Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:05, 29 January 2016

Welcome!

Hello, Davefelmer, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Misplaced Pages Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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

Please assume good faith in other users. Please also read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry

I appreciate what you're doing at Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry, but where the hell were you when all the discussions were going on? You're just being disruptive now. I don't like it any more than you do, since United are clearly more successful, but you're not helping anyone's cause by engaging in an edit war. Also, the "table" you introduced in your last edits was absolute dogshit. – PeeJay 22:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi mate, this is Dave. Sorry I wasnt there when the discussions were taking place; I am also still new to wiki so dont quite know how to talk directly to other users beyond when editing. The fact of the matter is that the lad wrote a ridiculous edit that clearly favored Liverpool. 80% of his facts were false and he in any case used the subjective "major honour" system that is not used on any other subsequent wiki rivalry page. Not to mention his principle source of FIFA.com counts other countries' versions of the Charity Shield as major titles but not ours. He lied about our website not listing the intercontinental cup and listing 40 major honours when it just lists 62 honours, he lied about the telegraph listing liverpool 65 honours and giving us 62, he doesnt mention that we have more honours and he ignores that UEFA leave out the CWC because it isnt their competition. He has lied and spun all his facts and wont be allowed to get away with it. I have now made a very fair and even page describing all accounts and every perspective that should be stuck with. The trophy comparison was from BBC but I just dont know how to make it look polished and more official like the the copy and previous posted hauls.

@Davefelmer:, I think you've missed the point about what Misplaced Pages is about. It is no place for original research or for making unfounded accusations about other editors. I see that you are a Manchester United fan and want to portray the article as showing your team ahead. The fact is, there is no definitive source of this data. In that situation, we have to cite the most prominent source and then give other differing sources an in-text attribution in the approximate order of prominence. The page you changed was a result of a long discussion about this on the talk page and then it went to dispute resolution where a couple of admins got involved to mediate. There were no lies by any of the participants, it was all very civil and the language of the resulting article doesn't show any bias. If you have some problems with the content, you should go to the talk page for the article and state what your objections are, how you'd like to change it and the references you think back up your position better than the sources in the current article. Note that this article went through this process for weeks.

Give it a season or two and all sources will probably have your team ahead. Chrisuae (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

@Davefelmer:, please don't keep reverting - it's not the way to settle a dispute. Read over the talk page for the article and the Dispute Resolution. To sum it up: editors can only cite external sources. When there are multiple sources, the most prominent one is used and other high quality sources are given in-text attribution. Your objection to FIFA not recognising the Community Shield, Second division, youth cups, etc doesn't invalidate FIFA as the world governing body of football. UEFA is 99% the same as FIFA. FIFA and UEFA are authoritative for this subject. Personally, I would only include the 5 main trophies and not bother with the super cups, but there is no source that does this and outweighs FIFA's prominence. Our own opinions should not affect the article. Also, when citing a source, you cannot editorialise. Both club websites make a distinction in their honours tables. These are very similar to FIFA and UEFA and the difference is noted in the article. The BBC includes the Community Shield and that is noted. Other media sites include all honours and that is also noted in the article.

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fma12 (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Davefelmer:, Misplaced Pages is not the right place to express fandom - please see WP:PROMOTION. Please also see WP:DE to avoid inadvertently being disruptive. Chrisuae (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chrisuae (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

Please follow WP:STICKTOSOURCE and avoid WP:PEACOCK. You have added nothing to the discussion between many experienced users that took place in Dispute Resolution. You haven't read the FIFA and UEFA sites well, they state that they do not include minor honours. That means no charity matches, pre-season fiendlies, lower tier trophies, youth trophies, individual honours, etc. UEFA doesn't include the FIFA trophy and that is noted under the table in the article. The ManU and Liverpool sites list their honours very clearly and that is noted under the table in the article. They also list the "Other honours" below and that is where they note their charity matches, pre-season fiendlies, lower tier trophies, youth trophies, etc. That is also noted in the article. The article follows WP:NPOV. Please read WP:NPOVT and WP:V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisuae (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C.

Are you serious? Why set an arbitrary year like 1945 as the cut-off point? Furthermore, the lead section should summarise the contents of the article as a whole - your fact about United having the most wins since 1945 is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and it probably shouldn't be either. As it is, the lead summarises the entire article, whereas you keep adding unnecessary fluff. – PeeJay 18:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)world war II is a very realistic cut off point for measuring team success and is often done by the BBC and Guardian (I'll provide the sources if you want). The point, as it is well sourced, deserves a mention in the honours section if not the intro. We can leave the intro as is.

You see, the problem is that "The most wins since World War 2" is a very variable stat. Unlike honours, which are permanent, this type of stat can change over time. – PeeJay 19:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Almost any stat is a variable one. By that token, no club can say they've won something more than someone else because one day it might not be the case. The stat is factual until it is changed by another club, at which point it will be removed. It is the same as Real Madrid saying they've won the european cup more than anyone; one day it may be different but today it is a fact.

Your recent editing history at Manchester United F.C. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)lovely of you to chip in on something you arent part of; but the "edit war" there has been resolved

Unsourced material

Davefelmer, just a friendly reminder to use the citation needed tag for text that you think is unsourced rather than deleting it. That way, any needed references can be added while the rest of the article remains editable with no loss of info. Thanks - Chrisuae (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

If it is a BLP, it can be removed if it is unsourced. Murry1975 (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)exactly as Murry1975 said; its unsourced, unreliable and unfactual. You cannot publish totally incorrect material without a source. when you do have a source, then you can publish. You can't write any rubbish and THEN find justification. It is the other way round.

Murry1975 mentioned BLP articles. You have been going through all of the articles that show other clubs to be more successful than your favourite club and taking out longstanding information and stating it is not sourced. Most of it is sourced accurately and other editors have reverted your changes eg: Levski Sofia. If you think it is not well sourced, you should add the citation needed tag. If no source is added in a reasonable time, then it is reasonable to remove it. If you just delete it, the information can be lost when other edits are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisuae (talk • contribs) 18:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)do not through around wild and absurd accusations; I have rightfully edited biased information that was included without any justifiable source and evidence on several clubs; all of which have won less than the club you assume I support (Arsenal and Everton have won 20 and 40 trophies less than Man Utd who I believe you think I support). You cannot write whatever you want and leave someone else to source it; that is against what wikipedia is and stands for. Until you have credible factual information to add, you dont add it. Any such unsourced and unfactually information will be promptly deleted as it should be until it can be justified.

September 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Arsenal F.C.. Qed237 (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

vandalising is what you are doing by adding in information not backed by a single reliable source. Until you can show ONE mainstream media site, footballing body or club that acknowledges those regional and youth trophies as "honours", then you can include them. until then, you cannot as club bias cannot rule wikipedia. Davefelmer (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You must be blind, all of the honours you remove are sourced, and I reverted your removal on several articles not just one. Accusing me and other experienced editors of being biased is amusing and continuing your abusive and disruptive behaiviour with edit wars will have you blocked. Qed237 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Futhermore, this is not saying that Arsenal havent won said "trophies", it is that they do not count as honours and until you can show me an honours count by a credible site that encorporates these regional and youth matches, it cannot be included. It is worth noting that before this summer, all these ridiculous matches were not added so there was never a dispute. The club does not list them as honours, neither do FIFA or UEFA and no media site does either. Just because a club won something doesnt make it an honour. Liverpool dont include their 40 Liverpool senior cups and United their 32 Manchester Senior Cups and 14 Lancashire Cups do they? Davefelmer (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please learn how to sign posts. Qed237 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

please learn how to be an unbiased and neutral editor. Davefelmer (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I already am. Qed237 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

)you are attempting to use your bias towards Arsenal to bolster their count through information not corroborated by any media, clubs or footballing body. That is irresponsible at best and subject to punishment at worst. Davefelmer (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC

If I was biased against Arsenal, then why did I do the same at Everton? Qed237 (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)to justify your actions for Arsenal. In any case, neither can be allowed to stand as they are not corroborated by any neutral source in the media or football body.

They are sourced.... Qed237 (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — MusikAnimal 18:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Was editing articles that were listing information without any/credible/reliable sources as per the rules of wikipedia in terms of sourcing. I attempted to explain the need for neutral and reliable sourcing to other editors but to no avail. Davefelmer (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You'd been given plenty of warning to stop edit warring. OhNoitsJamie 21:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Is there any reason why you edited an old post you wrote on my talk page and changed your wording from "us" to "them" when you were referring to your favourite club? BTW, you forgot to change what you wrote on your own page on Aug 20, 2015 when you also referred to Manchester United as "us" and called www.manutd.com "our website". Chrisuae (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC) chrisuae

Davefelmer (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)not at all. My supporting of Man Utd does not change the fact that I have discovered beyond all reasonable doubt evidence to support a point that must be included in that article. Your prior point was one based on an assumption set up to clearly favor Liverpool, a club you support, with no clear-cut fact to back it up. The site clearly says "major trophies" before the trophy room and calls us the most successful team in england, something your assumption would ensure we would not be. Thus, it is a fully recognizable point that must be changed. If you persist on changing it back from factual information to unfactual assumption, I wll report you instantly.

Your edits are not contributing any information. Your website lists the trophies exactly as it is written in the article. The article already states that both clubs can claim to be more successful. You are simply re-hashing what was discussed in arbitration by plenty of neutral experienced editors. Please stop edit warring and accusing other editors of lies. I don't give any personal information here but you are making assumptions about me that are wrong. Chrisuae (talk) Chrisuae —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)you can't tell me to not accuse you of lying when that is what you do even now. Look at the link. Read the description leading into "trophy room" (where the trophies are listed) where it says "this lists all the MAJOR HONOURS" won by the club. Add to this the second link in which the site claims United are more successful, a statement that would not be true had it counted the trophies you suggested they do as "major" or more important than others. You have NOT acnowledged that United claim to be more successful on their website, what you have done is listed several unreliable counts ti favor Liverpool and said United are ahead by one count in a throwaway line in the lower part of the section before claiming both clubs can claim to be more successful. That is a ridiculous manipulation of facts right there. Now, I could go on about how the Manchester Evening News (domestic media conveniently left out) as well as Talksport amongst others proclaim United as more successful by corroborating the BBC's trophy tally, (http://talksport.com/football/which-club-has-won-most-trophies-europe-most-successful-clubs-best-leagues-revealed) (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/12-reasons-manchester-united-better-6812070) but initially all I ask is that the United website be referred to properly and the relevant information accurately quoted. If you are not a Liverpool supporter, then you are clearly an ardent United hater because you have left out any and all logical facts that put up United's side of this argument.

Again your assumption about me is wrong. Putting your personal attacks aside, the article text accurately reflects the website and does not make any judgement about either club - it simply states the facts as they are on the websites. There are no throwaway lines. To repeat, when there are multiple sources that give differing opinions, they are mentioned using inline references in order of the prominence of the sources. As I wrote on your page earlier, give it a season or two and your club will likely surpass the other. Chrisuae (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

Davefelmer (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)] (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)That is the thing; it DOES NOT state the facts at all. You have clearly worded it to give Liverpool supremacy and have not used any facts provided. United clearly list those trophies as "major" and you havent mentioned that the site claims United are more successful. All you have done is compared United's top tier honours with Liverpool's and added Liverpool's youth and reserve trophies. Liverpool dont even have an "others" section on their website so it is a straight up lie to make them look more successful. Now, I'm not advocating to totally change the article, but it is only fair to present the full and neutral view on the matter and thus all sides should be accounted for. United clearly list those trophies as "major honours" as the link shows and claim to be more successful and that should be reflected. Also, The Manchester Evening News article has to be included as they are prominent media.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on PFC Levski Sofia. 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 Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Qed237 (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Davefelmer reported by User:Qed237 (Result: ). Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Signing

Hi, as you have been told before. Please, sign at BOTTOM of the posts. First write text and then you say at the bottom "I wrote this" by signing. And stop reverting. Qed237 (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, PLEASE SIGN AFTER YOUR POST, NOT BEFORE IT. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Alex Ferguson

You really have to stop your ManU pushing (very obvious). THe lead is a summary of article and is not for this glorification and adding every detail of his records. Qed237 (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You really have to stop with these senseless accusations. Look at the "lead" for any other manager and it lists a series of personal achievements that define a manager's stature. Look at Arsene Wenger's. Jose Mourinho's. Guardiola's. They all list their achievements in the lead and list their trophies under honours. There is literally NOT ONE other manager who has all his personal achievements hidden from sight in the honours section. For Sir Alex to be the only manager to have this is absurd. This is simply fair. Davefelmer (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:OSE. The lead is always a summary of an article, WP:LEAD is worth a read as well as WP:BLPLEAD. If you want the content, the body is more suitable. Qed237 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason why his most notable points are not part of a summary about him. Him being the most successful British manager and joint-most successful European manager etc are facts that define his stature and pull people's interest which is the whole point of a lead. Furthermore, and more to the point, as I previously stated, there is literally NOT ONE other manager who has his achievements hidden in the honours section. Even if you believe this the correct way (and it might be in a lot of people's opinion to be fair), it does not correlate with any manager. Examples include Mourinho (https://en.wikipedia.org/Jos%C3%A9_Mourinho), Bob Paisley (https://en.wikipedia.org/Bob_Paisley) and Guardiola (https://en.wikipedia.org/Pep_Guardiola). All of these pages include massive volumes of text detailing their achievements and SAF should be no different. Davefelmer (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, WP:OSE. Qed237 (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

that very same article stresses the need for wikipedia consistency; this attempt to have Sir Alex Ferguson be the only man whose greatest achivements are hidden deep in the honours section is a farce and creates an anomoly amongst all other congruent articles. So either you are implying that every manager should have the specific achievements down in the honours section, or Sir Alex's must match the rest. You accused me of club bias a few days ago, yet you are the only one showing laughable levels of club allegeiance by persisting with the idea that one manager's bio should be different from all the rest with all of his major achievements hidden from plain sight.Davefelmer (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but as I'm kinda new to editing wikipedia and somewhat interested in the might Man Utd, can someone confirm which is more important WP:OSE or Misplaced Pages:Consensus - it seems as if one is an unofficial essay and the other is a wikipedia policy...but as I said, I'm new here, so I'm trying to learn from more experienced editors. thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

They are both important in different contexts. Which one do you interpret as more opinion and which a wiki policy? Davefelmer (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Misplaced Pages:Consensus was a pretty strictly followed wikipedia policy and that WP:OSE is an unofficial guide that reflects the opinion of a writer, but is not something that editors are forced to follow. As such, the above editors should accept that if a number of football managers' bios have set a certain standard for a certain period of time (ie. reached consensus) then you are totally correct in expecting the SAF article to have a similar bio. For editors to claim WP:OSE is a total disregard and lack of respect for consensus, which of course is what wikipedia is built upon. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I am in total agreement. There simply can't be a single anomaly in one article across an entire genre on wiki. Its misleading and biased amongst other things. Davefelmer (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You're presupposing that a consensus exists. I suppose silence could be construed as tacit consensus; e.g. no one has complained about the Alex Ferguson/Bob Paisley/Pep Guardiola article, therefore there must be a tacit consensus that the current version is acceptable. The fact is that there clearly is no consensus, since we have such disparity between articles. – PeeJay 20:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It would seem that there is consensus on the other articles, as there is no dispute regarding their content/format, however as the SAF article is being discussed, there is no consensus on that article. So, obviously there should be discussion regarding reaching consensus. The easiest way to achieve consensus is to take find the general standard from similar but more stable articles, or are you suggesting that we have a total free for all on each article of a similar nature and have no general standard within wikipedia? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Issue has been raised in relevant talk page. Hopefully this will be resolved shortly as the whole situation is ridiculous. How does one man have all his achievements hidden at the bottom of the article in a manner that NOT A SINGLE OTHER MAN of his profesion does?Davefelmer (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Clemence

The sources you removed include, "a poll conducted by Total Football placed the former Liverpool and England shot-stopper on top spot" and "Ray Clemence, MBE (born 5 August, 1948 in Skegness, England) was one of English and European Football (soccer)|football's best and most decorated goalkeepers". Stop removing cited material. Murry1975 (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are struggling to see what is truly valid material and what is not. You have made a claim that he is one of the most successful goalkeepers of all time in england and Europe. For such a massive claim, you need impeccable sources that prove this information, going into detail on respective trophy counts to show that he is one of the best. You have provided two sources, one of which features a throwaway line on his own club's website, and another that describes great keepers but DOES NOT compare them, neither individually nor in terms of success. In fact, the second source doesn't even have the same throwaway line, it just says he's one of the most decorated english keepers. And a poll (where fans voted him as one of the best) is not in any way, shape or form a reliable piece of evidence to back up any assertion of fact, especially one this big. All that you have is one line without any evidence from a biased club's site that directly refers to this claim. To say that it holds any weight to keep this information on its own is ridiculous. You have no legitimate sources to defend this sentence. Thus it will be removed. I have kept the recently added statement of him winning every individual major honour except the cup winners cup because that is at least factual correct off of his honour page. Davefelmer (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverted to cited version. Murry1975 (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not revert when there is no reason to do so. You have no substantial proof to validate your claims. A throwaway line is not enough to see someone is one of the most decorated players. Davefelmer (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You are slow edit warring against multiple editors across multiple articles. You are under a 1RR I see, so thats why you wait two days. Well no offence Dave, you seem to cut material from Liverpool articles to make them look worse (do they need your help?) and add to Uniteds ones to make them look better, including the removal of Linfield from a list supporting your view. It is a collaboration on here, you can help by raising issues, you know the football project talkpage is? If you have any questions ask there for a start. Murry1975 (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not edit warring but making very valid claims on a few articles after discussing my actions on talk pages (until the other editor stops responding without ever answering the point). Like with the clemence article, how can you justify a throwaway line on a biased club's website to validate a claim that he's one of the most decorated keepers ever? Where is the hard evidence to support such a large idea? I expect you won't respond, thus illustrating my point further. Davefelmer (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

RSSSF

Rsssf is considered a valid, accurate source. If there is something you can point out that is factually inaccurate then please provide evidence. And no, the club website is not evidence enough as they are (obviously) a primary source. We will therefore always look for a secondary source where possible.

The official website is not a complete repository of all information, for instance under its Championship history page it does not list anything prior to 1995, and its Cup history is equally as bad, omitting the entire club history between 1947 and 1988.

There is also a question over what / where the cut off between "official" Bulgarian Cup and secondary Bulgarian Cups overlap as there appear to be conflicting claims from several sources involved in that 1981 through 1984 period. It would need a Bulgarian or Bulgarian speaker to decipher the sources. Koncorde (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't speak for everyone when you say "it is considered" when in fact you only mean yourself. How is it a valid source? It isn't mainstream and third party. It is written informally and looks like a blog. Furthermore, it seems to merely show any regional or lower level cup in Bulgarian football history without noting whether they were unofficial, regional (which isn't an honour) or uncompetitive. It's info isn't corroborated by what the club's use. And this claim that the club's don't list their full honours is ridiculous. Looking at the actual "club" section, http://www.levski.bg/the_club.php, they clearly list all their trophies including from the periods you claim they excluded (another rubbish claim). Thus, they can and obviously like all other clubs should and will be seen as complete.

Not to mention the problem you yourself brought up with the source. On top of everything, there is a misconception that cannot be clarified by any of us. Thus, the source can't be used! Davefelmer (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I speak for wikiprojectfootball, who have been using RSSSF as a source for going on 10 years now. And your opinion on what is an honour in Bulgaria is irrelevant, just as your opinion on Arsenals trophies was irrelevant. And again, their website is clearly an incomplete history of the club therefore I would not use it to verify the exhaustive and complete history of the club. It doesn't matter if one page lists some trophies, wikipedia here to list all of them if they can be sourced.

The problem with the conflicting sources does not invalidate RSSSF, it merely indicates that the explanation regarding the primacy of the Soviet Cup / Bulgarian Cup needs clarifying. I have requested a native Bulgarian speaker to look into the issue. Koncorde (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Since when have they used this as a reliable source? Do you have any proof of this? And it's not that you "won" the arsenal trophies debate, it's just I didn't see any need to keep going with it. It was a minor issue, and it only makes the club look bad when anyone goes on wiki and sees all the top clubs list their real honours and arsenal stuff in a ton of regional and reserve trophies that nobody has heard of. The point here is that the club lists all their titles and cups from their whole history; your basis for saying they don't list complete histories is non existent. This is purely your opinion. The fact is that wikipedia lists trophy hauls that can be proven through sources; ie actual trophy hauls that are listed. It is not a place for original research of what trophies a club has won; you are merely supposed to list established detailed trophy counts. Which this is not and the club site is. Davefelmer (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

...I invite you to read Arkell v. Pressdram and never talk to me again. I don't have any interest in discussing this level of inveterate stupidity that is either an example of being obstinate, or downright criminally dumb. In either case I feel more stupid for having even bothered trying to engage in any level of conversation with you. Koncorde (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel like a paranoid keyboard warrior like yourself who's been here for 9 years calling anyone dumb is ironic to a rather large degree. Well done on once again ignoring the point and spouting a bunch of nonsensical drivel. Davefelmer (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Medals

You can't know that, since that's not accurate. Sure, the guys in the matchday squad for one-off games like the Community Shield get a medal, but the recipients aren't necessarily limited to those players. The regulations of the Community Shield say 25 medals are distributed "to the playing staff and officials of each Club playing in the Match". It doesn't specify whether they're gold, silver or even whether there is a distinction between a winner's medal and a runner-up's medal. The UEFA Super Cup is similar, but in that competition, the winners receive gold medals and the runners-up receive silver medals; furthermore, each club receives 40 medals. In both cases, there's no restriction on who the club decides to give a medal to. As for the FA Cup, there's no restriction on who should receive a medal either. As far as I know, the Premier League is the only competition that sets a threshold on the number of appearances a player must make to receive a medal; other leagues, such as Spain, have a set squad, all of whom I believe receive a medal at the end of the season. – PeeJay 01:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up mate. Davefelmer (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Balkans Cup

Can you improve also Balkans Cup seasons, there are not many games in one edition, just QF, SF and Final. Thanks.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

1RR lifted

The first two messages below were posted to my talk page. However, I think it will be more helpful to have discussions about this on your talk page, Dave, since it is all about your editing, so I am copying them here, and I also replying here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, this is Dave Felmer. You delt with my dispute on here a month ago that led to me being put on the 1RR rule. It's now been over 30 days since I was placed on this and since then I've done my best to ensure I don't edit war and engage in talk sections before making any changes etc and I feel I've really settled done and am not disruptive anymore (a product that I feel stemmed from my total inexperience on wikipedia having only started editing this summer). Anyway, I recall you saying that if I were to learn my trade here and maybe come back in a month that we could maybe remove the 1RR, so I was wondering whether that was possible now.

Please let me know. Davefelmer (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

He only wants it removing so he can start edit warring again, and you can see here that his behaviour has not significantly changed. He has engaged at WikipediaProject Football and on some talk pages, but took pretty much nothing away from the conversation with Struway as his first action was to immediately enter again into blanking portions of the honour sections of PFC Sofia. Koncorde (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember saying anything about coming back after a month, and I can't find it now. Certainly I didn't say that in the message accepting your unblock request, nor in the one message which I know of that I posted to you on my talk page. Do you think it could be that someone else said it, and you have got us mixed up?

Although I accepted the unblock request, as can be seen here, the 1RR that you agreed to stick to was proposed by NeilN, so perhaps the best thing is to consult him. However, I have had a quick look at your recent editing, and I will make a few comments.

In my unblock message, I said I was unblocking "On the basis of your assurance that you will avoid the problems that you have had before, and considering that you have accepted the 1RR rule specified by the blocking administrator". So, are you "avoid the problems that you have had before"? To a large extent, yes, you are. I see that you have been making much more of an attempt to discuss things with other editors than you used to do, with 50% of your recent edits being talk page edits, compared with 4% of your earliest edits. However, I do see a number of recent reverts, including a couple of times when your revert has in whole or in part repeated one or more earlier reverts you had made. That does raise the question of whether removing the 1RR restriction might encourage you to slip back into edit-warring again, but if, on the other hand, you are past the need for a 1RR then keeping it is obviously not helpful to you or to Misplaced Pages. I am not sure what the best answer is.

NeilN, would you care to have a look at this and express an opinion, since, as I said above, making the unblock conditional on 1RR was your suggestion? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out, and I will be fine with whatever the decision is. As far as my edits on the United - Liverpool wiki page, I would question the logic of the editor's complaint that just because I made an edit to a point and reverted it 3 days later that it suddenly means that I would edit war the second the 1RR was lifted. I have no intention of doing such. Davefelmer (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• NeilN has edited 66 times since I posted the above message, pinging him, and he hasn't posted here, so I guess he doesn't wish to comment. I am therefore willing to make a decision on this on my own, and you may consider the 1RR to be lifted. I see no reason not to think that you should be able to avoid the problems that led to it in the past. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: You probably have bettter knowledge than me but seeing this, where the editor has tried insterting same content over and over again (with some days apart to avoid 1RR), does not give me the reason to think that 1RR can be lifted. I was actually considering taking him to edit warring noticeboard. Qed237 (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It's funny because if anything, it's the other editor that should be taken to the noticeboard. If you look on the talk section of the article, I tried explaining that his structuring of the article is clearly inconsistent with any other wiki article of its kind and cited several examples. The other editor stopped replying so I made the change but then he reverted anyway and keeps doing so under the same statement (it doesn't belong in the lead) when I have constantly explained why it does to which he has not replied. Furthermore, his edits are hypocritical as the information he refused to put in the lead of one article is exactly the kind of information he himself inserted into another article (Bob paisley) of the same ilk. And in any case, 1RR means I can only make one revert within a 24 hour window, to which I complied without fail every day of my time on it. I've been off it now and still do not make crazy reverts and edit war as an editor feared I might; why should I suddenly go back on it or be accused of edit warring when I don't even come close to performing what is defined as an edit war? Your time would be best served cautioning the other editor involved instead of me. Davefelmer (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring are not limited to a time period it is the behaviour of repeatedly adding the same content. Just because you dont to it within "24 hours" dont mean you can keep on doing it. You are not allowed to be "gaming the system" by waiting to avoid being blocked for breaking 3RR (or 1RR in your case) and then doing the same thing over and over again. About who is right or wrong I can not say for sure, but your habbit of writing way to much info in the lead (summary of article), info that dont exist in article, and pushing on ManU related articles makes me believe the other editor. Qed237 (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

My habit of saying too much in the lead? your attempts to portray me as a serial offender when I have only advocated for it once is laughable. Please, by all means, show me an example aside from alex Ferguson where I pushed for a more informative lead (that means I pushed for more than two sentences to be added). And info that doesn't exist in the article? I only want his status as the most decorated british and european manager added to the intro as his achievements that led to those statuses are documented througout the body. So how does it "not exist"? What doesn't exist? And Man U pushing? What? Just because I added some relevant and sourced information to United articles doesn't mean I push for them. Do you push for arsenal since you've done the same for them in that case? All the information I ever add is sourced, logical and with reasoning behind it. Don't try and make it out that it's anything but when you can't show one example of me unfairly pushing for man utd. And by all means, if you think information about personal achievements should be in the honours section instead of the lead, go amend the exact same info used for Paisley, mourinho and guardiola's leads amongst others. Because you won't do that, but will continue to advocate that alex Ferguson's stays as is, proving yourself a hypocrite that is either specifically targeting me or is just an ardent United hater. Davefelmer (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: I made it clear (I think) that I had some doubts. As you can see above, I wrote " I do see a number of recent reverts, including a couple of times when your revert has in whole or in part repeated one or more earlier reverts you had made" and "I am not sure what the best answer is". I checked his editing on various articles, but did not see any unambiguous edit-warring, so I decided to try lifting the 1RR and watching to see whether there were any further problems or not. However, I did not see his recent editing at Alex Ferguson: if I had done so, I would certainly not have even considered lifting the 1RR. Thank you for calling this to my attention, so that I have been able to reconsider the matter.

Davefelmer, you have clearly been edit-warring at Alex Ferguson. it seems from what you say above that you are one of the surprisingly many editors who for some reason think that "edit-warring" is defined as meaning making more than a particular number of edits in a particular time-period, and that it's perfectly acceptable to keep making the same revert repeatedly, provided you are careful to avoid passing that number. I don't know why so may editors think that: the edit-warring policy makes it perfectly clear that that is not so. It says, right in the lead, "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what 'edit warring' means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so" (emphasis in the original), and, in the section on the "three revert rule, it says "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block." (My emphasis.) The messages warning you about edit-warring posted to this talk page on the 20th of August and the 27th of September both said "while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule" (emphasis in the original).

When I unblocked your account, I stated that I was doing so "On the basis of your assurance that you will avoid the problems that you have had before", but you have not avoided them. You have continued to edit-war. You have made it quite clear that you have deliberately been avoiding crossing the 1 revert rule so that you can get away with as much edit-warring as you could, in the belief that doing so would prevent being blocked again. It is evident from what you have said above that you have every intention of continuing to edit-war, and it seems very probable that your request to have the 1 revert rule lifted was made with the intention of enabling you to edit-war more rapidly.

Apart from edit-warring, you continue to exhibit a battleground approach to other editors with whom you disagree, seemingly treating discussions with other editors as an opportunity to aggressively assert how right you are and how contemptible they are, rather than as an opportunity to constructively exchange ideas, and try to reach agreement. You repeatedly make personal attacks on other editors: to give just two examples, look at your last two posts to this talk page section, in both of which you accuse other editors of hypocrisy, among other things. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

With all due respect, while I did make a number of (some standing and some reverted) changes to Alex Ferguson's page over the past month, a lot of them have not been edit warring comments or the regurgatating of the same content. For instance, my first change on October the 8th was the expanding of a bland statement that other editors agreed with and kept (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alex_Ferguson&diff=684687478&oldid=684524173), my second (as can be seen also in the link provided by the editor that brought it to your attention) on the 10th was the moving of this information higher up in the article (for the first time - not edit warring at all) while my third action on October 14 was to add a completely new sentence with a source to the article. I only added new information on October 25 again and after that, I created a discussion on the talk page to try and settle a dispute (titled 'lack of consensus'). As can be seen on said talk page, we both made points but the other editor stopped replying to my response. It clearly appeared that he had accepted my side and so I attempted to make my change the following day which was instantly reverted with the same explanation that i had countered and that he hadnt responded to in the talk page. He made the same statement as justification for reverting my next edit eight days later, but he refused to defend this said claim in the talk section when I brought it up. Thus, what was I to do? He wasnt responding on the talk page and seemed to only want to communicate through the revertion section summaries. The point i am trying to make is that while it does appear I made a lot of changes to Alex Ferguson, a lot were adding individual pieces of content and not edit warring and a few other times I had reason to believe that a prior change i had made that had been reverted would stick now due to other editors not continueing other conversation in the discussion. Factoring these things in, very few of the edits were truly mindless edit wars. Could you maybe look into that and see if I truly have a point here because I believe I do? Alex Ferguson was also the only article that I was in breach of the rules at. Factoring all this into account, is it not possible for me to go back to 1RR or perhaps take a ban from editing that article in particular instead of the indefinite block since it was only that article which I was in breach of rules at and it does seem to be the cause of a lot of my problems? Davefelmer (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per the below conditions (all reverts must be justified on the talk page with a minimum delay of 24 hours before any further reverting, with attention still drawn to WP:3RR), I am now unblocking you, on the strict understanding that a breach of these restrictions over the next three months will likely result in a reblock. I would personally advise you to stick to a self-enforced 1RR - never revert more than once on an article, ever. I know it can be frustrating to think an article is on the wrong version, but it's better than being blocked, isn't it? Ritchie333 15:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have factored the above into an unblock request. I don't believe that DaveFelmer should have been indefinitely banned as he continued to be in a process of learning / improving, and a more reasonable finite block, or continued special condition should have been applied. Koncorde (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Although I placed the latest block, I don't regard it as really my block: rather, I regard it as restoring the earlier block placed by NeilN, which I had lifted subject to conditions, which were essentially given by NeilN as conditions for an unblock. Since those conditions were not adhered to, I regarded the conditional unblock as void, and the original block was restored. I personally would not have suggested a 1RR as a condition, but accepted that it was the condition given by the original blocking administrator. Perhaps NeilN would like to express an opinion on the current situation. My view is a as follows. Dave is clearly a good-faith editor, who has largely done good editing. However, he does have an unfortunate tendency to stick too strongly to his preferred view as to what an article should say. That tendency has manifested itself not only in edit-warring but also in the general battleground approach he has at times shown towards other editors. I am also not happy about the way he has evidently taken a rather wikilawyerish approach to the issue of edit-warring, apparently regarding it as acceptable to edit-war provided he stays within some arbitrary limit, be it 3RR or 1RR. Having said all that, I do think that after the unblock he did make considerable efforts to improve the way he was working, and I hope that if he is unblocked again, he can make further progress. As I have already indicated, I would be interested to know if NeilN has any opinion to express. If he doesn't wish to comment, then I am willing to leave it in Ritchie333's hands. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson and Ritchie333: As I mentioned on Drmies talk page, I was not notified of the initial ping. Davefelmer started seriously editing on August 19th. By September 27th he had earned his fourth block for edit warring. I agree with Ritchie333 that Davefelmer is not a net negative but something had to be done to curb his reflexive reverts. Thus the WP:1RR condition. I am amenable to an unblock but think some kind of restriction should stay. What about after each revert, Davefelmer must post to the talk page and wait 24 hours for a response before reverting again? If there is no response, he is free to revert subject to WP:3RR. This restriction would last three months. --NeilN 14:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As Davefelmer can still edit his talk page, and is not currently driving this conversation, I would prefer to wait for him to give a response here before doing anything else. Something like "you must justify every revert on the article's talk page" sounds good. Ritchie333 14:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of permanently locking out someone with the potential to be a constructive contributor, and so I very much hope that Dave can return to editing. If some kind of restriction on his editing helps to make that possible, then so be it. What would be the best form for that restriction to take I really don't know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Guys, I am more than happy to oblige with the rule that any revert I make, I must justify on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reverting again, with no response given meaning I can act in 3RR as mentioned. Not only do I think this would be helpful in learning to better collaborate with other editors over subjects I may feel strongly that I am right in, but it would help me make the best overall contributions I can. I am sorry for some of my actions in the past; I am still very new to wikipedia and am very much learning the ropes of the project. However, I do not mean ill on the project and genuinely want to make it better to the best of my ability. Let me know what you decide. Davefelmer (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Further to the unblock, Dave, please try and use the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football if you have any questions regarding reliable sources. Please take a look at the menu items on the right hand side of the page for important details about the project (including a link to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/Links which outlines reliable sources). Please understand that there is over 10 years history of discussions in the archive and it is very likely any question you raise has been raised before - so try searching there for any info also. You can also leave messages for myself, or pretty much any of the project team (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/Members), if you have a specific question about how to fix an article. If I, or other project members, agree with you then you will find it much easier to make edits that stick in the long term, and avoid making the mistakes that lead to this.

Importantly, when fixing something that you believe is incorrect please look at the wider context and see if there is a reason why it is that way, and then if there are larger changes that can be achieved by consensus (or bold edits) that fix the fundamental issue. Koncorde (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

References

References go after punctuation, please remember that. – PeeJay 10:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

When adding references, can you do so using the correct format (usually Template:Cite web). This helps to ensure that the references are detailed properly in the footer. Koncorde (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

References which are available offline can be used. So for instance I have a copies of several Cassells football encyclopedias and can verify content of year by year football tables which have been recreated online on wikipedia. Per the CiteWeb reference mentioned above, there is a CiteBook which has the same (or similar) structure. Koncorde (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to try and do your citations in the correct format using the cite web detail as above on my sandbox, then go ahead and I can help / demonstrate the correct format if you have any issues / questions. Koncorde (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I would really like an example of how to implement citations properly. Could you show me on your sandbox. Have you seen the proposed edit I made on it? Are those citations done properly? Thanks for the help mate. Davefelmer (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Check out the talk page of the sandbox. I have done the BBC one, and if you want to try the next few then I will check and we can move on to updating the main article. Koncorde (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I've got some issues with the sourcing as you can see on the sandbox talk page (I've been trying to get it right for ages!). Firstly, I addressed the issue with the United site and added the relevant page. More importantly though, some of the time when I make the change as you showed me to fill out the source, it completely removes the source from the article so I am forced to revert my change. But when I click to revert it and it shows the prior version that I will switch back too, it shows that the edit was successful in the "current version" side. But when I exit out thinking I just missed it upon glancing over the edit, it's not there in the actual text! It gets me very confused. Again, this has happened for both club websites but not for the online articles so maybe I'm just doing it wrong? Also, for the sites where I filled out the source successfully, it says that there's an issue with the access date at the bottom of the article. Again, have I done something wrong? Can you please let me know before I proceed to finish filling the sources because I don't want to do it all poorly! Davefelmer (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to just use the Sandbox talk page then it'll save repeating yourself too often. :) Koncorde (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Cup competitions

No, you're wrong on this one. The term 'cup competition' has a pretty specific meaning here, and that is to refer to knockout competitions like the FA Cup and the League Cup. The fact that the Community Shield doesn't fit this definition does not denigrate that competition in any way, it just serves to distinguish the FA Cup and League Cup as different in format to the league and the Community Shield. It's nothing to do with the physical silverware. – PeeJay 03:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your points but I just feel the phrasing unnecessarily devalues a competition. Perhaps remove "cup" so you distinguish it as a competition or refer to the others as "knockout competitions"? Davefelmer (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2007–08 Manchester United F.C. season. 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 Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Qed237 (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I had discussions with editors over the issue before making any changes and continue to do so as per my stipulated rule ahead of abiding by 3RR as I try and learn how to better collaborate. I don't feel as if I've breached any rules thus but if it appears that way, I'll leave it as is as I don't want to get in hot water with other editors. Davefelmer (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. What I saw on the article history was you trying to change the same sentence multiple times and being reverted every time. Clearly looks like edit warring. Also I could not see any discussion on the article talkpage which is the best place to discuss content related to that article. Since you were being reverted again, it does not look like you had reached an agreement with the other editors about that sentence. Qed237 (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I did it on my talk page and the talk page of the other users in question. Can check if you'd like. But regardless, I've stopped as I don't want to get in an edit war. Davefelmer (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that you left them a message but I dont see any evidence of an agreement for that sentence. If you make a change and get reverted, the best would be to discuss and then reach an agreement before editing again. In this case it would have been best if you agreed on a sentence first, then edit. Qed237 (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It was a weird dynamic where I left a comment on two editor's talk pages and one replied on that page and another replied on my page. Davefelmer (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That is why it is best to discuss article-related content on the article talkpage to have it all in one place. Then you could have left them a message that you had opened a discussion at the article talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the heads up. Davefelmer (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox

There you go;

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Koncorde/sandbox

Koncorde (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

thanks mate. already on it. Davefelmer (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Made several changes on both talk page and article (on sandbox). Have a look. Davefelmer (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

RE: Archie Thompson

Sporting page

Hey!

I saw your edits on Sporting Clube de Portugal page. The way it was written may be biased (something I will rectify), but I must not agree with you when you say the article is only about the football team. Yes, I will not hide, its my club, but it says "its a multiple sports-club based in Portugal". And indeed, everything it says it's true, in Portugal, counting all sports, no club has won more than Sporting, and yes, Sporting have won European Cups on 22 occasions. I know things about my club, and I have edited the page in a neutral point of view as much as possible (check the rivalries and the history sections, as it shows the high and low points of the club). I will get more references, and if I do not put them until Monday you may reverse what it's written. Also, when I edit I usually describe any change as "Work in Progress", as such, the "History" part is going to have further information's about the club as a all, not only regarding the football team. The page was very incomplete before my edits, something I want to change. Regards! an— Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingCP1906 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, the thing is though, the article may say that its a multi sports club, but thats only because you or someone else put it in. The article is solely about the football club, so unless you want to merge the articles of all the sports teams with the football club page, then you can't have that in because it doesnt have anything to do with any of those sports apart from football. It would be like adding stuff about the achievements of the Bayern handball team and basketball club to the Bayern football page intro, it makes no sense. Furthermore, the statement about the 14,000 titles sounds ridiculous. A throwaway line without any evidence on a biased website isnt reason enough to include it; for such big claims, you need good sources that go into details and are neutral. Looking through some of the sports clubs in SL and their trophies, it sounds absolutely absurd they could have 1,400 trophies let alone 14,000! I appreciate the work you've done on the page overall with historical detail etc, I am only interested in the intro where the questionable information is. So you can keep the rest. But there is no reason and no credible source to persist with the stuff at the top of the intro.Davefelmer (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex Ferguson (again)

Look at the WP:FOOTY discussion again. The suggestion was to specify the source of someone saying that Ferguson was the best (or most successful) manager. Instead you made overly generalised comments ("many", "frequently"). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

When multiple people judge someone to be the best, you can't list each one so you say a consensus between several people. Just like for every other manager, it is like "he is widely regarded" or "many see him as" instead of "Gary Lineker says Mourinho is one of the greatest of all time". Thus, the claims about him being the best are fair, and I've even gone the extra bit of stating who exactly is giving him these accolades. Instead of saying 'he's widely regarded', I am literally stating many managers, coaches and analysts think he's the best because thats what the sources depict. In terms of most successful, I just think stating The Guardian, Daily Star, DNAIndia, Slate, etc all one after the other seems rather wordy, and instead should say 'several media such as the Guardian refer to him as such'. Davefelmer (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex Ferguson

You've been reverted by multiple editors now and clearly are not operating from a neutral POV given your talk page. Soxwon (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I clearly am operating by exactly what the sources are saying. Read them. This has nothing to do with the past. This has to do with exact well-publicised sources conveying exact information. The lines were debated and reached consensus on the wikiproject football page. Read that. Davefelmer (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you're heading for an indefinite block

Just a quick word, your current editing patterns indicate that you wish to be blocked indefinitely based on your previous block history. Don't be surprised if this happens in the next few minutes. I won't be doing it, but I just thought you should know. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for what? Davefelmer (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alex Ferguson. 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 Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Qed237 (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I used the talk page but the editors in question never reply. Again, the sourcing says one thing and you are writing something totally different. The second part with the quote is from the Guardian, a well established and reliable source. what reason is there to not include it? Also, it was agreed to be added on wikiproject football and thats archived. You are the one edit warring. Davefelmer (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Dave, give it up. Your edits on AF are tendentious at best and despite being reverted by what appears to be 6 different established Editors (establishing a clear consensus) you have continued to edit war - going back to October - over the same needless phrasing. Koncorde (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)