User talk:Island92

Why do you say that there aren't good sources about juve's frindlies? See these reliable sources: ^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Because my habit consists of waiting sources provived on official websites, rather than other sites where things might change easily.--Island92 (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021–22 Juventus F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Juventus Training Center.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Please notice that those purchases have been officialized by Juventus on their official Twitter account Dr Salvus 23:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I know. A general recap regarding every transfer will be reported in the official website once the market is finished. Source will be provived. Island92 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes official UEFA source mistaken. It's not first time. You can see video from the game for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MclIuEfKRn0 Spectrators was allowed. Also some Ujpest game from previous round was officially reported as 0 attendance, but I know that there was spectrators (I see video report from game), but not find official number. And if not find I think I add estimated attendance cause it closer to real then 0 on UEFA match database (even if in 99% it's right). --Outcaster (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Outcaster

@Outcaster: absolutely right. The link was updated properly in the end. Too late, but correct data. Island92 (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Info added. Cheers. --WTC7812 (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I do hate tables too, but if Mos suggests to use tables, we should use it Dr Salvus 19:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: who is Mos?--Island92 (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Mos stands for Manual of Style. This is the club season's manual of style Dr Salvus 19:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: consistency with previous Juventus seasons was the best approach. I don't know why we're doing differently from this season despite the fact that manuel is suggested using.--Island92 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: I'd like to restore the page, mainly because the majority of Juventus season pages have the same style, unlike the current (which is the only one so far that follows the Mos) related to 2021-2022 season.--Island92 (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: Let's have a look at 2021–22 Chelsea F.C. season, English club page being edited by too many English users from English Wikipedia version. I suppose it is a quite popular page (last trophy obtained was the 2021 UEFA Super Cup), but actually it is not following the Mos. That's why I consider chasing the consistency with previous Juventus season pages.--Island92 (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

At this point I do advise you to see and comment this discussion Dr Salvus 22:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't linked properly.--Island92 (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

When Juve buy/sold a player for the under-23s I ask you to add the transfer also in the page of Juve U23's season and in the player's page (if it exists) Dr Salvus 00:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The Coppa Italia rules say this (section "Ottavi di finale"): "In ogni gara hanno diritto di disputare la gara in casa le Società cui è stata attribuita la posizione d'ingresso contrassegnata dal numero più basso, vale a dire che le Società in quanto "Teste di Serie" fanno il loro ingresso nel tabellone della Competizione agli ottavi di finale". This means that Juve will play the round of 16 at home since they are a "Testa di Serie". Dr Salvus 17:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Updated again. Thank you. I had not been reading this particular pretty carefully. I had thought there would have been a pitch draw, because Juventus, despite being teste di serie, would go against another club which comes from Serie A, with a draw scheduled then. The same condition established until the previous Coppa Italia edition. Island92 (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Island92:. You reverted my contribution twice now! How can this be speculation? The French article states:

Michael Masi déclare ensuite: "Nous voyons dans les prévisions que nous aurons ce niveau de pluie jusqu'à 13h30 ou 14 h et cela ne baissera que dans l’après-midi. La priorité aujourd'hui est la séance de qualifications. L'objectif avec les EL3 serait de voir à quoi ça ressemble et nous aurions plusieurs options. Nous pourrions démarrer la séance et mettre un drapeau rouge immédiatement pour laisser le chrono tourner et juger quelle sera la météo. Si nous voyons que les pluies seront torrentielles pour la séance complète, nous abandonnerons les EL3 et viseront les qualifications. Le facteur déterminant sera la lumière. Le soleil se couche à 18h15 mais avec cette météo, la lumière diminue bien plus tôt. Ce sera clairement le point où l'on arrêtera tout. Si la séance de qualifications ne peut pas avoir lieu aujourd'hui, comme c'est déjà arrivé par le passé, nous organiserons les qualifications dimanche matin."

It was spoken by the race director, why call it speculation?

Regards, Aliwal2012 (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

We tend to report final announcements, not every possibility that might happen. Having too many "if" does not work properly. The only today decision was that Practice 3 was cancelled and we added it with source. Now Qualifying session is due to start as planned, without being affected by special circumstances such as bad weather. Island92 (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aliwal2012: in short it is irrelevant, as these ifs never transpired. SSSB (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alashkert.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

n_spectators --Sb008 (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sb008: Thank you for having found this alternative source. The common source still says 0. I don't know why. I'll have a look at it from time to time to check if attendance data could change, so that I would add it like the others. Island92 (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sb008: I have two requests. Could you find right attendance data for Argentina v Brazil (I don't trust 7,800 very much) and an alternative attendance source for Al-Duhail v Al Ahly. This reports attendance null. Island92 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Can't get results for both, get "AccessDenied". Maybe it works from your region/country. Copa America and Club WC. If you get results, it's just high level info. More requests would be needed, but the output from these requests is needed to start with to retreive the proper ID's for further requests (like the matchID). As far as the European Cup tournaments is concerned, there's also a CL match which reports 0 in the JSON output, however the attendance is listed in one of the PDF files. I fully generate the pages using scripting. So if for 1 of the 2 the JSON value changes from 0 to the actual value, my script will detect it. --Sb008 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sb008: Neither can I, AccessDenied. However, don't worry very much, you did a great job with LYO v BRO. Just in case I come across new special cases I know the user I might count on for attendance data. ;)--Island92 (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you get my e-mail? --Sb008 (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sb008: Yes, I did. Island92 (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sb008: This source for LYO v BRO did not work anymore. AccessDenied. I've already provived an alternative source with shows the same data.--Island92 (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The link works fine for me. --Sb008 (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sb008: now works fine again also for me. In any case, I prefer leaving the new one added before.--Island92 (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not a redirect. That's the name of the page: Mexico City Grand Prix. --DB1729 (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

See --DB1729 (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@DB1729: Mexico City Grand Prix should be moved to Mexico City Grand Prix (badminton). Mexico City Grand Prix will be the page related to the Formula One Grand Prix.--Island92 (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't understand how it took six months until someone caught this. Am I missing something? Weird. --DB1729 (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@DB1729: user @Tvx1: said "Avoiding piped links is better" into 2021 Formula One World Championship, leaving only the Mexico City Grand Prix wikilink.--Island92 (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Not following what piped links have to do with it. Are you going to move the pages, or is this something that has to go through WP:RM? DB1729 (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@DB1729: only this page should be moved, and the name "Mexico City Grand Prix" should be redirected to Mexican Grand Prix. See the case São Paulo Grand Prix with Brazilian Grand Prix. I'd rather someone else did it.--Island92 (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. The move would need to be done without leaving a redirect, but the real problem might be the need to overwrite the contents and edit history of the destination page which is the current redirect Mexico City Grand Prix (badminton). I'm thinking that requires an admin to do that. DB1729 (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@DB1729: ok, do whatever is possible. This is something should have been done much before.--Island92 (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify. Normally, if you move page A (Mexico City Grand Prix) to page B (Mexico City Grand Prix (badminton)), the default action is leave behind a redirect, a redirect that will forward page A to page B. That does us no good and we're back to square one. So we would have disable that redirect creation and separately create a redirect that points to the F1 race.

But I don't think we will even get that far. I think the problem is that Mexico City Grand Prix (badminton) will have to be deleted to make way for the move. Only admins can 'delete' pages. Furthermore, there's the February requested move. We can't just unilaterally undo the decision. I think for more than one reason, this is going to have to go through WP:RM.

Yes, it should have been taken care of long ago. As I said before, maybe I'm missing something because I'm baffled as to how we got here. DB1729 (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@DB1729: Understood. The problem is that [[Mexican Grand Prix|Mexico City Grand Prix]] was kept for too much time into different pages. The Formula One race under the name "Mexico City Grand Prix" was due to debut during the 2020 season, but was cancelled due to the pandemic. For the 2021 championship is due to take place in November and therefore this change is expected to be made in short notice.--Island92 (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, probably someone has thought this all through is planning on making the move soon. I'm dealing with a minor real-life distraction at the moment, so I haven't researched it thoroughly.

In the meantime, surely we don't want a direct link to a badminton page on an F1 template? And by the way, even it was a piped link; on navboxes, piped links are is preferred to redirects per WP:NAVNOREDIRECT. DB1729 (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you should rethink some of the changes you have made lately. You are linking a badminton tournament to several other Formula One related pages. On 2021 Formula One World Championship, why would you want to send readers to a badminton tournamant? Also you have — on the article we have been discussing, Mexico City Grand Prix — you have removed the link inside the 'about' template that was actually correctly linking to the Formula One race, and replaced it with a circular link that points back to itself, resulting in a black link (no link at all). Completely unhelpful.

I am reverting all such edits of yours now. --DB1729 (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@DB1729:. Did that for a reason. I've been waiting for the change needed for that page. There are still several wikilinks to be fixed in [[Mexican Grand Prix|Mexico City Grand Prix]]. We need to have this change very soon. Island92 (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Done. Island92 (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I only did the ones that were obvious to me. Thank you very much, Island, for cleaning up the rest:-) DB1729 (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(@DB1729: I spotted it when the change was announced, but at the time the move was unjustified as sources were all still calling it "Mexican Grand Prix" so WP:PRIMARYTOPIC could not be established. Then I just forgot about it. I agree an RM is necessary. SSSB (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB: At first, I didn't even notice it, but after I saw your username in the comments at the February requested move, I figured you probably had this under control. Your explanation makes sense. Thanks. DB1729 (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Not conviced that a WP:RM discussion is required here. Moving the badminton article to the title including (badminton) would not undoing the earlier move, but disambiguating it. Besides, does Wikipedia even need two articles on that one-off badminton event? Surely, the article dealing with the 2015 Mexico City Grand Prix is sufficient?Tvx1 01:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I guess I need to get some sleep because I may have got myself and others completely confused about this. In other words, I hope you're right. DB1729 (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Real Madrid 1–2 FC Sheriff Tiraspol, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Madrid 1–2 FC Sheriff Tiraspol until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

With regards to this edit: Special:Diff/1048134349. WP:SEAOFBLUE refers to when you have two wikilinks next to each other, becuase it looks like one wikilink - it's confusing for readers. (e.g. Aramco Spanish Grand Prix looks like one link, in reality there are wikilinks to "Aramco" and "Spanish Grand Prix") There is nothing wrong with what you reverted in that edit summary (from a MOS: view, I don't remeber if WP:F1 has it's own policy on this.)

In any case, you should still avoid a summary of just "no" for the benefit of other editors who have the page on thier watchlish or are looking at the page history. Apart from anything else it comes across as WP:OWNny and aggresive (I'm sure you don't mean it like that, but that is how it comes across), just something to be aware of. SSSB (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll be writing a better summary from now. I remember you reverting some edits for some races when I put for istance Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. This should not be allowed. Since then, I've been reading more cases such as Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix than the example reported above. Island92 (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please remeber to indent your replies on talk pages. See here for an example: Special:Diff/1048843472. Thanks, SSSB (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Are only cards for players and not staff members to be listed; Discipline Group J? In the match between Romania v Armenia the assistent coach of Armenië Luciano Martín Toscano reveived a red card in the 68th minute; JSON event 9. --Sb008 (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Only cards given to players. Island92 (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Island92. I noticed that you violated WP:3RR on 2021 Formula One World Championship with your edit . I'm not going to put a template here, I'm sure you know what the consequences can be for continuing to edit war, and I'm sure it was not intentional. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm replying to your last comment on SSSB's talk page here so as to not derail the other discussion now on Talk:2021 Formula One World Championship. I'm really not sure why you would want to bring that up... from WP:3RR, unless one of the exceptions applies, you must not perform 4 or more reverts in 24 hours on the same page. You reverted SSSB three times on the 26th (26 Oct at 12:07UTC), and , then the fourth less than 24 hours after the first, . There is nothing to discuss about this. As I said, I don't think you violated 3RR intentionally. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@A7V2: Perfect. Before making that change for that Notes which was not changed for months a new talk should have been opened.--Island92 (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD would disagree and then it's not like it was one user introducing the change. But yes I think you're right that we should restore the existing version now while it is being discussed on the talk page. I can do it if you want but of course that will in part revert your copyediting of the note! A7V2 (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@A7V2: No, at this point we had better leave that Note as it appears now. Just wait and see how the talk into the talke page may go on...--Island92 (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that the reports(UEFA and FIFA) do not list the same dates for the second round. Your thoughts on how to handle this? Tomrtn (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tomrtn: The most important thing is to have the FIFA report link already available. It will be updated subsequently.--Island92 (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree FIFA should be listedTomrtn (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tomrtn: Report (FIFA) Report (UEFA) they both show 24 March 2022.--Island92 (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't know if FIFA accounts for the time zone you are in but where I am still lists 23 March Tomrtn (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tomrtn: I have this information displayed - FIFA World Cup Qualifier • 2022-03-24 • TBD -.--Island92 (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

guess they account for time zone difference mines shows FIFA World Cup Qualifier • 2022-03-23 • TBD maybe when match time is announced it will change.Tomrtn (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I have already started a discussion and linked to it perhaps you could take your own advice and engage in that linked to discussion. Stop re-adding unverified unsupported information. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Island92 and Sparkle1: it is unacceptable for either of you to continue editing this information while there is a discussion ongoing. If I see one more revert from either of you, you will both receive a {{uw-3rr}}. SSSB (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Not interested SSSB; who made you the owner and police in these parts, no one is special, even if you're an admin or something. Any warning you place on my talk page will be deleted. Not a threat, not an attack, a simple statement of fact. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Was the match abandoned?? Did they award Rennes the match?? thanksTomrtn (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

No. Uefa has decided the match would not be rescheduled. 3-0 loss for Tottenham is more likely to happen now. Let's wait. Island92 (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I agreeTomrtn (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This is KusumaSPMTickford. Sorry if this you fight.

If the opinion of the wikipedia / fans. If the area is the location of the circuit/track only in the United States. Even though I added the name of the region in the 2022 season schedule in other countries. But they just rejected it because they thought that only the United States had states/territories, while other countries did not. that's why they refused?

Even though there are regions/states/provinces/prefectures in other countries to enter the 2022 Formula 1 schedule. Actually, they can enter, so what? Just so you know, for example Silverstone Circuit is located in Northamptonshire County, West Midlands region. KusumaSPMTickford (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@KusumaSPMTickford: I understand your point of view, but for the time being I suggest discussing this edit into Formula One Wiki Project talk.--Island92 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@KusumaSPMTickford: - But they just rejected it because they thought that only the United States had states/territories, while other countries did not. that's why they refused? - incorrect. It was "rejected" because including the state is the convention for US place names, but this isn't the case for the rest of the world. (i.e. it is the convention to write "Austin, Texas", but it isn't the convention to write "Silverstone, Northamptonshire"). SSSB (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

What's the fuss about adding substitutes to the team? It's literally CAF's selection and it's on their official account. Deluded communist (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Deluded communist: Yes, I know, but per concistency with other major football tournaments we have always reported players on the pitch. Island92 (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Deluded communist: As a matter of fact, the section is called Best XI rather than Best XI +players outside the pitch. Island92 (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice you have a habit of reverting people's edits for no real reason and making them angry. You even revert referenced ones. People like you ruin Wikipedia. I'm doing this on a public PC so I don't have to read your no doubt whiny and weak reply. Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.252.209 (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes I understand it's generic, but then just leave out the last part about the future– leaving Russian race out of the calendar also for the coming seasons.

But leave in about this season the – and finally the contract with the Russian Grand Prix promoter terminated.^[1], with the source is also about this season. The race got suspended by F1 promoter, then cancelled because of FIA decision and then terminated by F1 promoter?

Plingen Plungen (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

For that is sufficient to mention it in Russian Grand Prix. For this season race called off. From 2023 onwards contract termined. Island92 (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

To undo my edit and say it's unnecessary and never done is just rubbish. Looks at Mazepin, Raikkonen, Perez, Stroll, etc. when a driver has missed a race becuase of covid (or other reason) a note has been included to indicate the reason, we have never purely relied on the prose to explain something unusual on the table. Also, his round should be TBA not just left blank. MetalDylan (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@MetalDylan: Mazepin, Raikkonen, Perez, Stroll were all originally included in the first entry list published for that race, so we need the note because they had to withdraw and to be replaced. Here, from the first entry list published, Vettel is not in the list. It's a slightly different case. We can say "Haas was originally due to compete as Uralkali Haas F1 Team..." current entry list says different. Proses below to explain these facts are sufficient.--Island92 (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@MetalDylan: In other words, we are following the 2015 case Magnussen/Alonso. Alonso did not enter round 1, he entered from round 2, as you can see number 2-. Magnussen entered round 1 in place of Alonso. Magnussen is displayed in the entry list.--Island92 (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'd suggest not to undo vandalism manually. I'd suggest to use Twinkle or RedWarn Dr Salvus 13:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok.--Island92 (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you've made a claim that the FIA plans to host 23 races this year, citing a decision made by the World Motor Sport Council on 19 March, have you got a source for this, thanks. SSSB (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@SSSB: Yes added in the calendar section. Island92 (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, I missed that, sorry. SSSB (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to add all f1 race winners winning margins together over their career to see who was the most dominant? 91.110.36.11 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2022 FIFA World Cup. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what "It is not balanced then between editions. Should be discussed in the Project and uniformed. Shall we leave it for the time being? If Chelsea have (4th) TH League position also for Villarreal (7th) EL" mean. Premier League has 4 direct slots to the league position, Chelsea got the 4th place in the league so they qualified via league position. However, Villarreal got the 7th place and La Liga has 4 direct slots. How Villarreal qualify to the Champions League via league position. They qualified to the Champions League via Europa League title holder instead. So why I did this edit. A very easy situation. KyleRGiggs (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, but each team in the table features the league position close to it. Despite qualifying via EL title holders, position should be included for Villarreal as well. Island92 (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Not appropiate. Give an extremely unlikely example: What about Liechtenstein team winning the Europa League? KyleRGiggs (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

For that is requested a note (as it is the current case) seeing that no League exists.--Island92 (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't make further revert as it would violate WP:3RR. But I still need to point out strongly that it is extremely inappropiate to include the league position for a team which did not qualify via league position. Absolutely. KyleRGiggs (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Your point is such reliable. To reach a final conclusion, I suggest you discuss it in the Wiki Project Football page so that other users would give their thought on it.--Island92 (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi

I saw your latest edits in Italy national football team in section "current squad" where, with apparent no reason, you remove players that have not been listed for match against Argentina BUT are still called up for next matches. This implies a lost of information, as those removed players were not listed neither in "Recent call up" section. Please restore version or correct these information.
I remain at your disposal for any additional information you may need. Regrads
Riktetta (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, do you know what's going on with the match id for UEFA? Everytime I try to open a link to check the attendance of the game it says, "{"timestamp":"2022-06-03T18:50:34.517+00:00","status":404,"error":"Not Found","path":"/v2/matches/2034743"}". Is my link incorrect or is it acting up for you too? Mwiqdoh (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I found an official UEFA source for the 2022 Champions League final attendance here (page 5). I added it to the article, though another user seems insistent to not cite from UEFA. I was wondering what your thoughts on this are, as we typically source the official figures from the competition organiser. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: let's go for this one, coming from UEFA.--Island92 (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Why would Goal.com not be a reliable source? W Dr Salvus 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Official club websites is the main priority.--Island92 (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

2022 TYRE COMPOUND CHOICES – BELGIUM, NETHERLANDS, ITALY Inavolbe (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Deprecated sources should not be used in Wikipedia. The Daily Mail is a source that should not be used for any purpose. Please stop deliberately reinserting deprecated sources into Wikipedia - it is disruptive editing. If your only source for a fact is the Daily Mail, you don't have a source - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Another source was put.--Island92 (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I noticed all future matches were deleted because "the template cannot be used". Any idea why?Juve2000 (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Juve2000: It was decided in the Project. @Dr Salvus: knows more, I believe.--Island92 (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

We should be using tables in all season pages. Dr Salvus 17:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I am sure there is a good reason. Please direct me to the discussion section in the Project. Thank you.Juve2000 (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: I also noticed this. There is no such thing called we must, this is just a guideline. Also for consistency, I call for the matches to be restored as they were.--Sakiv (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022–23 UEFA Europa Conference League qualifying phase and play-off round (Champions Path), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matthew Clarke.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, do you have access to edit the Goalscorers section in the 2022–23 UEFA Nations League C page ? If yes, there is a mistake in the Goalscorers section. The goal from Louie Annesley (Gibraltar) is missing, and the sentence of the section must be "There have been 117 goals scored in 46 matches, for an average of 2.54 goals per match (as of 26 September 2022).". Regards. 2A01:CB14:CEE:C600:A434:28D2:BD18:29B7 (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

And also, 2022–23 UEFA Nations League B : Goalscorers section has not been updated after matches from 26th September 2022. 2A01:CB14:CEE:C600:A434:28D2:BD18:29B7 (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Island92, just wanted to drop a note about this edit. "Sprint qualifying" doesn't have a plural form which is why it's phrased differently compared to "sprint" vs "sprints". Anyway, hope you are doing well and enjoying the season. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 16:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@5225C: Thanks for the explanation.--Island92 (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, "McLaren's" is the possessive. Multiple would be "McLarens" Cheers Adakiko (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Island92 (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't delete my edits just because some editor decided to suddenly change the way we have been adding matches for years. Sakiv (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sakiv: That is not a good reason to keep doing it in the present. Please discuss it with @Dr Salvus: first or talk page or Wiki Project Football talk page before changing what was established to adopt at the beginning of the season.--Island92 (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I already posted my input on this issue but was obviously ignored. This is not how we should work. Every discussion on that project leads to no consensus other than the same dilemma.--Sakiv (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sakiv: There is a reason why everything is done. Obviously we can't change it out of the blue just because in the past was like that. There are too many reasons why @Dr Salvus: adopted it. And I bet those reasons were discussed in the Project.--Island92 (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems like we have an editor who are violating article ownership. Ok fine, do as you want. I am fed up.--Sakiv (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sakiv You may not change anything until a new concensus is found. Dr Salvus 19:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You miss it. @Sakiv:, I respect you and your edits as well in this context. As a matter of fact, I'd rather use the template used till last season. No doubt about it. I find it much better. At the beginning of the season @Dr Salvus:, who obviously is not the chief here, explained to me the decision to adopt a different use being looked into the Wiki Project Football. So I accepted it.--Island92 (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Most of those involved in that project discussion don't edit club seasons articles but nonetheless their opinions are very "important". The mos you are referring to has not been modified since 2007! At the bottom it says templates are also fine to use. --Sakiv (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Letting it know to @Dr Salvus:.--Island92 (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Sakiv, The discussion at WT:FOOTY gave its verdict. You don't want it? Discute again. Dr Salvus 20:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: you are so contradicted.--Sakiv (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: As usual you always run away to the project calling for help. btw you supported using templates but somehow changed course.--Sakiv (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, once I supported it but experience made me change opinion. I had arleady done it, no need to do it again. Dr Salvus 20:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I updated the score and the goal scorer and you deleted it for no reason whatsoever. And didn't even correct it (the info was correct). Stop doing that. It's vandalism. You're the reason Wiki is losing contributors. CorrectieTik (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but since when has this been a legitimate reason. So long as it is clear that there is speculation, I don't see the problem with adding it, at least until the speculation is put to bed. For 2 weeks the article has contained speculation the event wouldn't run. Why is this any different? SSSB (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@SSSB: Why have we got to change the prose multiple times if Norris will take part or not? Patience will lead us to just few hours ahead of FP1 to see Norris inclusion or not. Island92 (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Multiple times? Once, when we know. Then we either clarify the paragraph with the latest developments or delete the paragragh as no longer relevant. I agree that patience will lead us to just few hours ahead of FP1 to see Norris inclusion or not., which is why I would never add such content myself. But, I also don't see that as a reason to remove it. SSSB (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Could I get you to not keep breaking WP:BOLDAVOID. It doesn't matter if other articles break this, nor if someone else has done it. This isn't suitable. We do not try to fit bold into article titles, and a local consensus to use this wouldn't trump the Manual of Style. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I'm just looking up to @S.A. Julio:'s version of the page once it was created.--Island92 (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

That's such a ridiculous arguement - might as well take all of the text off the page too, as it was created without it. The manual of style isn't a choice. Please self revert back to the MOS compliant version. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: "might as well take all of the text off the page too, as it was created without it". No, it doesn't work like that. User @S.A. Julio: knows it doesn't work like that. There is a reason why he adopted this style.--Island92 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand - you think the MOS doesn't apply, because you assume that someone else knew something? I don't want to put words in someone else's mouth, but it's likely not come up. Reverting against MOS is ridiculous. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I respect what there is to be respected in this encyclopedia. Don't get me wrong. Reverting practice/standard/style of the pages is not always ridiculous. I'm sure user @S.A. Julio: will give his opinion about this choice.--Island92 (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think the creator of the page has some sort of magic wand to be able to have a version that breaks the MOS. As these are no longer MOS compliant, these should be reverted until you can come up with a policy based reason to not be compliant. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: nothing is breaking the MOS, actually.--Island92 (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to ask what you meant by creating a useless room. I am kinda confused by what you mean by that. Logan Z Man 2022! (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

That was a copy-paste from Draft:2023 Bahrain Grand Prix. Copy-paste is not acceptable. Please check the history and revert. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: What do you mean? Ask @Inavolbe: for more help. That is the practice for Formula One Grand Prix articles. Island92 (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The format is absolutely fine. But it was a copy-paste from the draft, which cuts out the attribution of the edit history. This is not acceptable. So I reverted back to the pre-copy-paste... which you then reverted. What should happen ios the draft is moved to article space, but it has not been reviewed yet. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi I really like your table and format of results for the Formula 1.

Would you consider adding the race team next to the drivers name?

It is a little extra detail which helps.

Thank you for your efforts. Psg73 (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022–23 UEFA Europa Conference League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Lang.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no point in having an empty football match with question marks and uncertainty with not a single confirmed date. That's like adding 3 empty football matches with TBDs if a team qualifies for the world cup. It is not needed! Mwiqdoh (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: It's needed. This is because a schedule has already been published. We never add 3 empty football matches with TBDs if a team qualifies for the world cup because there is not schedule confirmed yet. This situation is exactly matched whit this for example.--Island92 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do understand the point you are trying to convey, but it's not like the example you gave. In this situation we don't even know who they are facing, the stadium, the date, the location, and most importantly we don't even know the round they are playing in. This kind of stuff should usually be added once they play their semi-final match. Unrelated, I do appreciate the work you do on attendances and referees. Mwiqdoh (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: Or this. Everything depends on schedule published or not (dates and kick-off times).--Island92 (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh:. Ok. Let's hide it for the time being rather than removing it at all. Then we update according to how things pan out.--Island92 (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I can agree on that. Thanks! Mwiqdoh (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: You're welcome.--Island92 (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, my name is L'Mainerque.

Your user and talk pages were recently moved in an attempt to personally attack you.

I have reversed that move, and the user who did it is now blocked.

I hope you have a further great rest of your day!

- L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 17:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Island92,

I try to explain the reason of my edit. The 'nowrap' prevents that any of the driver names are split in two lines, at any display condition, like is happening for the "Constructor" column. The driver names will be split into two lines when the display width is insufficient—to test this, just manually reduce your browser width.

By contrast, you can verify that the Entries table of the past seasons (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, etc.) do prevent the driver names to be split in two lines, at any display width, due to the presence of the 'nowrap' template on the longest driver name.

The driver names will be split, for example, for every reader using the default desktop skin (Vector 2022) with the "limited content width" toggle enabled.

To help getting a better formatting for everyone and to keep consistency with the past seasons, consider keeping my edit. Thank you.

All the best, --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Lion-hearted85: ok, just because I'm using the old display I did not have any driver name split in two lines. You can revert my edit.--Island92 (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I've restored the previous edit. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:LIVESCORES, please do not provide live updates. Unhide and update the classification tables only once the sessions is over. SSSB (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I dont get why you said it looked like a test And didn’t contact me to tell me what was wrong

using like makes you sound unsure ˜˜˜ Cyberwolf434344 (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

To me, it looked like a test. You could have used show preview before publishing your edit. Island92 (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I did use show preview i want to know what made you think that it was a test Cyberwolf434344 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The result of your edit made me think it was a test. How it appeared in the page and that's why I reverted. Island92 (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

How did it appear? Cyberwolf434344 (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong and out of practice. Check it in history page loading your version. Island92 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you that was all I wanted I'm still learning Cyberwolf434344 (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Rather than edit war, like you did here, please join the recently started discussion at Talk:2023 Formula One World Championship#‎Race # of ?. Thank you. SSSB (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@SSSB: It is not and edit war. You cannot show 1 of 22 if the information given in the Note is 23. And I corrected the same case in 2021 and 2022.--Island92 (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Question understood. I adjusted everything. 2020 1 of 17, since 2021 1 of 22. Island92 (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You thinking you're right does not mean this isn't WP:EDITWAR. SSSB (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No one said, myself including, I was right. I based it on the written Note. Then you started this with "Edit warring".--Island92 (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

at Talk:Circuit de Monaco. --Falcadore (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The numbers 2036122 to 2036152 are not match numbers, but internal UEFA database keys. That's why you don't find those numbers on the web pages but only in URL's. --Sb008 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The match number of QF1 is 25, of QF2 27, of QF3 26 and of QF4 28. See the JSON output of SF1 which shows as hometeam W25 and awayteam W27. The "W" stand for "Winner (of)". --Sb008 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know. The main priority is always date and kick-off time above to going further down. Island92 (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

In yor edit comment you say something different: "Group stage: order by report number if same time kick-off. consistency" On date/time we agree. But why by "report number" (which sn't a report number but a database key), if date/time are the same? UEFA is leading, and they don't use as 3rd criterea the database key? Consistancy? You mean as in edition 2019 UEFA European Under-21 Championship, where matches aren't in "report number" (database key) order, in case date/time are the sane. So yo don't create consistency but inconsistency!!! BTW, it would be nice if you add a "{{ping}}" when you reply. --Sb008 (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they are. See for istance Group A Belgium v Italy and Spain v Poland played on the same date and kick-off time. Belgium v Italy goes first as match 2025977 and Spain v Poland 2025978. That is the consistency I meant.Island92 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

My bad, I overlooked that the 1st two matches in the group had a different starttime. Anyway, datebase keys are no criterea on Wiki. I'm not gonna check here any more unless u add a "ping". --Sb008 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

What's redundant about the disciplinary points tables? --Sb008 (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The tiebreakers information just below Group stage is sufficient. Island92 (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, You can discuss/change text, but the tables are extra info. The text below the group header, doesn't show you the penalty points per team. --Sb008 (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sb008: See this article, which is more appropriate to report discipline, as a major tournament. Doing it for Under-21 is simply redudant. Not a major tournament. Just extra tables not used in previous editions.--Island92 (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, I disagree. None of the info I most recent added is any where else on the page. So, anything but redundant. Not used before is a poor argument. Why don't you live like people did in the Prehistory? Since then so much changed which was never done before. If you dont like the table format, feel free to change it without deleting data. Last but not least, you not the page boss. --Sb008 (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sb008: I know I'm not the page boss, but that should not be added. It is not statistics-related information. Who cares about that?--Island92 (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Who cares about the 40 or so players who scored only 1 goal? Who cares about the exact minute someone scores? --17:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That is more important than discipline tables, for sure.--Island92 (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. SSSB (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@SSSB: thanks for that. I automatically put rvv, then I realised I was wrong.--Island92 (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Island92!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

To let you know that I have added officials for 2023 UEFA Super Cup. Apologies for any grammar but will you readproof for me? 187.0.187.99 (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to add Espen Eskås's involvement in 2023 UEFA Super Cup. Sorry. I already added it already.

187.0.187.99 (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, can you check and read-proof François Letexier page? I have added his upcoming involvement of 2023 UEFA Super Cup but I think my grammar may needs to be check. 187.0.187.99 (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure if I will editing tonight on Wikipedia but when Manchester City vs Sevilla (Tonight's match) ends, can you change the sentence I added on Letexier about his involvement in the match to past phase? I am not saying too lazy but I got too much stuff to do and I won't have any time for Wikipedia later tonight.

187.0.187.69 (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This wikipedia article was constantly vandalised by an ip user Kudiophi clopsvimbi (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The information about who knocked out previous winner from Champions League is included in the pages for the last few Club World Cups. I think it should either be removed from them or added on the 2023 page for consistency. 190.213.202.23 (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi. There is someone from Greece supporting Stevie fae Scotland and vandalizing 2023–24 UEFA Europa League group stage. Please help stop him. Thanks. 2001:448A:50E1:EFCC:A85E:DF4B:96D4:E738 (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and do not accuse others of vandalism without cause as you did below:

None of these appear to be vandalism to me. This issues has been brought up before here: User talk:Island92#Incorrect use of vandalism Cerebral726 (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

"rvv." I don't always mean it like vandalism, but something incorrect restored. Island92 (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Glossary#R "Rvv: Revert of vandalism". If you do not mean that you are reverting vandalism, than you are using misleading edit summaries. Whether it's unintentional or not, you are accusing others of vandalism when they haven't done anything wrong. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll explain then when reverting why the edit being restored is incorrect. Island92 (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, much appreciated! Cerebral726 (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

So now you're accusing me of vandalism for removing unsourced content ? You have reverted that 3 times now without discussing, please see WP:3RR which you are in violation of. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm really sorry mate. I did not mean at all to write rvv. Source added for that info. Island92 (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I am notifying you here that I have requested a third opinion for our discussion at Talk:2023 Qatar Grand Prix. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Cerebral726 (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not a reason to revert an attempt to create an article. It is not a hard-and-fast rule that race article's can only be created a week before the event, it just so happens that this is what happens because before that point is usually WP:TOOSOON. However, this is not always the case and it is actually common for sources to exist much earlier for an inaugaral event. I am not disagring that this edit should have been reverted (as no sources were present). But please give a better reason (in this case, "unsourced changes") rather than by implying a rule that doesn't exist in any form at all. SSSB (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1185913468 - because providing refs is the responsibility of the person adding the content. Additionally, it is a volunteer project. He may not want to, he may not be able to, or he tried and couldn't find them. So he did the next best thing and identified that a citation needed to be added. SSSB (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi mate. Just wanted to catch up with you on the implementation of club maps on the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup page. Although I agree that I probably went overboard with including 6 different maps, curent solution of showing clubs on single world map is also not feasable due to exansion of the competiton. Even now with only 3 clubs Europe is extremly cluttered. When we add 9 more teams once they qualify map will be a mess. Perhaps we could find some solution that's in the middle and include separate map of Europe together with the map of the world. For an example take a look at 2023–24 UEFA Europa Conference League and how clubs from Benelux are shown in separate map. Nightfall87 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

For the time being it suits perfectly. Once we have more teams qualified (it looks like only European club will be close to each other in the map) we can add a separate map (just for the Europe in this case). Island92 (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

You mention it is not necessary to say when Technical and Sporting regulations are published. I see you moved the link for SR-PDF to the Entries section but you have removed the link to TR-PDF completely. It would be nice if somehow you get the link to the TR-PDF back in the article as well as it contains nice information. Balenda (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Any answer on this mate? I truly think it is worth getting the pdf-link in the article as extra comprehensive source. Balenda (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from 2023 FIFA Club World Cup. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Thank you. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not revert edits with no explanation. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not edit war to add WP:OR as you did here and here.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

You will just notice that I was right. Time will confirm it. Island92 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

As always, I do not disagree that there is a chance (maybe even a high likelihood) you will be correct about what will happen with the name. But Wikipedia does not allow users to perform original analysis like you think you have the right to do. Cerebral726 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Italy national football team results (2010–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red Bull Arena.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I have seen what you mean. Good evening 14 novembre (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Cerebral726 (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from WP:BITING new editors as you did to Stewikiaman1 in this message on his talk. Including a bare url may not be ideal, but it is a great deal better than the alternatives: not content at all, unsourced content, or original research, the latter two of which you frequently fall fowl. Rather than rudely point out their flaws, why don't you actually point them to help. How is he supposed to know how to make a none bare url? Likewise, I don't know what this is about: Special:Diff/1211674420. I must have missed the bit where we decided that if race reports didn't meet a minimum detail threashold we shouldn't include anthing at all? I advise you stop biting new editors and instead constructivly work with them to improve Wikipedia. SSSB (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

User Stewikiaman1 is user @MKL123:. They are the same people. At the time I had already warned the latter about the same thing. Island92 (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I assume you have concrete undeniable proof (I am not interested in seeing it) to be treating them like this? Because assuming they are the same person is not good enough. I will leave it up to you to decide if an WP:SPI is necessary (again, not interested). As I have seen no proof, and like to give benefit of the doubt, I will continue to treat them as a new editor. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@SSSB: Simply their way of updating things is very similar. There is no 100% certainty, but I assume they are the same person. Basing it on my experience of updating F1 pages, the evidence is reliable. Island92 (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

So you have chossen to guess that this is the same person, and are therefore acting aggressively because you are guessing they have been warned before, rather than assuming good faith that they are a different editor? SSSB (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I simply gave him an advice, exactly as I did with MKL123. I do not see nothing aggressive. Do you see that? Not my problem. It is not the first time I corrected a lot of data (c/e, spelling, grammar mistakes and so on) by this user. How long has this to be? I expected a little improvement, but so far nothing positive. Island92 (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop removing Citation Needed tags without actually fulfilling the citation such as you did here: . You have been reverted numerous times by multiple users when you decide something "doesn't need a citation" (including many times before these most recent incidents), which is an INCREDIBLY rare and narrow situation in the body of an article. Learn and improve your editing habits, as this is considered WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I see you changed the note in the "Entries" table for "Stake F1 Team Kick Sauber", where you changed the constructors name from "Kick Sauber" to "Sauber". About your opinion for this change: Well, the "Kick Sauber" name IS the constructors name, in this case you can't really say it's only a sponsor. When it comes to "Aston Martin Aramco", I have to agree with you, that we don't use this name, but these are two different cases. In Aston Martin's case, all people are just used to using only the "Aston Martin" term, because we're used to this name, it's of course a well-known car brand, and the team was previously known as "Aston Martin", until they changed it in 2022, but without any big announcement on that. In Sauber's case however, the "Kick Sauber" name brought a complete identity change. This team is also represented with the logo with the big green "K" for Kick, on F1's social media websites, and on the live coverage to name some examples. And Aston Martin is never represented with "Aramco". And even if you don't agree, it would be better to keep it "official" at least in the Entries table, when we already have the exact team names there. BryOn2205U (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The point is a prose-sentence. I do not see the need to report Kick Sauber entered round 3... The origin thing (Sauber) leads you to report only that name, also in prose. I've never read Aston Martin Aramco classified in sixth and seventh, respectively, for example, in a prose. I understand your opinion, but isn't it better to bring it into talk page? Island92 (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Island92. You have new messages at Talk:UEFA Euro 2024 qualifying play-offs.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– PeeJay 14:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Please, further elaborate on your line of thinking. Plural is used for all previous editions, as well as for UEFA Champions League articles etc. I believe there should be a unified standard. Monerals (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Not for this edition which has to use a different grammar practice for Wikipedia as the tournament is held in the USA. Island92 (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Already discussed it with admins and other users with more experience than me such as @Chris1834:. Island92 (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you please elaborate about which discussion you're referring to, regarding not listing teams who may qualify by winning a continental competition? You can add links to edit summaries, I'm sure you know. That's better than vaguely citing them.

Also, listing these teams is consistent with previous Club World Cups. See here for example. Bmf 051 (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

That is an old consensus. See here for the current. Island92 (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

If this is the existing consensus, how does listing the teams who may qualify for the tournament via ranking not also violate it? Like I said, it should be both qualifying methods or neither. Otherwise it is confusing to the reader. If listing the teams who may qualify via ranking is permitted, then the consensus has changed. Bmf 051 (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

That should be removed indeed, too. Always for the same consensus in that discussion. But other users insisted on keeping it. Island92 (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you please show me what you mean by them "insisting". Again, it is important to link to such discussions/edits rather than just vaguely referencing them. See WP:CCC about avoiding terse explanations.

"Other users insisting" sounds like you're saying that the consensus has changed, and that you unfortunately did not agree with the change. And the fact is that the consensus you referred to was a pretty soft one to begin with (see this discussion here - those arguing against it were never informed of the discussion you mentioned; the editor who started the discussion [Mwiqdoh] even admits to not notifying others). Selectively applying a consensus to some situations but not others is more disruptive than helpful. The fairest thing for you to do is to either delete the entire section or to not selectively delete parts of it. Bmf 051 (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I explained multiple times that those should not exist (see talk page of the page involved). Firstly user Kante4 reverted it because of the consensus. I did excatly the same because I knew he was in the right. People insisted because are stubborn and like it like that. Island92 (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk to user @Kante4: and he will tell you that Team in contention paragraph should not exist for that consensus reached. Island92 (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Per consensus, all "may still qualify/teams in contention..." should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Then please WP:BEBOLD and remove the entire section. Selectively removing parts of it and leaving only the bits we aren't bold enough to remove just makes for a half-baked article. Bmf 051 (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the qualifying report at 2024 Monaco Grand Prix :) I completely forgot to fix the race numbers/sort abbreviations when I copied it over and didn't get around to fixing it earlier 193.165.236.248 (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Island92 (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2024 Formula One World Championship. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. I have started a discussion at Talk:2024 Formula One World Championship - contribute or you will be reverted again. Also, you latest edit summary is meaningless, as the header doesn't claim we are mid-season SSSB (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not edit war. People have to understand why I revert. I do not like reverting. User @BryOn2205U: backs up my point. It's not mid-season yet though, it starts with the 9th round based on the system we used on the previous F1 pages. Cleary explained in the history page, a section people should get used to looking at more. Island92 (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what edit warring is. Please read WP:EDITWAR and specifically WP:3RRNO to understand what edit war is/isn't. You thinking you are right is not an excuse to keep restoring your preferred version of the page. SSSB (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You have been mentioned on the talk forum for the page 2024 Formula One World Championship. Please respond as soon as possible. DualSkream (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This thread is not about you, I just mentioned you in passing. SSSB (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed your comment here . If you want to warn an editor, please do so on their user talk page, not on article talk pages. Any editor in good standing is free to give justified warnings to another editor. If you're not sure if an editor's behaviour justifies a warning, that it something you should ask somewhere appropriate like WP:Teahouse or just leave it for editors more experienced. Article talk pages should only be used for discussing changes to an article. So if you want to discuss why you feel an editor's changes were not an improvement to the article, concentrate your comment on that rather than on warning someone. Also the editor has objected to your use of "he" as a pronoun, please do not use he when referring to the editor again. Personally I'd suggest you default to using a gender neutral pronoun if you are not aware of what pronouns an editor uses. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Do not remove citation needed tags without either fulfilling the citation or discussing on the talk page first. Doing otherwise is disruptive editing. Just because something is the WP:TRUTH doesn't mean it is verified, which is what Wikipedia requires (WP:V). Saying "Not needed" is nonsensical. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on WP:ANI. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for that. Island92 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Sticking to consistency of layout/MOS is the best option for these articles, I have now closed my discussion on the talk page. Feel free to open another if you have other comments. Happy editing. - AutisticAndrew (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the dates at the top, I understand your point. However, that picture of the circuit adds context and the dates refer to when the Monaco Grand Prix took place at the Circuit de Monaco. Obviously that is not the 1929 version. That is apparent by the fact that all the dates are listed with "2015-present" at the end. But when you put 2015-Present alone without any other dates, it implies that the first Monaco Grand Prix at the Circuit de Monaco was in 2015. Is that true? No. And it doesn't make sense to put a picture of every single circuit layout in there. That box is for quick reference. wf26 (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask why you added false attendance statistics to the article before UEFA published the full-time report for SVK-ROU? Please review WP:V, we should not adding fake statistics to highly-viewed articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Was my fault. Fixed now. Island92 (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, for the future keep in mind there is no deadline, we can be patient to wait and add the reference only once UEFA's report is out. I was surprised to see an experienced user like yourself make such a change. UEFA Euro 2024 was the second-most viewed page last week, we have an obligation to our readers to only add accurate information. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The point is another. Do you know why? Attendance for Slovakia v Romania was already there. I copied and pasted the same attendance line of Ukraine v Belgium, changing names as a result. 54,000 kept there. Then I fixed. Island92 (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction concerning the Next Gen, but I'd like to point out for good measure that the official source describes "a selection of players from the Juventus Next Gen and the Bianconeri Under-19 teams", that's why I added both. No big deal anyway, thanks for your contribution. Andrea Ferretti (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Just restored the edition I made at this article, instead of open a poll to decide if Wikipedia will follow what FIFA considers or will keep following a Wikipedia user opinion. Weird. Josephruela (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from 2024 Formula One World Championship. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Not at Template:Football box or its documentation. You should probably get that changed. And do not disparage other editors. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That was in reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024%E2%80%9325_UEFA_Champions_League_league_phase&action=history#:~:text=cur-,prev,-21%3A16%2C%2015 Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

So you want mne to cow tow to an= single editor who is ignoring the community consensus of the documentation. I suggest that you explain to that editor why they're wrong and have that editor get consensus at the template instead. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

No. User @Stevie fae Scotland: has already explained to me in the past why link reports should be used like that. For any doubt ask him. Island92 (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

One editor does not get to override what the community has decided. If that editor wants to change things, that editor should gain the community's support and have consensus changed at the template, not an individual article. You should stop edit warring as you have created a two-person cabal. Please revert and wait for consensus at the template or take this to ANI or another admin board. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No. Reasons are explained in the discussion. Island92 (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You claim there is a discussion but have not pointed to it. Yet, there is a consensus at the template and you refuse to 1) acknowledge it and 2) follow it. You have three problems to address. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

They are not only mine. Island92 (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edit without any explanation or starting a discussion? Don't do that again. EpicAdventurer (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Because a better source was needed. Island92 (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Even if that's the case. There is a template for this purpose! This isn't the first time you've done that. EpicAdventurer (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I saw you reverted my recent edit there. I'm mostly curious to see what you think I could have done better, as I'm still quite new to editing on Wikipedia and hope that my edit had some merit to it. Vinnie927 (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove that relevant info. Island92 (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair. I'm still not 100% sure on the line between what makes something trivia and what makes it worthy for inclusion, as in my view everything I removed was either unimportant or redundant. Vinnie927 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 2025 Formula One World Championship shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tvx1 11:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelantan_F.C.#Managerial/coaching_history

this was so unusual section, any solution; regards, thanks 93.143.85.106 (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Good morning Island92, the link to entry list of Australia doesn't seem to work, also after changing the link to the corrected entry list, any ideas how to solve this? Balenda (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

There was one character missing at the end, an underscore... Problem solved. Balenda (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Perfect. Island92 (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! I noticed you removed my text on 2025 Australian Grand Prix with this edit. I'm new to wikipedia and trying to learn more on how to help and contribute, so I was hoping you could explain how I can improve and be better, thanks:) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

But isn't it true that the root cause of most of the retirements was the adverse weather conditions? SnowyRiver28 (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Template:F1 Constructors Standings and Template:F1 Drivers Standings, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the Talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Louis (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2025 Coppa Italia final, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Youssouf Fofana and Álex Jiménez.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, how come we don't put the entry lists for the Formula E seasons even though they are on Formula 1? MSalmon (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the place to find them. Island92 (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

results.fiaformulae.com, then go to Event Information MSalmon (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I saw you reverted my edit on 2025 Formula One World Championship due to my changes being inconsistent with the other F1 season articles. I changed "Entrant" to "Team" in the Entries table, because I think the term "Entrant" is too general as you could also refer to a driver as entrant. I also removed "Race drivers" as it's unnecessary; and changed "Driver name" to "Driver" as it's obvious that it's a name anyway. In my opinion these changes are an improvement compared to the last version. If you want I can change that in every other F1 season article. BryOn2205U (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

It is needed consensus for that. Island92 (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Should I start a talk page on 2025 Formula One World Championship or WP:F1? BryOn2205U (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is better. Island92 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I created a new page on WP:F1. I would appreciate it if you leave a comment :) BryOn2205U (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

you just broke the 3 revert rule. you can only revert three times. i have only done three times. you have 4 times. TheSpecialOne799 (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

To establish a new practice there has to be a discussion, which I'm trying to start, but no one seems to care about it. You should still leave a comment under WP:F1 and give a valid reason for why we should keep using the names from the entry list, as you haven't done this yet. As you are being the only one to fully support using entry list names, while all the other editors from the most recent and an older discussion support article title names, you should be able to tell us why we should use them. Otherwise the only logical thing would be changing the names to match the article titles. BryOn2205U (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

No, because the commonname applies only to the title article page. Island92 (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:F1 Drivers Standings. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. SSSB (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a consensus established to keep Alexander. Stop with that please. Island92 (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

1. No such consensus exists.

2. That does not excuse your edit warring. SSSB (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it does exist. See what user Tvx1 said. Island92 (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Tvx1 says a lot of things. You are going to have to be more specific. But if you are talking about this comment (Tvx1's only contribution in the most recent discussion) you might want to reread that comment more carefully. He says that there is no consensus to use Alex. Not that there is a consensus for Alexander. Which is exactly the point I was making when I threatened to take you to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#WP:COMMONNAME discussion. SSSB (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I would hardly call you restoring your own unsourced and incorrect information as "reverting vandalism". Spike 'em (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Formula One race records. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. tony 21:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! MadelynnSienna (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if this has already been discussed but what are your thoughts about using his official name Josep Maria Marti which is stated on the FIA website instead of a nickname (it will be the same for Formula E)? MSalmon (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

please create 2026 f1 academy page Amini1999ad (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Why you delete my article details in Brazil 2025 grand prix? ~2025-32146-51 (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I see you changed Norris' driver number from 4 to 1 on 2026 season article. Norris hasn't confirmed his driver number for next season, changing it to 1 is a presumption not sourced content. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I checked that discussion that was evidently very poor and incompetent. According to that discussion (Inter-Milan should be called 2025 because it was played in 2025), you must

• move that page to a “Jan 2025” title
• call Napoli-Bologna as “Dec 2025”
• move the 1988 edition to “Jun 1989”
• move the 1989 edition to “Sep 1989”

Consequently, when a discussion is evidently irrational, it must be re-opened. Bye.--~2025-41425-50 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus to move any page. Re open the talk, ping users involved and let's see. Please stop with edit war now. Island92 (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Last I checked, Atlassian was just the title sponsor for Williams and not part of the constructor name. HwHrdCnItB1 (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

No, check the source. Atlassian Williams-Mercedes is the same thing as per Aston Martin Aramco-Honda. Island92 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a stupid decision on Williams' part, but thank you for correcting me. HwHrdCnItB1 (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

DR Congo v. Republic of the Congo. No problem nor irony in this, just to make it personally clear why I switched it back as previously seen. Best regards. CoryGlee 18:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2025–26 Juventus FC season, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kenneth Taylor was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I hope you understand my view of the renaming to Crvena zvezda at my Talk page, i feel like i am the correct one here, but you have your views which i respect, however, i am going off Anglophone UEFA naming conventions. F1fan00 (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Der Klassiker. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)