User talk:Alghenius

> In Russia, the number of wins is more important than head-to-head results.

This a full text of the Russian Premier League 2014-15 regulations section that refers to the standings: http://rfpl.org/netcat_files/86/58/1_Reglament_ChR_2014_15__itog_obschiy.doc

17.3. В случае равенства очков у двух и более команд места команд в таблице Чемпионата определяются:
- по наибольшему числу побед во всех Матчах;
- по результатам игр между собой (число очков, количество побед, разность забитых и пропущенных мячей, число забитых мячей, число забитых мячей на чужом поле);
- по лучшей разности забитых и пропущенных мячей во всех Матчах;
- по наибольшему числу забитых мячей во всех Матчах;
- по наибольшему числу мячей, забитых на чужих полях во всех Матчах.

17.5. В случае равенства очков у двух и более команд места команд в текущей турнирной таблице определяются в соответствии с показателями, перечисленными в п.17.3 настоящего Регламента. При абсолютном равенстве всех указанных показателей места команд в текущей турнирной таблице определяются в соответствии с п.4.6 настоящего Регламента.

There is no rule explicitly saying that in situation where there are three teams with the same number of points, A, B and C, and A and B have a higher number of wins than C, the head-to-head results between C and the other two teams should be disregarded when determining the positions of A and B. Because there is no such explicit rule, those results should NOT be disregarded. All the applicable parameters should be calculated for every team before any sorting is performed, and then the sorting performed according to the rules.

> The away-goal rule used only after second match.

No, that is not true. See 17.5 above. Nothing about any specific rules applicable "only after the second match".

If you are basing your claims on something other than the official league regulations, please explain what that "something" is.

Thank you.

Geregen2 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015–16 Russian Premier League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ahmed Musa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015–16 Russian Premier League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Double. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2016–17 UEFA Europa League. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undone.

• 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 notice boards.
• 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why my edits is unconstructive?--Alghenius (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You added Krasnodar that are not qualified, you added a second spanish team to third qualifying round when they will only have one team there... should I continue? Qed237 (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Krasnodar is qualified yesterday, they may finish from second to fifth place, but qualified to at least Europa League at least third round--Alghenius (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sevilla may win Europa League and earn Champions League group stage, may win Copa del Rey and start Europa League from group stage, may lose both finals and start Europa League from third qualification round. But they secured qualification--Alghenius (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2016–17 UEFA Europa League, you may be blocked from editing. Qed237 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krasnodar is assured of European Competitions but they have not qualified to a certain competition yet and we only list teams that has actually qualified. Now stop being disruptive. Qed237 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2016–17 UEFA Europa League shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Qed237 (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lets discuss here, so we make things clear.

Krasnodar is "assured of at least" Europa League, but they have not qualified. Teams are only listed when they have actually qualified and Krasnodar may enter Champions League or Europa League. Qed237 (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Template:2015–16 Premier League table. Qed237 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Sixth-placed team from 2015–16 Premier League will always qualify independent of the result from the FA Cup. Perhaps you should not edit these things if you dont know the rules. Qed237 (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. When Liverpool (outside the top 4) win Europa League, they earned an fifth spot to Champions League for England. But Europa League quota will be reduced only for two teams, since no more than seven teams (except for Fair Play qualification, when abolished for 2016-17 Euroseason) represent one country. The winner of FA Cup take precedence from any Premier League teams to win group stage qualification to Europa League. In consequence, when Liverpool win Europa League, they go to Champions League group stage, when also Crystal Palace win FA Cup, they go to Europa League group stage, remove Southampton from Europa League completely and demise Manchester United to third qualification round

Sorry for my bad English ;) --Alghenius (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is where you are wrong, only if the team that wins Europa League has qualified for next season europa league, one spot is vacated. Otherwise nations may have 8 teams. Qed237 (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can always read http://m.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/article.160516-european-qualifying-places-explained.html and see if things are clearer for you. Qed237 (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It says: Southampton's 4-1 victory over Crystal Palace confirmed a place in the UEL, by moving up to fifth. They will remain there and earn a place in the UEL group stage if Man Utd lose to AFC Bournemouth on Tuesday. If Man Utd earn at least a point against AFC Bournemouth, sixth will earn Southampton a third qualifying round place in the UEL. If United win the FA Cup it would guarantee the Saints a place in the group stages. Qed237 (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong information, based on outdated regulations--Alghenius (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, believe me I do a lot of work on these articles. I read the official regulations from UEFA last week. You are wrong once again, just like you where with Krasnodar and Sevilla, which is why several editors reverted you. Qed237 (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why in current season Spain has only two teams in Europa League?--Alghenius (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because Sevilla had qualified for Europa League and then they where moved from Europa League to Champions League and their spot was vacated. IF Liverpool wins they can just be added to Champions League (and not needed to be removed from Europa League). Qed237 (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You consider who England will be have eight teams in European Competitions when Liverpool and Crystal Palace win their cups?--Alghenius (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237: is right and, yes, England will have eight teams in European competition next season if Liverpool wins tomorrow. I read a good explanation on Bert Kassies site, but unfortunately, I do not have the page saved or I would put it here. The England and Spain situations are not the same because Sevilla is qualified through the league and Liverpool is not. It's too complicated, to be sure. Equineducklings (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Kassies delete this page because it based on outdated regulations. Also he was add Southampton to list of qualified teams but wrongly don't anymore about Liverpool.--Alghenius (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kassies site has not been updated since Monday but Southampton is included http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/qual2016.html Qed237 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alghenius, can you find a single source to support what you are saying? Qed237 (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kassies update site a hour ago but he don't write about Liverpool chances on Champions League, there this list is wrongful. Without Liverpool in Europa League final, Southampton is qualified. Also he mistakenly write for Southampton chances for Europa League group stage.--Alghenius (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I use primarily Russian-language sources--Alghenius (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The result between Liverpool and Sevilla tomorrow does not matter to Southampton, they have qualified. Qed237 (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only after Liverpool or Manchester United has been losed.--Alghenius (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You dont listen, you are wrong. Read the rules (http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/23/69/59/2236959_DOWNLOAD.pdf):

3.06: The UEFA Europa League titleholder is admitted to the UEFA Champions League, at the entry stage determined by Article 3 of the Regulations of the UEFA Champions League. If the UEFA Europa League titleholder qualifies for the UEFA Europa League through one of its domestic competitions, the number of places towhich its association is entitled in the UEFA Europa League is decreased by one. The created vacancy is rebalanced accordingly and priority for the UEFA Europa League is given to the domestic cup winners (in accordance with the entry stage as per the access list).

Qed237 (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is outdated regulations for 2015-16 season. The Fair Play winners cannot qualified in 2015-16 European competitions--Alghenius (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with fair play. It is like talking into a brick wall and you are not even able to provide a single source for your claim. No point in talking about this anymore unless you can back your claim with reliable sources. Qed237 (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/35/92/45/2359245_DOWNLOAD.pdf better for you? Happy reading. Qed237 (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Template:2015–16 Premier League table, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Qed237 (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Xavier Naidoo. Qed237 (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get this information from German Wikipedia.--Alghenius (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source and you did not link to any source when making the changes so I had no idea where information was taken from. Qed237 (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You simply hating me.--Alghenius (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I dont hate you, but I am a little frustrated that you dont listen even when an other editor also told you that you are wrong. Qed237 (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Armenian Americans, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Pigsonthewing. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Vaclav Jelinek, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oliver (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eleutherios (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philipp Kirkorov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexander Lapshin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, looking through your edits, I noticed that you often add pieces of important information without providing and references. I appreciate your knowledge in diverse ares and interest in improving wikipedia. However a fundamental policy of wikipedia is verifiability of information. Any unreferenced text may be deleted at any time (and judging from your edits, you know this). Please respect this policy and provide references. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Austronesier. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Balto-Slavic languages, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Austronesier (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hinduism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulf states.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]