User talk:Fma12

I'm intrigued as to why someone with your experience would consider it appropriate to add the unannotated addition

• Calligraphy.co.uk

to the External links section. Have I missed something? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@JMF: Just to satisfy your curiosity: that website used to be a real guide for caligraphy enthusiasts. I have not entered there for a long time so I didn't realise it became a commercial site. Even experienced users may committ mistakes. Anything else I can help with? Fma12 (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

If I came across as sarcastic, it was unintentional. I came to your talk page expecting a newbie and began to question my own kneejerk response to apparent spam. I try not to throw stones, all the windows in my greenhouse would have disappeared years ago. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

No problem, it's all clear. My only aim is to contribute. Thanks for your message. Fma12 (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Your edit to Haverford Fords men's soccer has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Could you tell me which is the content I textually copied (according to you) from the source given? I was careful in trying to use my own words, but as all the changes were erased from the edit summary, I can't compare what I wrote with the source I took the information from in order to verify what you say.

• "The squad continued to being a successful team under the coaching of Scottish mentor, U.S. Olympic coach and Soccer Hall of Famer Jimmy Mills. In the mid-1970s, Haverford became a frequent NCAA tournament qualifier and won the Middle Atlantic Conference Southern Division five times (1976–1982) under coach Dave Felsen"
• "Joe Amorim became head coach in 1983 and won three more MAC South titles, including a victory over undefeated #1 Elizabethtown in the 1988 MAC final"--— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Fma12, I see you have made some edits to number of college football navboxes to tweak the syntax and clarify some notes, e.g. Template:Rutgers Scarlet Knights football navbox. Thanks for that. But changing the standard color scheme should not be done in an ad hoc manner or without discussion. The same goes for navboxes for other sports. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Jweiss11:, first of all, I didn't "tweak" the syntax, I just added an existing template (secondary color scheme) to some football navboxes. I know that some changes requuire a previous discussion in order to reach a consensus, but do you really think it is needed for a simple addition of a secondary color? I would agree with you if changes had consisted of different colors than the schemes used by the schools, but as far as I know, it was not the case.

Speaking of Rutgers, black is the secondary color used even in uniforms (some of which I rendered myself in the past). Sorry but I consider this topic so trival to open a discussion. Fma12 (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

When I said you tweaked the syntax, I was referring to all the edits that you made Template:Rutgers Scarlet Knights football navbox. You own edit note reads "footnotes, format, synthax". I assumed "synthax" was a typo, a misspelling of "syntax". If not, what does "synthax" mean? Adding the secondary color scheme to the group headings breaks the standard form that was reached by consensus and has been place for over a decade. Rutgers' secondary color of black is used for the borders in the standard format via Template:CollegePrimaryStyle. What's your goal here? You want to change the color scheme for some of the navboxes, but not all? Or all of theme? Either way, this does indeed require a discussion if you plan to pursue such changes that contravene long-standing consensus. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Was really there a consensua for the football navboxes or You are going to revert changes just because You don't agree? Can You provide a link to that consensus? Cause i haven't find any discusión related to colors at Rutgers template so I would like to read what discussion your arguments are based on. I'll be awaiting. PD:i'm not a native English speaker and don't use online translators so I can commit mistakes or mispells. Fma12 (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the standards for these navboxes go back to 2011. The discussions are buried in the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 10#College football team navboxes and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 11#College football team navboxes for starters. It would he helpful if you could answer what I asked above: do want to change the color scheme for some of these navboxes, but not all? Or all of them? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I've thoroughly reading those discussions in order to find references to the use of primary/secondary colors on navboxes to prove that your reversions were based on actual consensus. But I couldn't. Instead, the only comments about colors were about championships or other issues not related with the topic. Because of that, could you indicate me what part of the discussion disallowed the use of secondary colors on navboxes? Otherwise, I'd tend to think that your reversions were -at least- unaproppriate and I could report them (which I always prefer before being engaged in an edit war).

Regarding your answer, well, let me clear something first: my interest for college athletics dates back some time: I vectorised 100 (American) football uniforms for different teams (you can see them here), created the College football and College soccer teamplates, and I've contributed uploading loads of group photographs used in different teams and players articles.

About navboxes, I started editing them according to conference, and in other cases, I chose my favorite teams first. I'd like to give proper format to all of them, but the amount of college American and association football teams is so huge and this could take a very long time, and I have other interests apart from NCAA sports.

I edit/create articles as long as my time and activities allow me to do.

I hope my answer was enough to explain my position. Fma12 (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The specific discussion about the color usage on the navboxes probably occurred in subsequent discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. I can keep looking, and so can you. I'm happy to revisit the color issue with a new discussion in that forum or wherever else might be appropriate to get input from more editors. I was not questioning your interest level in college sports, and I have indeed noticed and appreciated your work on the uniform images for some time. I also understand that everyone's time is limited. The point I'm trying to drive home is that there is a value in having standard design and formatting in structures with a large number of analogous instances, like these team navboxes. That standardization helps editors to manage the development of these topics and aids readers in navigating and understanding the content. In this particular case, that standardization has been supported by strong consensus among the regular editors of college football and related topics. At the moment, there are 542 American college football team navboxes; see Category:American college football team navigational boxes. And they are have a stable, consistent form going back to 2011. This form was then rolled out to other college sports as well, although outside of football and basketball, consistent application may vary. There are about 700 college basketball team navboxes, 143 for baseball, 1 for field hockey, 144 for ice hockey, 61 for soccer, and 57 or softball. If a change in design is going to be made to them, there should be consensus behind that change, and then implementing the change can be a collaborative effort and the workload shared by a number of editors. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

River 3 - 1 Boca, 9 December 2018 ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@ULIFOX 3XX: your argument is from the second division. (B) Fma12 (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

well done we'll see when Riquelme buys a reinforcement. ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Ascasibar, have You Heard of him? Fma12 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Bill finger photo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)