate entity and the old club defunct. If you look at the new club's website it states its formation date as 8 September 2011, almost a year before DVV was dissolved. The only connection between the two is that it took over the football teams from the old club at the end of the 2011-12 season. Moving the article on the old club to the new clubs name is incorrect. Calistemon (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

FC Coburg is a phoneix club of DVV Coburg which in turn is the successor of another club which is the predecessor of VfB Coburg. DVV was legally dissolved 2012, but in 2011 all the players, league position and everything else other than name was transferred and is exactly the same. On the website it clearly states that it is essentially DVV Coburg's successor. But your logic this article could be split into 4 stubs as they reformed so many times under so many names, in fact maybe about 5% of the entire article is about DVV. It is the same club, under a new legal entity. I see no point in creating 4 stubs as it'll be an unnecessary fork, you wouldn't split A.C.R. Messina into 6 articles, why split this one, especially for an amateur club.Abcmaxx (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Your logic is incorrect. The previous name changes resulted from mergers. The previous clubs were not dissolved. DVV was disolved because it was insolvent, [2] owing the tax department € 120.000. A new club was formed before the old club was disolved to be able to eventually take over the football teams of the old one. The new club had to be a new entity to avoid having to take liability of the old clubs depth. The two clubs are legally completely different entities for this reason and have to be. Your link to Phoenix club is very informative in that way, it shows that in the same situation Chester City F.C. and its successor Chester F.C. are separate articles, as they should be . Calistemon (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how legal entity makes a difference. Many Italian clubs (such as the aforementioned Messina) reformed and were re-created under a new legal entity, but they are essentially the same club. Had the legal system been different, FC Coburg would've still been called DVV, it has the same players, fans, stadium, structure etc. All the changes were to avoid debt and nothing else, there is clear causation. From a practical point of view, I fail to see the point of having two articles, which to intense and purposes would be the same, other than one would be defunct and the other would not. It's a dillemma in the Gwangju Sangmu FC and Sangju Sangmu FC articles. They are identical and it's confusing. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an assumption to say that it is the same club. The two clubs don't even share the same name and, as stated above, the new club existed almost a year before the old one went out of buisness. In this year of overlap DVV still operated normally with all teams under its name. As to having two articles, FC has not achieved any notability and does not require an article at this stage, it can stay a Redlink. The German Wikipedia, from which the FC Coburg website has copied its history content from currently also takes this approach. There the article sits at DVV while FC Coburg is a Redlink. To me, the main indication whether a club is a direct continuation or not is its foundation date. If the club was formed in a merger it would state the oldest verifiable date as its origin, the 1907 date of VfB Coburg. It does not, it's foundation year is stated as 2011, it doesn't make a claim to the pre-2011 history. Calistemon (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

These are indeed separate clubs. You can mention at the DVV Coburg article that a phoenix club has been created, but the article should not be over-writen. GiantSnowman 09:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

CD Leganés

added a link pointing to Carl Zeiss Jena

List of association football rivalries

added a link pointing to Academica Coimbra

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Football derbies in Italy

added links pointing to Bourbon, Mole, Celtic, Madonna, Emilia and Po

List of association football rivalries

added a link pointing to Chicago Fire

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Relocation of Wimbledon to MK - "Parallels in England"

Conversation moved to Talk:Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes#Relocation of Wimbledon to MK - "Parallels in England" at its conclusion —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I thought this seemed appropriate. Thanks again for the engaging and productive dialogue on the Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes article, and the progress that came out of it. The article is much better for it. Cheers! —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Formatting references

Please take a look at my edit summary at [3] - you can quickly improve your articles through this nice too, too! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

Thank you for your recent articles, including National Movement (Poland), which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

White and red as away colours

Hi Abcmaxx, how are you? I have tidied up the prose in the precursors section and I agree it works well this way, so cheers. I'm a little bemused by your stance on the away kits in the "AFC Wimbledon and MK Dons identities compared" section; we have added the sentence "Both white and red had been used by Wimbledon F.C. as away colours over the previous two decades." so I'm not sure why it is necessary to add more earlier in the paragraph on which colour was specifically on which kit and when—particularly if we lack sourcing for it. Do you think it is really necessary to differentiate here between second and third kits? At the end of the day they're both away kits. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see the sentence "Both white and red had been used by Wimbledon F.C. as away colours over the previous two decades." I might've missed it, probably because of the long references in the editing code, but as long as that's there it's fine. The only reason I added in the way I did because somewhere along the way (I can't remember if it was you or someone else) in the discussion someone wanted to highlight red wasn't always WFC away kit for some reason. My actual concern was at very first the section sounded a little like "AFC replicated WFC, as opposed to MKD who completely erased all traces of its heritage" Abcmaxx (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned something along these lines in the discussion—that it is somewhat misleading to describe red as Wimbledon F.C.'s unqualified "away kit" when they had had away kits in other colours over the years and never had an official "away" colour—but I never, so far as I remember, said anything about highlighting in the article that it wasn't always the away kit. Anyway this isn't really relevant. The passage now reads like this (I'll copy-and-paste here to save you time):

"The blue and yellow home colours that Wimbledon F.C. players had worn were concurrently replaced by white shirts, shorts and socks, with black, red and gold as accent colours; the away outfit comprised red shirts, shorts and socks. Both white and red had been used by Wimbledon F.C. as away colours over the previous two decades. The club badge became a rendering of the letters "MK", with the "K" positioned below the "M", rotated 90° anti-clockwise and defaced with the year "MMIV" (2004)."

I hope this is okay and I'm sorry if there has been any misunderstanding. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything, I think the discussion process was so long and no-one wanted an edit war a minor thing like this bound to happen anyway. As it is sounds good to me, and thank you for tidying the article :) Abcmaxx (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Milton Keynes Dons F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Foster. 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) 08:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LSS Voinţa Sibiu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Women's football. 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) 08:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year Abcmaxx, and a belated Merry Christmas. Have a great 2015! :) —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you very much, and a happy New Year and Xmas to you tooAbcmaxx (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of association football rivalries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Arabi SC. 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) 09:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 7 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Relocation of professional sports teams in the United Kingdom page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relocation of professional sports teams in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dons. 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) 08:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Górnik Wałbrzych (football) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Legion

Mike Ashley (businessman) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ibrox

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of sports rivalries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rauma (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) 08:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Qatar national handball team

Hi Abcmaxx. In regards to your recent edits on the Qatar national handball team, I think a controversy section is inappropriate. No other handball, or football teams for that matter, have separate controversy sections on their Wikipedia page. I've noticed that if any sort of controversies are added in a national sports team's article, it is usually interpolated in the history section. For an example, see: South_Korea_national_football_team#Semifinalists:_2002_World_Cup (this was the only article I could find with a detailed subsection on a controversy).

I think it would be a boon to the page's consistency if the controversy section were incorporated into a history section and reworded/edited as to be completely relevant to the team itself. I would also add other relevant details of the 2015 tournament, e.g. they are the first non-European team to reach the finals. What do you think? Elspamo4 (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's entirely appropriate, as if it weren't for their dodgy tactics such a team would not exist. I think not having a controversy section on that page is unfair because it's hard to explain why their goalkeeper who's represented 3 other countries suddenly became Qatari, same goes for the other Montenegrins, Spaniards etc. in their squad. Their achievements have been won by these very questionable tactics, so therefore when reading their page and seeing that they are suddenly first, one might mistakenly think Qatar is a top handball nation. I would not really call them a non-European team, they more of a "rest of the world team" and the only one of its kind, plus in all the years of watching handball I have never seen refereeing decisions so blatantly in favour of one team, so how they reached those finals is important too. This team is seen by most as an abomination and ruins the nature of sport, therefore having a "controversy" section is the most neutral way Wikipedia can highlight this.

Now yes, these all came to light during the tournament, but the implications of these antics go further, they have won the Asian championship, and their sudden "success" highlights the corruption and flaws within the IHF, and it's likely they will continue to recruit other mercenaries for future tournaments until someone actually stops them. It also shows that the opponents of the football World Cup 2022 bid were very much right in their fears that Qatar as a host fails to uphold any sporting values, not afraid to resort to bribery and cheating and that they are chosen for any other reason than money.

If you think that Qatar's success is entirely feasible, then I suggest you look at the Saudi Arabian team, a top Asian team which didn't resort to bribing anyone, and despite their best efforts and good will they were convincingly beaten by every team by about 20 goals, such is the gap between Europe and Asia. Saudi Arabia has a much larger population and more resources than Qatar, so if weren't for these controversies, the Qatar national team would look very differently and achieve much less than they currently have. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the main point of my post. I am not proposing to remove the content of the controversy section, I am proposing the incorporation of it in a 'History' section. This is the norm in all of the national sports teams on Wikipedia. Also, if you think you can find sources showing that their success in other certain championships was derived from employing any of these tactics, then please do share. Elspamo4 (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not see the purpose of that, and yes it is the norm for smaller incidents in "normal" teams but not for teams which identities have been drastically shaped by such controversies. In controversial histories separate articles or subsections are common, e.g. RB Leipzig#Criticism, Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes. Given the scale, influence and impact of these controversies, relegating them merely to a history section would be to diminish its importance.Abcmaxx (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you found the only sports team on Wikipedia with a controversy section does nothing to negate my comment. You won't find many others because editors generally follow WP:CRIT and try to maintain a neutral point of view when being involved in an article.

The criticism sections of both the tournament and team are based entirely on fringe theories put forth from non-notable sources and I will correct the content soon enough. You'll be free to discuss any changes you feel are necessary on the talk pages of the articles. Elspamo4 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry what?! Eurosport, onet.pl, ESKA, sport.pl non-notable sources?! Fringe theories?? You're having a laugh right? I'm sure I could find pretty much every sports portal with handball coverage speculating and criticising and saying the same thing, the allegations of match-fixing are pretty serious, as is the exploitation of rules and buying foreign players. I won't find many others because sorry to say Qatar is the only team of a kind, as no other team has ever resorted to these kind of tactics. Per WP:CRIT a section is created to describe a significant criticism made by a notable critic seeing as every non-Qatari sports newspaper and outlet criticised such tactics, even commentators during Qatari matches struggling to defend them. For instance, a person who is notable and sourceable only for having been convicted of murder is arguably implicitly being criticized for most of the article - the Qatari team other than it's existence itself is only really notable for it recent antics and the fact no Qatari players play in it. I realise that you may support the Qatari team but I'm sorry, deleting a criticism section of a team which exists only because of how they built their squad in a country disinterested in handball (hence why they had to buy fans from abroad) is seriously altering the whole article and not fair reflection of its achievements Abcmaxx (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, fine. The only criticism on the tournament article is about Qatar. It is very abnormally written and targets only one country. It is also unheard of to have a separate controversy section in most sports articles. But I'll let someone else deal with the inadequacies. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Because only one country in the entire history of handball has done such things! It targets one country because only one country has adopted such standards and as a result attracted criticism. I don't see your point, the criticism is not directed at Qatar because of prejudice or some big anti-Qatari conspiracy theory, it is simply because of the unsporting tactics they have employed. The fact is the Qatari team is a team made up mercenaries with temporary citizenship and very lucrative financial contracts who clearly have no link whatsoever to the country and have played for other countries beforehand; the fact that they only got to the final due to very blatant refereeing favouritism prompting allegations of match-fixing is unprecedented. It is an abnormal situation and warrants high levels of criticism.

And no it is not unheard of to have separate controversy sections or even whole articles to controversial teams as I have previously pointed out, plus the IHF's decision to kick Australia out and replace them with Germany has also been mentioned in the tournament page, so I don't see in what way Qatar has been unfairly treated. There was more than one issue with that particular team and as a result the media and nearly everyone who supported a different team was highly critical, including opposition players.

You may of course have the opinion that you see nothing wrong with referees favouring the host side, or with the way they have assembled the team, and you are free to that opinion. But you would be in the minority, and actually the controversy section has been written in the nicest and most neutral way possible; an unreferenced and unfair section would be one saying something along the lines of "Qatar has bought their way into final through bribing referees and mercenary players who are shameless traitors, making it one of the most disgusting, disappointing and farcical tournaments I have ever watched" a view I'm many millions who watched in the hope of a fair international competition secretly (or not so secretly judging by the amounts of vandalism on the page alone and social media comments) hold.Abcmaxx (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relocation of professional sports teams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gori (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) 08:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

History of S.P.A.L. 2013

This is an FYI that the PROD deletion of the above page has been opposed. It takes only one opposition to a PROD deletion to invalidate it, so the deleted article has been restored. If you want to make a further attempt to delete it, please use WP:AFD - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand - what? Abcmaxx (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You proposed the page for deletion. It was deleted. There are three major types of deletion on the project. Speedy, PROD, and full deletion debates. You chose to use PROD - Proposed Deletion. PROD has the advantage of being the simplest. You can propose a PROD deletion for almost any reason. But it has the disadvantage that it takes only one voice in opposition to the deletion to block that deletion. This opposition can be either before or after the deletion has actually happened. In this case someone objected on my talk page to the deletion. So the page has been restored. But if you still feel that it should be deleted, you can start a full deletion discussion at WP:AFD, and lay out your arguments for why you think it should be deleted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't choose anything, I merely nominated the page for deletion, what happened next I have no idea. Did anyone state a meaningful reason to restore it? Abcmaxx (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I've commented on your talk page, let's continue this on your page. Thank you for letting me know Abcmaxx (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Affiliated clubs

You added "Affiliated clubs" to {{S.L. Benfica}} but those clubs are listed in List of S.L. Benfica filiations which is linked in the template. Besides, there are more affiliated clubs which are not in the template.

There is no need to add all or some affiliated clubs/teams to the template, especially when it is S.L. Benfica's template. SLBedit (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry didn't see that at first. Point taken Abcmaxx (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did to JS Kabylie, 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. GiantSnowman 17:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And the challenge was.....? I didn't add the content, I merely reverted someone obliterating the article Abcmaxx (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you re-added heaps of unreferenced and inappropriate material, all while falsely accusing an editor of vandalism! GiantSnowman 17:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not normal to delete 40 000+ characters so I assumed it was vandalism (happens often with that amount of deletion). I didn't add anything, none of it was written by me. Furthermore that deletion reverted a whole article into a stub. Why don't you try and contact the person who actually added that material, I'm sure it's a translation from somewhere, instead of having a go at me for essentially trying to save the article. I added the template in the hope whoever added all that material (which must have taken ages to write) would clean it up, rather than the gung-ho approach of "better to delete than contribute anything meaningful" Abcmaxx (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

So you didn't check the edit before reverting? Even worse! GiantSnowman 19:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That still doesn't justify ruining an article. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jodi West‎

The article Jodi West‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.Cavarrone 22:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Jodi West for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jodi West 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/Jodi West 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. Cavarrone 22:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Relocation of professional sports teams in the United Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sunderland and Newcastle

Milton Keynes Dons F.C. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Newcastle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

JS Kabylie

Hi, could you please not add back the swathes of unreferenced text to this article without linking to the relevant sources. I appreciate you have provided a list of sources, which at a scan look reliable, on the talk page, but this is not sufficient. The text has been challenged as unreferenced and removed. It should not be restored until inline citations are correctly linked to the relevant portion of the text. Just because text appears to have been translated from frWiki does not mean it is OK to leave it on enWiki unreferenced. Fenix down (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ugh what are you on about, I was slowly but surely adding tons of references to the text, and there were sources in the text I re-added. I was going to transfer more of the frwiki sources when I had the time. Thanks for helping by undoing all the work though rather than actually helping, really constructive of you Abcmaxx (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

And how was it constructive of you to add back a load of unreferenced text? Like you were asked, please do this in your user space then merge. You might also want to read the sources you are adding, things like you tube are generally not considered reliable, the RSSSF source does not support the sentence it is referencing, the second source is about a specific player not the history of the club and the first source covers god knows what of that huge rambling beginning. Fenix down (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's good enough for every other Wikipedia (including the French) but of course you have to find a problem where there isn't one. Better to delete and have it over and done with rather than actually do something right? Abcmaxx (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not deleted, it's still there in the history, I just removed it until someone (you?) could add sufficient sourcing as has been repeatedly asked of you. And you should know that non-enWikis do not necessarily have the same requirements as enWiki, so saying "it's Ok, its on the frWiki" is not good enough. Not really sure what your problem with adhering to WP:V is when asked to provide reliable sources. Please refresh your knowledge of WP:BURDEN. Fenix down (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I said where the sources where, all that needs to be done is be put in the right place. I'm not sure if you take some cruel satisfaction on your incrediby pedantic power-crazed deletion-harassment spree, but deleting an entire club's history when most articles have only a paragraph or two just because you found some silly reason you are adamant on keeping on throwing. See if you actually co-operated the entire section would've been properly referenced by now, but you insist on a) me doing it all by myself (why should I be the only person who wants to move forward?) and b) challenging every stupid little thing Abcmaxx (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm only challenging the complete lack of references, which you are now adding. thanks for the AGF though! I note you completely ignored my comments on WP:BURDEN. Fenix down (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "complete lack" is it though, you just don't seem to like the sources because of who-knows-what. Youtube (i.e. Algerian television programmes) and the unofficial site with its history are reliable sources, and RSSF is merely to show table standing i.e. if JSK won in years XYZ, RSSF can back that claim up Abcmaxx (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well it kind of is:

• One source for the first history section doesn't really cut it, particularly when large swathes of that section are not even covered by that source.
• The source for the second section is not reliable as it is YouTube by general consensus.
• The third section remains wholly unreferenced.
• The source for the section on 1966-77 doesn't discuss what you think it does at all, the source is about a player called Abdellah Jebbar, and doesn't mention anything that is written in that section as far as I can see.
• The sole source for the lengthy 1977-1989 section is a link to the 1988-89 league table and therefore does not support anything said in that section.

Some of the later RSSSF sources are fine, but there are still major gaps in sourcing a lot of the text. I appreciate you are adding the sources in piecemeal, but I am concerned that they are not sufficient to support the text. I'm going to keep an eye on this page and if I don't think the sourcing provided is sufficient, especially given the exceedingly poor quality of English then I will take it to WT:FOOTY for additional input. Fenix down (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I never said it was perfect, but some sources are better than no sources at all, in addition I added a cleanup template so it's pretty clear to anyone reading it that is not yet polished. It's better to have this than nothing at all, using the same rationale why Wikipedia allows "stub" articles. I don't speak any Arabic, and I'm sure there must be a lot more sources in that language so by leaving what there is now hopefully someone will come along and add some stuff, maybe someone who is actually Algerian and can navigate their way better through the sources, where if the entire thing is just deleted, then the article will forever remain no more than a stub Abcmaxx (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and I am pleased you are adding the sources, but partial sourcing does not mean previously challenged, unsourced material should remain. It is a shame when articles remain stubs, but if no reliable sources can be found then that is how they should stay. Fenix down (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relocation of professional sports teams in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Livingston (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) 08:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

DJ Dopefish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jungle Music

Mumsnet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bad Education

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Marc Potts

Back in October you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Who requested it be restored and was there a reason given for the restoration request? Abcmaxx (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your question here. The words "requested at WP:REFUND" in the message above give a link to the request. JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your research and contributions on relocated and/or phoenix clubs worldwide. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relocation of professional sports teams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shanghai Pudong (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) 08:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Legia Warsaw

I have reverted your page move as undiscussed and controversial. If you wish to move it again please use WP:RM. GiantSnowman 18:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You didn't discuss the revert either though did you Abcmaxx (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD. GiantSnowman 21:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited US Créteil-Lusitanos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kop (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) 09:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

restoring Alain Ngamayama

Yes, it is possible. See WP:REFUND. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:Piotrus that only applies to uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions or rejected Articles for creation drafts), or in "articles for deletion" debates with little or no participation other than the nominator.. That's not really what happened here.Abcmaxx (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Remind me then what happened here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:Piotrus It went to AfD which was supported on the basis that I liga is not a fully pro league. It is a fully pro league and has been added to the pro-league listAbcmaxx (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of University of Preston

The article University of Preston has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

By the acknowledgement of the article's creator in the text and in an edit summary, there's no reason why someone would search for "university of preston" since there is no place with that name. Hence, there's no reason for this disambiguation.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of association football club rivalries in Europe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Neman Grodno

Metroplex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to City of Preston

Red Star F.C. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Saint-Ouen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Hello, I'm Sir Sputnik. Your recent edit to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues appears to have reinstated information or content another user has expressed a problem with, so I have removed it for now. You are encouraged to open a discussion on the article's Talk page to seek consensus on this matter. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not reinstate information or content a user has expressed a problem with into articles, as you did to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Reinstating your preferred version without discussing runs afoul of the "community" aspect of this project, and as a result your edits have been reverted. Per WP:BRD, it is recommended that you open up a discussion to seek consensus on this matter before reinstating your preferred versionon the article's Talk page. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

MK Dons Kits

Hi. I see you reverted my edit about the MK Dons 2010-11 kit manufacturer. This one was definitely made by ISC. I have this one in my drawer. See http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Milton_Keynes_Dons/Milton_Keynes_Dons.htm Could you reinstate my edits? User:Zorro77 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Zawisza

Please remain civil. There is no need to use phrases like 'destroying the article' just because my edits are different to yours. I would say that English-language sources are preferable unless there is a reason to doubt their reliability. I have no reason to believe Eurosport is unreliable and note that at the time of the incident they had not won in 7 games which sounds like a bad run to me. I think you are adding too much weight to this sub-topic and there is too much text on it. Is zawiszafans.net a reliable source? I removed extra (uncited) text that had been written regarding their foundation year. Please cite any text being added. Eldumpo (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You deleted a lot if information without much justification. They have not won 7 games since the fans boycotted the club and, some say that it is because had no support. Most players left due to the bad atmosphere and the fact they became deeply unpopular, their squad became depleted due to the country-wide fan disapproval of those players. Even so, no matter how badly they played, Zawisza is still in the top division after decades of lower league football, and therefore the fans would not be expecting anything other than a relegation battle. The Eurosport article is simply wrong.

I have added references, and yes zawisza.net is the largest website about Zawisza, and yes they were founded in Koszalin as say a) the club's history section on website and b) every other language wikipedia. It's not a matter of opinion, it would be just wrong to state it was due to results, we want Wikipedia to be reliable, and not misleading, and as complete as possible, right?

I haven't added anything controversial, nor anything that isn't widely reported. The 2014 protest is significant because it has thrown all sort of debate in media about ultras, player loyalty and club owners; it was also the reason for many players leaving Zawisza or even Poland altogether; it was the reason the logo was changed to the despised Hydrobudowa one; and, one could say, that the slump in form is due to the ongoing war between fans and the owner along with his players. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If the content is unreferenced, it can be challenged and removed. Citing information to the official website, or from un-reliable sites (including fan sites and blogs) is not sufficient. GiantSnowman 19:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The thing is it IS referenced! One (misleading) Eurosport reference doesn't suddenly trump the entirety of the Polish media Abcmaxx (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No, there is lots of content which is unreferenced on that article, it is extremely poorly written anyway. GiantSnowman 07:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

So your solution is to just delete it all, turn it into a stub? That's not really a way forward. There isn't lots of content in the article anyway, besides, things like it played once in the Intertoto Cup isn't incorrect nor anything hugely controversial, plus it all makes sense from a chronological point of view. I've added tons of references, to an article which was an expanded stub at best at first, and now someone keeps wantng to revert referenced changes because they can't read Polish, or think that English sources are always 100% correct. Most Polish clubs on here don't even have a history section, even big clubs like Widzew Łódź or Lech Poznań, better a crude outline than noting at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

If content cannot be adequately referenced then it should be deleted, as simple as that. WP:V! GiantSnowman 11:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It can easily, it just requires some good-will, which I would suggest rather than being counter-productively pedantic and pointlessly difficult all the time. I've referenced it now anyway Abcmaxx (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes to to WP:FPL

Given their serious policy implications, changes to WP:FPL are almost always controversial and should be discussed beforehand. The particular changes you are seeking make run contrary to consensus, established Here in the case of Bosnia, and here in the case of Macedonia, and repeatedly reaffirmed through use in the deletion process. If you wish make these changes, you must demonstrate that either the consensus has changed or that the underlying facts have changed sufficiently to invalidate the preexisting consensus. Simply put, you are not empowered to unilaterally reinterpret sources, you must involve the community in this process. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Brazilian Série C is also professional? took you 2 weeks before you decided to take part in the discussion Abcmaxx (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

How exactly was I supposed to take part in a discussion two weeks ago that you only started to two days ago? But let's not even go there, this has escalated enough as it is. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elana Toruń, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ostaszewo and Lubicz (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) 09:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at FPL

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. 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.

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 breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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.

This message has been sent to both parties involved; please also note that another admin has already fully-protected the article in question. That is not an endorsement of the current state. Please continue discussions on the talk page and reach agreement/consensus. GiantSnowman 17:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

List of association football rivalries

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of association football rivalries. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 08:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever contributed anything to Wikipedia User:GiantSnowman? Abcmaxx (talk)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of association football rivalries.

This is your final warning - if you continue to re-add unreferenced content then you will be blocked. I strongly suggest you read WP:V and WP:RS, and I strongly suggest you use the article talk page before editing again. GiantSnowman 15:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, do not call me (or anyone else) an idiot again - WP:NPA. Secondly, I am not stopping you adding references - I am stopping you adding unreferenced content. Feel free to add back material only after you have found a reliable source (quick lesson - other Wikipedia articles; YouTube videos; or blogs are not reliable!) GiantSnowman 16:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You even deleted stuff which even had a separate article. How would I know what references to look for if you deleted everything? I have never seen you contribute anything to Wikipedia other than your deletion quest, makes question what's the point of trying to look for refs, let's just have a load of incomplete stub nonsense. Also cheers for keeping tabs on me, Big Brother is watching Abcmaxx (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relocation of professional sports teams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Girardot (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) 10:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: 2015 Knurów riots

Hi Abcmaxx, I've answered your question at Talk:2015 Knurów riots. Please remember that neutral point of view as a core Wikipedia policy and abstain from using non-neutral language (such as "murder") even on talk pages, as it may unnecessarily heat up discussions there. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

RB Leipzig

Hi, could you please explain why the division championships should be displayed in the honour section? Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

An honour is when you win a trophy. Those division championships are in their trophy cabinet, they're called "championships" for that reason. the 3.Bundesliga and 2.Bundelsiga are championships too, just higher up the pyramid, therefore I see no reason not to add those honours in.Abcmaxx (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Phoenix club (sports). GiantSnowman 18:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman are you having a laugh?! Those were added from the articles themselves!!!! Abcmaxx (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added refs now happy? Would it kill you to add some refs for once or you just there to pick holes in everything? Abcmaxx (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You may wish to refresh your knowledge of WP:BURDEN. Fenix down (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And also WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTARELIABLESOURCE - just because it might be cited elsewhere on Wikipedia is irrelevant; if you are adding information then it needs citing directly per WP:V. GiantSnowman 11:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

May I remind you all of WP:COMMON which has been horribly not followed Abcmaxx (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And may I remind you that that is just an essay and is immediately followed by WP:NOCOMMON. All you are being asked to do is add references to material that has been challenged. I have already had to revert an unreferenced revert by yourself despite these warnings. If you add anything back to Phoenix club (sports) without adding a reliable reference, you will be blocked. Your conduct is now getting disruptive. Fenix down (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of FC Arsenal Kiev (1925) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article FC Arsenal Kiev (1925) 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/FC Arsenal Kiev (1925) 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.

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of association football club rivalries in Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spartak Moscow (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) 11:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix club (sports)

Please do not add that tag back again, the clean up has been done by removing all unreferenced elements following challenge and a list being incomplete is not a reason for a cleanup. Fenix down (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

but being factually incoherent / completely illogical suddenly doesn't require clean up? i have every right to challenge as much as anyone else. The article is complete garbage in its current form Abcmaxx (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

the article is fully referenced to reliable sources. It is not up to you to add items you believe to be correct without references once they have been challenged. The article would be improved with the addition of more clubs but not if they cannot be sourced properly. Simply because a club shares a similar name or comes from the same town as a former club does not make them De facto a phoenix club. I'm sorry a lot of your edits were removed but WP:V is a fundamental tenet of enwiki. There is currently nothing wrong with the list in its current form other than that it is incomplete. The current version does not need cleaning up. Fenix down (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There is it makes absolutely no sense. Yes the same name club does not inherently make it a "phoenix", but if one folds and the other was restarted right after the previous one folded with the same name and logo and the only reason it is a separate club is because of domestic law. E.g. Salernitana Calcio reformed about 3 times but is still the same club, due to Italian law. In Bulgarian law that is not the case, and currently we hace F.C. Etar, with almost the same name, logo, colours not being included, but its other 2 reformations are. The article is garbage and makes no sense, especially as the term "phoenix club" exists only in the English language. You didn't challenge anything either, you just removed it with a blanket blanking of the page and just stuck a WP:V on it Abcmaxx (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There was clear challenge here. I added a significant number of references that were missing, tagged as unreferenced those claims which had no mention in any club article at all, let alone an unreferenced claim, and removed many which were clearly not phoenix clubs in any sense of the word.

This is not the first time that you specifically have been asked by editor simply to add some sources to your edits and to stop making subjective presumptions. You were asked here and here, whilst this thread shows simple errors on your behalf in making assumptions about club succession.

All you are being asked to do is supply some sources to your claims and to stop making assumptions. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult thing to grasp. If you don't like the way FC Etar is presented, then find a source for the other reincarnations, that is all. Fenix down (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Piast Gliwice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Champions League (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) 12:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited KKS Włókniarz 1925 Kalisz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Women's football (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) 09:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited KS Cracovia (football), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Niedźwiedź (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) 10:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Homenmen Beirut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Homenetmen Beirut (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) 12:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Hutnik Nowa Huta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Stomil Olsztyn

Krzysztof Kotorowski (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Olimpia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Nottingham derby, 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. GiantSnowman 12:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You're taking the piss aren't you? It's just a list of matches!!! I have an idea let's remove every article to a stub without any attempt to actually contribute anything or help, that's what Wikipedia is all about isn't it? Abcmaxx (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:RS and WP:V before editing. GiantSnowman 12:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Plase familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:ANTIWP WP:COMMONSENSE and also the bit about WP:V where you have to challenge an edit, not just remove it for the sake of it. Also cheers for attempting to find sources, find your input to wikipedia really constructive and helpful Abcmaxx (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to FK Budućnost Podgorica. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 14:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I referenced it you idiotAbcmaxx (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at FK Budućnost Podgorica. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. GiantSnowman 16:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dartford F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newport County (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) 09:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Are you still (active) editing Wikipedia ? Maybe you can help me to improve some football pages and create others. Thank you.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you still active ? --Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I will take you in my team, I am on your side about what you said about some editors ! And you are not the only one !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at FC Zhetysu, you may be blocked from editing. Per WP:RM, only non-controversial moves need not go through the RM process. With this club I can see no indication that their name needs to change, certainly they seem only to refer to themselves as "Zhetysu" or "PFK Zhetysu" in recent news articles on their own website. To be honest it's really not helpful to simply move articles and not provide a single reference in the article to indicate confirmation for the updated name as it just confuses readers. If you think the article needs to move, please start and RM. Fenix down (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Warning sign overuser I used something called Google, it's really good on finding stuff like these sources [4] [5] [6] [7]. Oh no I changed the name to its actual one, how awfully controversial. See the logo? what does it say? Please read it.Abcmaxx (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMONNAME, just because a word appears on the badge means nothing. The club don't use it, many other sources don't (google hits:117,000). A lot less do (google hits: 14,500) Indeed some of the most reputable sites spell it completely differently. By your argument I suppose Arsenal F.C. should be moved to drop the "F.C."? Please refresh your knowledge of COMMONNAME and try to refrain from moving articles where the move is not completely uncontroversial. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited İzmit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Women's football (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) 09:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Durham Wasps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sunderland

Relocation of sports teams in the United Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sunderland

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of national stadiums, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Hockey Stadium (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) 16:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adana derby

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Adana derby, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Adana derby) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Adana derby, Abcmaxx!

Wikipedia editor Prhartcom just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Adana derby article looks good; nice job. References could stand to be changed to use Template:cite news. Prhartcom (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Prhartcom's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

@Prhartcom Thank you! Sadly not everyone agrees, some people are very keen to patrol my every move and keep deleting it Abcmaxx (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adana derby

The article Adana derby has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable sports match

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adana derby

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Adana derby, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

you want to try reading first User:reddogsix? Abcmaxx (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Adana derby. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. reddogsix (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@ talk they haven't the previous 1000 times Abcmaxx (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adana derby

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Adana derby, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Safiel (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Recreation of articles

Repeatedly recreating articles previously deleted by discussion, as you did with Adana derby, is disruptive. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik you're funny

Nomination of Adana derby for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adana derby 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/Adana derby (2nd nomination) 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. reddogsix (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Bare URLs

Please don't add bare url's as reference to articles like you did with this edit on Red Star F.C., especially when the same reference was already provided further up in the article and could have been easily copied across. Wikipedia:Bare URLs is pretty clear, stating: Most importantly, do not add bare URLs to articles. Calistemon (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, at least Abcmaxx is providing references to reliable sources. Here's a nifty tool guys, just fill in a few blanks, check it out: Makeref Best, Prhartcom (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If you do it you might as well do it properly, or at least try, especially when the policy is quite clear on it. But thanks for the handy link, I saved it to my userpage for future use. Calistemon (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queensferry (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) 09:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi mate, hope you're well. I just wanted to drop you a line because I've been struck by a few of your recent edit summaries. Things like "AFC kingston impostors" and "AFC wank wank wank". I hate to sound overbearing or whatever, and I'm not trying to silence you or say your point of view is invalid—it's just stuff like this isn't really in line with the Wikipedia pillar of Civility, and I'd strongly advise you to tone it down. When people come on the pages and call MK Dons "Franchise" or whatever, don't rise to it; just revert them and the community will support you. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

My edits constructive and I fail to see why a higher threshold is applied to me regarding civility than someone who contributes maliciously who bears no punishment at all or sees any consequence of their actions. Free speech, and seeing as I don't get paid for this and is a hobby, I am free to say whatever I feel appropriate. AFC are impostors, and the 2nd edit I was merely quoting a popular yet simple chant Abcmaxx (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say your edits were not constructive. Judging from your post you would presumably think it acceptable for someone of an opposing viewpoint to use edit summaries like "MK franchise imposters" and "MK Dons wank wank wank", on the basis of free speech and because the latter is, as you put it, a popular yet simple chant. I don't think you actually would find that acceptable, so I don't see how it is holding you to a higher threshold to write to you as I have done. Anyway, do as you wish—I worry about this kind of thing might make other users perceive you, but you are right that this is a hobby you don't get paid for, and it's hardly my place to tell you what to do in any case. I hope you're doing well and thanks for the work you do. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

AS Monaco FC flag

Dear Abcmaxx, I agree that seeing a French flag next to Monaco might feel strange or unnatural, however when Monaco qualifies for European football it does so under a French register, therefore it is regarded as a French club and it also earns UEFA coefficient points for France!

As for your examples:

• FC Vaduz is a Liechtenstein club who've chosen to play in the Swiss competition, where they cannot qualify for European football via the Swiss league. Instead, they qualify for Europe each year by winning the Liechtenstein Cup!
• Wrexham is a Welsh club, which can only qualify for European football with an English licence as they play in the English league. By playing in the English league they are also prohibited from earning a place in Europe via the Welsh Cup, which is why they don't participate in that. In short, Monaco should get a French flag since they are playing in Europe under a French license. Sorry about that, but that's how it is! --Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 19:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

So why does Wrexham have a Welsh flag then not English? AS Monaco is based in Monaco as a Monegasque club. It is affiliated to the FFF but nowhere does it say it is regarded as a French club that is absolute bollocks and I'm sure many fans would actually take offence to that. Where does it say it is French? The two countries share customs and currency and Monaco have only 1 team - that doesn't make it automatically French, it means they allow the 1 team to join their league. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Tell me where you see it and I'll tell you why. But probably because Wrexham did not qualify via an English competition, for instance if you read the article on Wrexham: "Wrexham are perhaps most notable for ... and a 1–0 victory over FC Porto in 1984 in the European Cup Winners' Cup, Wrexham were eligible for the Cup Winners' Cup due to winning the Welsh Cup. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 18:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In 1933, Monaco were invited by the French Football Federation to turn professional. So they were invited from Monaco to join the league, they didn't change nationality at that point Abcmaxx (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely. But in the Europa League they play under a french registry, which is why the French flag is put. See also the following discussion: Talk:AS Monaco FC#Club nationality. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 18:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes and Swansea City play under an English registry, as do Cardiff. yet no-one assigns them the English flag. I think the two line interaction can hardly be called a debate. Also UEFA's website isn't necessarily correct, they have a huge database and it's likely it's just automatically generated from the league they play in Abcmaxx (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Where in European football do you see the Welsh flags for both those clubs... show me an example. --Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 21:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Also... please have a look at ANY other page which lists the previous matches in Europe vs Monaco... all FRENCH. For example: Rangers F.C. in European football (1961-62), AEK Athens F.C. in European football (1963-64), Inter Milan in European football (1996–97, the year they played Hutnik Kraków) and many many more... --Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 21:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Then there's a lot of errors to fix then. In 1._FC_Magdeburg Swansea has a Welsh flag, as it does nearly everywhere else because its a Weslh club, as per List of sports clubs playing in the league of another country Abcmaxx (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed I do think there are several of these errors elsewhere on wikipedia, however the two cases you mention are in fact ok, because both Swansea and Wrexham qualified that year by virtue of winning the Welsh Cup, as you can see at List of Swansea City A.F.C. seasons and List of Wrexham F.C. seasons. Notice how Swansea also qualified for the 2013–14 UEFA Europa League through the English league, so during that competition they have an English flag. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 06:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Problems with Violence at UEFA Euro 2016

I'm sorry to have to tell you that some of your edits to this article have been problematic.

Firstly, this edit claims "Hungarian fans clashed with stadium security, sparked by the security not allowing a small group of black-clad Hungarian fans join their main group of supporters", but the source given does not appear to say that. Secondly, this edit ascribes a general view of "There has been much tension between the two [Croatia and Turkey] and numerous provocations before the tournament." to a report in The Sun. General consensus at WP:RSN is that The Sun is not a reliable source, but particularly for negative events involving living people.

Because this article involves living people, these edits have had to be redone. I would advise you to look at WP:BLP carefully and make sure any claims, particularly general ones that may generate controversy, are cited to an excellent source - WP:RSN may give you some advice of what is applicable to use. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you actually read any of the other sources? The Guardian article said there was 100 of them and were black clad and tried to join the main group? Same with the "There has been much tension between the two and numerous provocations before the tournament". The two referred to are KoB and Turkey, booing the minutes silence back in November by Turks and an exchange in various banners and threats, all of which were publicised in the French sources I listed? Granted the Sun is a shite source but there was nothing controversial in it? Abcmaxx (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Bet365 Stadium

It would be a good idea to look at talkpages before moving articles like Bet365 Stadium. Qed237 (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

+1 - Talk:City_of_Manchester_Stadium#Requested_move_18_February_2015 is completely unrelated to Bet365 Stadium .... So please make sure you check the correct talkage before moving!, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 18:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's discussed to death on nearly every stadium, Valley Parade etc. etc. It was renamed because no-one bother to check what the stadium's actual name is. I went on the UEFA website and found it, so I moved it. No-one will ever call it Bet365 Stadium aside from TV presenters and everyone knows it. I suggest you undo the damage before another pointless debate ensues only to find out that I actually did what 99% of the consensus already has been. what next, Pornhub Stadium? AK47forhire.com Stadium? No wonder football culture is dying in England, next they'll be serving popcorn and install kiss cams.

Same applies to you User:Davey2010, although cheers for being so patronising. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for undoing everything User:Qed237, you work in marketing or what? just because Arsenal are massive sell out to a bunch of sheiks doesn't mean other clubs want to be in the same boat. Reminds me of Gaylord Entertainment Center, these sponsor names are a joke, Wikipedia is not an advertising board Abcmaxx (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Get consensus or move on, Oh and you're welcome!, Just incase you don't know what a talkpage is this may help you. –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC). –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad you can read properly, suggest you re-read what I said, unless of course you're too far up your own arse to admit it Abcmaxx (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Abcmaxx. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Qed237 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I have had enough of you now, you dont like the stadium names, we understand that. But there was RM not to move and you have to consider each stadiuym individually. That does not give you right to behave badly and start calling people for different things. Grow up. Qed237 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh no a block, who will revert all edits then? Ah an anonymous editor doesn't like me how awful, life in tatters. I suggest if people don't like my responses they should start being less patronising and less aggressive in how they edit, rather then reverting, and then saying I'm all wrong and don't know what I'm doing and the only way I'll ever be right is if I go through a tons of stupid admin tasks, and even then probably reluctant Abcmaxx (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Can you please tell me what does the fans being right-wing or left-wing, anarchist or pro-lgbt have to do with the actual club itself (which is disbanded for several years now anyway)? And more so, the fans of completely different club? You're welcome to start an article about hooligan fan movement in Belarus and put that stuff there. I can also add that the source article you provided is extremely biased and exaggerating, but that's just my opinion, and I didn't even remove the link this time. -BlameRuiner (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You for real? Do you understand how football culture and supporters groups work? Have you ever been to a football match? It has EVERYTHING to do with the club, because it's fans is what shapes the culture and perception of the club. Your strange argument is like saying what does Celtic F.C. have to do with Catholicism or Ireland, what so different about FC St.Pauli, why is Brighton & Hove Albion v Crystal Palace F.C. more than just another fixture. Every football page has a supporters section, and the vast majority of the supporters have friendships and rivalries with other teams. What goes with that is particular atmosphere during derby games, and a different one during friendship games/tournaments/events. What does the fans being right-wing or left-wing, anarchist or pro-lgbt have to do with the actual club itself - the club is determined by its fans, as they are the only constant in a football club, so it does have absolutely everything to do with the club. Furthermore the section was about the club's supporters - I described them and provided a reference. Extremely biased and exaggerating - because it's website about post-Soviet football? It's written by journalists and academics, therefore it's reliable, no more biased than a normal national UK newspaper. Also you're confusing organised support with hooliganism. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

FC Dinamo Brest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Neman Grodno

List of association football club rivalries in Europe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Neman Grodno

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Adana derby has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Adana derby. Thanks! VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Online} 13:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bradford City A.F.C.. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GiantSnowman 09:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Giant is this a joke?! Abcmaxx (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you edited against what a reliable source said... GiantSnowman 10:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you read what the source said? Do you know what vandalism is? Or you're too far up on your high horse to assume good faith Abcmaxx (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bradford City A.F.C., you may be blocked from editing.

You are deliberately twisting the source, see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. GiantSnowman 11:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you don't get it, though I might speculate...the reference you are trying to use does NOT state what you have written. You therefore need to either a) stop editing or b) find a reference that does support you. I strngly suggest you make your case on the article talk page (as you should have done days ago per WP:BRD). GiantSnowman 08:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Giant Yes it does. They were playing FC Halifax. Halifax AFC does not exist anymore. By logical process (which you seem to completely lack) they cannot refer to Halifax AFC as that is a defunct derby because the club no longer exists. They are two separate clubs hence they have two separate articles. I don't really know what your problem is other than just being difficult for the sake of doing so. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not my issue - where does the source state "formerly strong"?! GiantSnowman 09:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

but it is my issue? or only your issues count now? it doesn't mention anything about Halifax AFC so I removed it from the sentence relating to the source, Pretty simple, even you can probably understand that. From that I was made to understand they probably did have a rivalry with Halifax AFC but they do not anymore as it doesn't exist anymore. Really not difficult. Also branding about vandalism tag is highly unfair and you're not the Wikipedia police, nor any form of higher rank than I, so I suggest you pack it in a bit anytime someone disagrees with you. You're making a simple unpaid hobby very arduous and unpleasant. Next time on you're on my talk page I suggest you come across less boorish and more civilised Abcmaxx (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Adana derby has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Adana derby. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Adana derby has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Adana derby. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adana derby (August 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Adana derby and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Robert McClenon. Thank you. Gestrid (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@talk one rule for me, one for others though? How come no-one assumes good faith when I edit? Or you guys just like being irrational by posting stupid messages like this? Abcmaxx (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Repeatedly calling other editors stupid is not going to get you anywhere except blocked Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Fucking joke really is Abcmaxx (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)