User talk:44 Gabriel

Hi, 44 Gabriel. Thanks for patrolling new pages. I've declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to read the new tutorial for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E0C1:A3E1:922:144 (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Liz. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, why can't these pages that have no history or other affluent pages or anything literally be deleted? There is no rule that allows this, in fact I even wonder if I create an infinite number of redirects if no one is going to delete them the way you have done, even if I have no use for it. Can you help me select or indicate the correct criteria to use? 44 Gabriel (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liz. Why am I going to use test pages or my sandbox if the intention is to delete the same ones that are empty, without tributaries, without history! 44 Gabriel (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Vitoria-ASC, you may be blocked from editing. ✗plicit 11:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 44Gabriel. While checking over the Estádio D. Afonso Henriques article, I found that you copied text from an outside source with this edit. That is a copyright violation. I have removed the initial text I've noticed (although there may still be more.) Please do not copy text from other sources. Doing so usually constitutes both a copyright violation and plagiarism. This general rule includes copying material from websites of charity or non-profit organizations, educational, scholarly and news publications, and all sources without a copyright notice. For further information, you should review WP:COPYPASTE. If you have questions, please ask. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, you wouldn't mind giving your opinion in the discussion of the merger or elimination, whichever is best from the article Estádio D. Afonso Henriques (1965). This is because there were only 3 articles that said that there were 2 different stadiums in Guimarães, when that is not true. However, I put it up for discussion on the Spanish wiki and the merger has already taken place there, on the Dutch wiki a consensus has already been reached and it will be held in the merger soon. However, on the English wiki, no one seems to be interested in this, nor do they even respond. Am I doing something wrong or in the wrong place, at least from what I read they say to have a discussion next to the article, while in the previous two there is a dedicated space for discussion and so it was very simple, convenient and effective!? 44 Gabriel (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Good mornig @CactusWriter. What I did was translate the Portuguese article into English, because the article was quite simplistic, or now articles are only translated when they don't exist. In any case, the references are there to prove it. But of course I know that copying paste shouldn't be done and that wasn't the intention. 44 Gabriel (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. That's understandable. For future reference, it's always a good idea to be cautious when copying text from other sources -- including translations from other Wikipedias. Not all Wikis have the same level of oversight and review. I can take a look at the merge discussion and see if I have a qualified opinion on the subject. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi 44 Gabriel. Thank you for your work on Vitória S.C. (water polo). Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

please add a ref to the target page for the water polo team (and the other teams).

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824:Hi, what are you referring to, was doing something like I did in this edition?

By the way, you wouldn't mind giving your opinion in the discussion of the merger or elimination, whichever is best from the article Estádio D. Afonso Henriques (1965). This is because there were only 3 articles that said that there were 2 different stadiums in Guimarães, when that is not true. However, I put it up for discussion on the Spanish wiki and the merger has already taken place there, same on the Dutch wiki. However, on the English wiki, no one seems to be interested in this, nor do they even respond. Am I doing something wrong or in the wrong place, at least from what I read they say to have a discussion next to the article, while in the previous two there is a dedicated space for discussion and so it was very simple, convenient and effective!? 44 Gabriel (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Adding refs: Yup, that's kind of what I meant.
• Merger discussion: You've put it in the right place. It is possible that the folks who comment on most of the merger discussions are off-wiki (or at low-activity). I wouldn't recommend that you close the discussion yourself or do the merger unilaterally, given that there has been some objection. Have patience, more editors will respond eventually. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think so too, thanks 44 Gabriel (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Football in Mozambique, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pemba. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 19:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, 44 Gabriel. Please note that CSD R3:

• Only applies to recent creations
• Generally does not apply to redirects that are the result of a page move
• Is not merely for redirects you personally view as not worthwhile, but rather for names or misspellings that, as the criterion says, are implausible.

When in doubt, the correct venue is WP:RfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi,@Tamzin. Ok i will try there, but make no sense when even the title is completely wrong! 44 Gabriel (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean 7 similar redirects for what!? 2 or 3 still leaves room for different ways of seeing the article now 7? If there is no more. 44 Gabriel (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the kind of argument you're free to make at RfD. It isn't a valid reason for speedy deletion though. Redirects from misspellings and alternate spellings are allowed. R3 is just for cases where the misspelling is very unusual and unlikely to help anyone. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 05:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi again, Is this how it should be done? F.C. Porto and Sporting C.P. rivalry

I mean the first time, I performed Step I " Tag the redirect(s).

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page." as it says to do WP:RfD, more specifically How to list a redirect for discussion.

So if the first option isn't the correct way and if the latter isn't either, I honestly can't understand, the article may not be as useful as it seems and I'll have to ask you for help! Thanks. Thanks.09:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC) 44 Gabriel (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin, Also where do I found this "XFD" thing? And I looked through the page and it doesn't show me anything for that. «

1. Enable Twinkle in the Gadgets tab of your preferences.
2. Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
3. Fill in the form and submit it.

» 44 Gabriel (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

If you've enabled Twinkle, there should be a button labeled "TW" in the top right corner of every page. Click on that and there's an "XFD" button. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I dont find it, so it means its not enabled and i can use. So it has to be like this? 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You have to enable Twinkle in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Or you can follow the manual instructions, but so far you have not followed them. When it says to put {{subst:rfd|content= at the start of the page and }} at the end, that's all you do, nothing else. No deletion reason, no other templates, not for step 1. That comes in step 2, when you edit the RfD log page. Or, again, enable Twinkle and use that.

If you're still struggling, please ask for help at The Teahouse. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks is working now 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

unrelated to the csd part of this discussion, i'll recommend using wp:massxfd for nominating multiple similar redirects at once. should reduce the workload by at least 3 seconds~ cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I've already enabled the script, but the massCfD button doesn't appear. By the way, CfD isn't for categories, because when I switch to CfD in XFD it only gives an error message for categories. 44 Gabriel (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

it'll appear in the "tools" menu around the left corner, as the "mass cfd" and "mass rfd" options

also, i'm not entirely sure what kind of error you're getting with categories. twinkle's xfd menu automatically selected cfd when i went to nominate a category cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

its true but you can change that in top of the box. 44 Gabriel (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

yeah, but... why would you? the xfd tool automatically selects the right venue cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

because I must have done something wrong and the massCfD button isn't showing up. 44 Gabriel (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

can you show a screenshot of the "tools" menu? should be in the left or right corner, depending on your layout

for example, it looks like this on my end. eyes more astute than those of a newborn naked mole rat will notice that the mass xfd options are available

cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cogsan Anyway, you can't discuss it in one topic as if it were for all of them? I think this is one of the few cases where they've played around with creating redirects. Other similar pages don't contain as many redirects as this one. 44 Gabriel (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

how so? i'm not much of a Guys Kicking Balls™ expert, but those seem like differently worded variants of the same redirect to me cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you changed some dates at the Nicolinas article… could you provide the sources for that change? That would make the article more accurate and suitable to read. V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

here they are:https://www.nicolinos.pt/s/79 44 Gabriel (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

also here:https://www.instagram.com/p/DB7Rz_aIPVz/ 44 Gabriel (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

the reference used is a blog really:https://www.viajarentreviagens.pt/portugal/guimaraes-nicolinas/, the one i gave are from the Nicolinas Festivities Committee. It also has a lot of information, history and other very useful articles. 44 Gabriel (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Vitória S.C. (women's football), without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 02:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to FC Porto (women). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and no context, a blank page. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. QEnigma (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:FC Porto (women), was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 deleted 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. QEnigma (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello 44 Gabriel. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of stadiums in Algeria, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not recently created. Thank you. Salvio ^giuliano 18:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano, Maybe because it's just over a year old and highlights the fact that no one has realized that it's a minimalist repetition of the existing one. What criteria should be used? Thank you 44 Gabriel (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I have just redirected the page to the main article, which, in my opinion, takes care of the problem. As a general rule, speedy deletion criteria should be strictly construed, because they are basically exceptions to the principle that to delete an article you need consensus at WP:AFD, so if a criterion does not apply in its entirety, it can't be used. For that, speedy deletion is a very technical area of the project. Anyway, when no criterion applies, the alternative is WP:PROD, WP:AFD or, as in this case, a different alternative to deletion. Best. Salvio ^giuliano 18:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that you had made the redirect, Thank you.44 Gabriel (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name does not follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. glman (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

See Official website, 18 titles overall, Czechia and Slovakia 1 each (not shared as one), while Ukraine is nowehre listed. This was already discussed many times at the talk page and the current version is what was accepted as a consensus, any furhter reverts instead of starting a new talk page discussion will lead to a report for being disruptive on purpose, edit warring and not accepting established community consensus. And for the third time, Slovakia CANNOT be listed above Portugal if their record is 1x winners / 0x runners-up, while Portugal have 1x win / 1x runners-up. The list is first sorted by number of wins, and then if equal, by number of runners-up positions. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Snowflake91, But if you look closely at the team and the game, the 1976 title was won by the now-defunct Czechoslovak Republic, so the title is shared between the two, as are the results up until their separation. Please click and tell me what's present in these two teams/countries, and you'll see how right I am. 17 editions can't produce 18 champions. 44 Gabriel (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I know, and this is why the 1976 should be listed simply as Czechoslovakia national football team, and not Czechia or Slovakia, and the problem would be solved. But the community wanted to do it the way UEFA did at their website, i.e. using Czechia and Slovakia separately. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Snowflake91, Initially, it would have made sense when UEFA only recognized one team/country as the successor to each of the previous republics, but now this is just plain stupid. Ukraine and Georgia should also be recognized, since the USSR team that won in 1960 had players from only three of the 15 countries (Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia) that formed the USSR. If it weren't for the war, this would certainly be on the table today.

Can you help open a new discussion to revisit this? 44 Gabriel (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes its stupid, but this is how UEFA does it, I proposed that we use the names of the countries at the time when they won those honours / reach the finals (Serbia ---> Yugoslavia, Czechia ---> Czechoslovakia, Russia ---> Soviet Union), but this proposal was dismissed for whatever stupid reasons because of that table at UEFA website. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Football in Portugal. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Template:S.L. Benfica sections. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

This is the second time you have caused this issue. This time it was on a template and caused major issues. You need to WP:PREVIEW your edits!!! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Zackmann08, the template has no problem at all, it hasn't become unformatted, what I did was actually merge the two tables, using other templates as examples, such as: Template:FC Bayern Munich sections. I think you're misinterpreting the changes I've made, because I do use the preview and it was exactly as I wanted.44 Gabriel (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You are not reading what I wrote. You introduced CAT:DUPARGS when you made your merge... If you use preview you will see a large warning saying "Warning: Template:S.L. Benfica sections (edit) is calling Template:Sidebar with more than one value for the "titlestyle" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. (Help)". I have no objection to the merge, but when you did it, you duplicated a parameter which caused an error on every page using the template... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Problem solved, I didn't read it all, and it seemed normal, since it appears that way in all editions. 44 Gabriel (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, 44 Gabriel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:FC Porto (women), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I had started writing this article, but someone decided to delete it right away, without giving me time to refresh the page, so if anyone wants to do that now, go ahead, because I don't give a shit in this particular case. 44 Gabriel (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at List of European stadiums by capacity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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 do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Dl2000 (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. The other user involved will also be notified, it seems not yet, or are sides being taken now... just to clarify?

As for the rest, thank you for your concern, I know how to behave, but I don't expect different treatment...44 Gabriel (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yup @Dl2000, It's always true, you still haven't done anything on his talk page. Discrimination and differential treatment always exist, which is what I've always feared, and that's why Wikipedia is getting worse and worse, unfortunately! Have a good day with this policy, but I'm here waiting for justification for such an attitude, thank you. 44 Gabriel (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Guess that wasn't done by the WP:DEADLINE, so WP:ABF? Anyway, it's WP:DR time between you and @162 etc.:. Dl2000 (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

It clearly took a very long time, but now it's resolved and that's what matters.44 Gabriel (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Dl2000: Thank you for your attention to this matter. However, nothing is resolved, I'm afraid. List of European stadiums by capacity, as it reads today, still contains incorrect information because of good faith, yet misguided edits by User:44 Gabriel. Further discussion should be done at Talk:List of European stadiums by capacity, not this talk page or mine. 162 etc. (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@162 etc., @Dl2000 In my opinion, one of two things must be done. 1st - change the title of the article to: List... by seating capacity or 2nd - list all stadiums by total capacity and at the bottom with FIFA capacity, which is more accurate, given that since last year UEFA has allowed clubs to use seating and standing capacity in their international competitions and even advises them to use this in national leagues as long as it complies with accessibility and safety regulations.

So I don't know what you want me to say, because you're just messing around with the method and you don't even have an opinion other than being against it! 44 Gabriel (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not "messing around with the method". The article uses seated capacity. It should continue to use seated capacity unless consensus determines otherwise.

Nobody at Talk:List of European stadiums by capacity has expressed support for your proposed changes. I urge you once again to use the talkpage for discussion, and to revert the edit in question. 162 etc. (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

This discussion should indeed be continued over at Talk:List of European stadiums by capacity, not here or at another user talk page. Perhaps some discussion at WT:FOOTY can help resolve the dispute here. Dl2000 (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, 44 Gabriel. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "FC Porto".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)