User talk:Rdvarq

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Alianza Lima, you may be blocked from editing. --MicroX (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Universitario de Deportes, you may be blocked from editing. --MicroX (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rdvarq, what you are doing is not good. Your text is against the sources. I have no problems that you put Alianza Lima point of view, but you can´t negate the facts. Also you wrote something that are not according to the sources. For example, it is not true that Universitario "claim itself" as a 1934 champion (as you are writing). The truth is that Peruvian Football Federation and Sportive Association of Professional Football (Football authorities in Perú) "both recognize the title belong to Universitario", as the original text correctly say. Also, the efforts and actions of Alianza Lima supporters to get the title to him, doesn`t start on 2013 as you are writing, but many years ago, according to your own sources. So all your text is incorrect. Please, stop editing, because the currectly text, and not yours, is according to the sources.--Elelch (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Elelch, the facts here, and I´m not ignoring them, are: The FPF and ADFP recognize Universitario as 1934 champion in its published media but there is no official resolution on record to explain that. The article published in the Classic Football section of fifa.com (which is not an official resolution of FIFA or its official point of view, there is a disclaimer to that) only reflect the latter. The fact is that on record exist a number of official bulletins (ns. 161, 164, 168, 169 and 174 of the Lima League and n. 655 of FPF) that 1) Declare Alianza Lima as Champion of First Division, 2) Acknowledging a protest by Universitario declare a tie in the Tournament Of First Teams 3)Again declare Alianza Lima as Champion of First Division and champion of the Tournament of Reserve Teams and declare a no-winner of the tournament of First Teams as the teams didn't play the defining match in the date determined 4)Determined a date to play the match as asked by Alianza Lima, with the acknowledgement of Universitario, indicating clearly that the match to be played is the Tournament of First Teams Defining Match. 5)And finally after the match of July 7, 1935 the Lima League declared Universitario as Champion of the Tournament of First Teams, not Champion of First Division as it did previously with Alianza Lima. Other facts that are not reflected in neither my version of the article or the one that you support, are that indeed there is at least one newspaper (Diario La Crónica)that on the day after the match talks about Universitario as "Champion", but in another section of the same paper, of the same day mentions that Universitario is the Champion of The Tournament of First Teams. There are List of champions of Peruvian First Division on the newspapers that acknowledge Alianza Lima as champion of 1934. I´m questioning the validity of the FPF web page because is outdated and contain obvious mistakes (Universitario as 1972 Champion, doesn't include 1926 and 1927 years with a Tournament played) and I`m also questioning the validity of the ADFP because it only rules professional football since 1966 an here we are discussing an Amateur Tournament played in 1934. And on the issue of the ongoing effort by supporters of Alianza Lima to get the title recognizad by the media, I'm not including in that effort the article published in dechalaca.com ^[1] which is not a blog but the only web page in Peru that is dedicated to football historical and statistical and issues. That is an article that supports the effort due to the information that it has provided but in no way campaigns for it. Rdvarq (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rdvarq. All what you are saying is the particular position of Alianza Lima. No More. But in the other hand we have the official position of the two maximal autorithies in peruvian football (FPF and ADFP), and both recognize Universitario holds 1934 championship. Until those entities change their positions, yo can´t modify the article, because you would be against wikipedia rules.

The text you tried to insert was unacceptable because was violating that rules. For example, you altered the article by saying "Universitario itself claim to be the champion". But according to the sources this is not true. The truth is that FPF and ADFP are who recognize 1934 championship to Universitario. Also, you are wrong to conclude that all FPF web page is wrong because in the title 1972 there is an error. That interpretaion is incorrect because the Memorial Book of FPF (1997) confirm Universitario as a 1934 champion, but the error on 1972 title doesnt exist there. In respect to ADFP, you are wrong again, because in The Memorial "Book of Gold 1912-2012" (pusblised in 2012 for centenary), the ADFP narrate its history, and explain that ancient Peruvian Football League (founded in 1912) is the same entity. In other words, ADFP is the succesor of Peruvian Footbal League, by changing the name along of the years. In this Memorial Book, ADFP recognize 1934 title belong to universitario, and that recognition is reaffirmed again in its web page, in wich Universitario is shown holding 25 titles.

The fact is that until FPF and ADFP do not change their official position, yo can´t modify the article. For a similar attempt in spanish version, the article was protected. I personally believe the article only should say Universitario is the champion, but trying to be understandable I accepted to mantain your sentence referring the claim of Alianza Lima. Please, be reasonable and stop editing--Elelch (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Elelch, in an effort to be reasonable as you ask me, in future editions i will not put the text "Universitario itself claim to be the champion". But you can't deny the fact that there is a huge controversy in this subject. Controversy that cannot be understood in such a short article. Personally I think that there is no sense in this kind of articles, even superior leagues don't have them in Wikipedia. So there must be another article (referred in this article)in which all the facts are explained. That should stand until the "official" media changes or justify its position once and for all. I think that is what shoud have be done in the spanish version of the article. I think the Esmaktub version will do very well and I plan to traduce it. I hope I'll have the time. Rdvarq (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rdvarq. I Warn on your attempt to editing again. The text that Esmaktub wrote in spanish version (reverted) was precisily the cause of the article was protected until now. You cant write something that is against the official version of maximal authorities in peruvian football, like Peruvian Footbal Federation and Sportive Association of Professional Football, which both recognize Universitario holds 1934 championship. I understand to Club Alianza Lima supporters there is a controversy, but the correct way to proceed is to formally put Alianza Lima claim under autorithies to be considered, and if those authorities change their positions, I myself would be like to modify the article. But for now, according to he sources the two maximal peruvian football authorities recognize the title of 1934 belong to Universitario, so the article can`t say something different.--190.8.147.50 (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Elelch or Anonymous User, seems that you haven't understood my proposal. What I'm saying is that there must be another article named "Controversy Over The 1934 Peruvian Championship". And I plan to use Esmaktub version of the 1934 article as a template. It doesn't mean that the 1934 article should be modified ignoring the current state of affairs, that is that FPF and ADFP said that Universitario is the champion of that year. The using of the Esmaktub article is fair because it will put both points of view. Meanwhile the 1934 article stands with the official view referring the controversy to this another article. I don't see why this will go against any rule of Wikipedia and don't understand the warning. Rdvarq (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)