User talk:42.118.38.192

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to United Arab Emirates national beach soccer team, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. User:Tomcat7 (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make personal edits in layout that differ from other articles. The layout I introduced in some beach soccer articles is standard for all football articles. Thank you.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal edits? Every edits are personal. There is no "standard", everything is only a proposal, or suggestion. Let me explain why your change is incorrect:

• "Players" heading is not correct, there are also other members (technical) in that section that aren't players. ::*"Roster" is a more professional term that is used for many team-sports' articles - the term includes both players and technical personels; it's about tasks assigned with individuals - and since they are grouped under one section, this heading should be used.
• "Results and fixtures" is reduced to matches, matches include both results and fixtures. And "results and fixtures" can be mistaken as a part of "Competitive record", then it come to that term, "competitve record" should also be changed, to "tournament". These two terms I proposed are shorter, more concise and more correctly convey the different basis of the information in the two sections.42.118.38.192 (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I agree with that, but I don't agree with your remaining edits. Not sure why you removed the team appearances and so on in the infobox, stating that is not neutral, and your collapsing tables.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• You are ignoring the layout standards, and that is not ok. Collapsing tables is not recommended at all, for example.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning specific team appearances in the infobox, calling it "best", do you think it is neutral? Well, I understand your current perception. Long ago, I think there is no problem with this editing norm, too, but then I realize that it's not neutral at all.

Of course, if it is backed up by a statement. I didn't just write down that they are one of the best teams in Asia, but I added a justification, which is sourced below. That is not against WP:NPOV.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should not put subjective evaluations/comments into articles, you did not write it down but you choose specific comments and put them there, is that not against WP:NPOV? It's sourced but it's not a hard data, it's opinion and the source's opinion is not neutral. 42.118.38.192 (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not subjective comments, it is a fact which is backed up by a sourced, factual statement.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the best..." is a vague phrase. How do you define what is "one of the best"? Backed up by a source isn't what I'm saying. What I mean is that the source itself is not neutral, you put an opinion from the source - the phrase "one of the best".42.118.38.192 (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What source are you referring to? The source, which may not in this article itself, but in the corresponding ones (BSWW, BSR, etc), back up their achievements. It states "They are one of the most successful Asian national teams, having won twice the AFC Beach Soccer Asian Cup (2007, 2008)" which is completely fine, as I explained why they are one of the most successful Asian national teams, as "won twice the AFC Beach Soccer Asian Cup (2007, 2008)".--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This term "One of the..." is vague. Do you understand?? If you say specifically, for example, it's in top 10 of performing ...(something) then it's not vague anymore. 42.118.38.192 (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not vague, if it is backed up by a factual statement, do you understand, no? If a team dominates in a regional tournament, are they not "one of the best" in this region? There is a thing called common sense, have you heard of it?--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Common sense"... the adjective "common" already say that it's not neutral. "Common sense" is obviously not neutral. If a team "dominates", then they are exactly the best, not "one of the best" - an unspecified term. You can say the following: the team is "the best" (aka based on winning the most number of titles); it's "the second best" (aka based on winning the second most number of titles); it is "one of the 10 best" (aka based on being one of the only 10 teams that won more than e.g. 4 titles);... These lines are more detailed and perhaps acceptable. The use of the phrase "one of the best" is to be avoided entirely because it's not specifying a detailed range/position, and even the word "best" is not to be used in the first place because you don't specifically saying it's "best" on which aspects? There are many aspects to be "best" at. 42.118.38.192 (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is collapsing tables not recommended? These types of tables are going to expand forever, how long do we need to decide when it's appropriate to collapse them? 42.118.38.192 (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see WP:DONTHIDE. They are going to expand forever, but the World Cup does not take place every day, either. With your logic, all tables should be collapsed. --User:Tomcat7 (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all tables should be collapsed, there are types of tables that are not likely to expand which just mostly updating the available data, and/but there are types of tables that are going to expand periodically, like these tables about tournaments with will expand annually, until we come to a point when tables got too long, and you just leave it continuing? Also, according to your logic citing WP:DONTHIDE, then there's not a single table that should be collapsed at all. 42.118.38.192 (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:DONTHIDE? Please read it first. Why do you hide tables? In the namespace (Article) hiding tables is allowed only in rare cases, which are named in WP:DONTHIDE.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. User:Tomcat7 (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladril:, hey, can you help me something, just quick. 42.118.38.192 (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at United Arab Emirates national beach soccer team 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

@Ooligan:, hey can you help me something, just quick. 42.118.38.192 (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Kleuske (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.User:Tomcat7 (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for block evasion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.