User talk:Herr chagall

Whether the logo is png or svg doesn't really matter to me. However, I've noticed an unfortunate tendancy by svg enthusiasts to replace existing images without carrying over all the information attached to the original file. Please, if you are going to make the change, carry along the category information which is Category:German football logos and anything else that might be useful or relevant. Wiggy! (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine, will do -- i was just surprised as there was no additional info provided with the revert. -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ne razumijem Vaše motive za revert mojih ispravaka na stranici o Radetu Šerbedžiji. Mišljenja sam da je ispravno pisati njegovo prezime u originalu, dakle s dijakritičkim znakovima. Mišljenja sam da su moje ispravke oko teatra Gavella u Zagrebu korektne, tj. da riječi koje sam izostavio/izmijenio nisu imale nikakvog smisla. Ovo su bile moje izmjene, koje ste revertirali:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rade_%C5%A0erbed%C5%BEija&action=historysubmit&diff=364726357&oldid=364264552

Sklon sam moje izmjene ponoviti, ako se slažete, no bit ću Vam zahvalan za obrazloženje, ukoliko i dalje mislite da to što sam napravio nije ispravno. Pozdrav, Borut (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

apsolutno točno, izmijenio sam jedan drugi dio teksta a pritom nisam dovoljno obratio pozor na ostatak izmjena -- ispričavam se i naravno da pozdravljam promjenu teksta u izvorno i točno pisanje osobnog imena. -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as N.W.A. 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. GunMetal Angel 20:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry but it is rather the other way round -- you have repeatedly removed correct information in the article along with its sources without providing either a reason for such edits or sources that could validate said changes.
esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i reverted your edits as they appeared to be vandalism, i however realized you were having a content dispute with another user and restored your edit as well as removed the warning from your talk page. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The format violated several guidelines, since you want me to explain; here we go I guess. Rules state that if a discography page already exists for a musical artist, nothing other than albums is supposed to be listed per WP:ALBUM. Infobox guidelines state that nothing other than names is to be stated in the members section of an artist infobox, so I.E., Eazy-E being deceased cannot be listed within the infobox. Furthermore; WP:ALBUM also states genres are not capitalized, they are not proper nouns, if you ask me; that's just common sense. Speaking of common sense; that revision of the page was just a mess, the title for the infobox was not proper and suggestions also state that unnecessary noting in the lead are to be avoided, we only need what "N.W.A" stands for (as sourced: "Niggaz with Attitude) as the only thing noted within parenthesis. Happy now? - GunMetal Angel 16:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the clarification in regard to the edits. concerning the discography, if you apply said guidelines, it would help your point much to be consistent in that regard -- "n.w.a & the posse" is not a studio album, but a compilation of several singles and eps released by various artists. will amend accordingly. capitalized genre names and the additional info about eazy-e had not been added by me; these revisions and their reinclusion were collateral damage caused by your edits dealing with the group's name. n.w.a stands for "niggaz wit attitudes" -- this was a) sourced and b) is the way the band members themselves have always referred to the group, both in interviews and on record. it was agreed upon with other editors and an admin that both versions of the full name would be included on the page, until you chimed in and removed it arbitrarily. will amend accordingly as well. furthermore, in this specific case, the capitalization guidelines have to be modified, thanks to the fact that the band name is abbreviated in all capitals -- again, consistency and common sense reasons point that guidelines shouldn't be applied verbatim and indiscriminately. your efforts to help are appreciated, however. cheers.
esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you revert my changes again on the N.W.A article please see Talk:N.W.A#Date of Ice Cube's departure. Also, I wasn't vandalizing, I was trying to correct something that may be more accurate. 76.191.133.247 (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Japanese Wikipedia. You should NOT create new page with copying & pasting, which is STRICTLY PROHIBITED because of the GFDL violation. If you do such things in JAWP again, we will be blocked as a vandalist. If you REALLY want to move that article for some reasons, please come to my talkpage in JAWP. Thank you and best regards. --Ohtani tanya (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Word Up! (song), may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert again and I will escalate this to ANI and request your blocking. Werieth (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was a member. Look at his twitter, @WESTCOASTDOC. He wrote all of Eazy's lyrics on the N.W.A albums, many lyrics on Eazy-Duz-It, and all of the lyrics on his own album. Watch any interview with him or the other members. Straight Outta Compton, Eazy-Duz-It, and No One Can Do It Better were all recorded over the course of about 7 months. It was all one big project, but they happened to be released as different albums. DyniCPA (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was a collaborator, not a member -- which is a fundamental difference. I have been following N.W.A since 1988 -- the D.O.C. was never a member of the band. Go ahead and ask him, I've been in touch with him over Twitter. Here is the member list on the "Gangsta Gangsta" release: http://cdn.discogs.com/g59KztlNgqNY1F4-FvYedn3NyBk=/fit-in/492x803/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(96)/discogs-images/R-1176666-1198476698.jpeg.jpg -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 16:04, 8 October 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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Template:Infobox musical artist the instructions say that "associated acts" should be very closely interconnected in a business sense, that the acts share two or more common members, that they have collaborated multiple times or shared a stage as a single combined act, etc. It's not enough that the artists make similar music. That's why I reverted your addition to the NWA article. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. It seems you are not familiar with the group and how the acts I listed have collaborated. They have mutually featured each other on their respective releases, share producer credits and have toured together -- this was common policy @ Ruthless Records at the time. The reason I listed them is not because of "similar music" but for the very reasons you listed. I'll revert accordingly, because the edit meets the criteria. --esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing a producer and label is not enough. Touring together is not enough. Please read Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts. If two groups collaborated on multiple songs, the article should say so, with a reliable reference. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the info box you quoted -> This field can include, for example, any of the following: For individuals: 'groups of which he or she has been a member' -> applies to Arabian Prince and DJ Yella. Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album -> applies to the other listed acts -- the producers are not only "shared" but members of one of the other acts or even one of the acts proper. The critera are not cumulatively mandatory as you have stated (e.g. "AND"), rather a single criterion is sufficient for inclusion ("ANY", "OR", according to the info box). I can certainly link the sources (credits printed on the released records, which are documented on the database discogs.com). I haven't seen that the associated acts have to be part of the article. If so, I can add them. Cheers. --esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Croatia national football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eintracht (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) 09:19, 24 July 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, African Chess Confederation, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: George H. D. Gossip, "minor master" is not a title and the article does not say it is a title. Obviously "master" is the title and "minor" is just an adjective. It is correctly applied in this instance and it is established usage. See Technique in Chess by Gerald Abrams, p. 170, for example: "Something similar was inflicted on the great Tarrasch by the minor master von Holzhausen," Quale (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that it’s not a title and in this context it’s irrelevant, as a level of play required to obtain the title »master« has been achieved by Gossip -- minor is contradictory and not neutral, because there are no agreed-upon or standard criteria to classify someone as »minor« or »major«. One source is not enough to call it »established usage«, I’m afraid, and it’s corroborated by a short search on Google: 133 hits for »minor chess master«, including the Gossip article -- »major chess master« yields 2,880 hits, also far from »established«. »Minor master« has become the de-facto title of Gossip thanks to the wording in the Wikipedia article, which is simply incorrect. The correct wording is »a master of little success in tournaments who usually finished in the lower half of the table« -- I will amend the article accordingly. --esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're simply wrong. I don't know if that's an issue of fluency in English or just wrongness, but wrong regardless. Quale (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am correct, both simply and elaborately, thanks to my fluency in English and the grasp of sound and consistent structures pertaining to logic and deduction. I know it’s difficult to let go of the assumed role of »ownership« in regard to articles or edits one has been involved in, but it is detrimental to the quality of said articles. Good luck. --esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:African Chess Confederation, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Herr chagall. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "African Chess Confederation".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to waste time on WP creating articles that have been arbitrarily removed and converted to draft status based on unsubstantiated claims. Cheers. --esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2020 (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) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the source has no author, and it clearly reads "It is not to be used in any sporting references to the team, or in any public discussion", it's not actually official. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the official club website. It clearly states that it is the FORMAL and LEGAL name under which the franchise is registered. --esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in here as I agree with Walter Görlitz. The name of a team's LLC does not make it the club's name. For example, D.C. United is registered as DC Soccer, LLC.^[1] Many other clubs share the same phenomenon. A name that is used purely for legal purposes, and is not used in any other reference to the club is not the club's primary name. RandyFitz (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why there is the part "commonly known as or commonly referred to as". I'm not sure you're coming from a football background, but I'd suggest you check out the pages for other football clubs, European or South American. Are you implying that the formal and legal names are barred from being included in the article even when they're sourced? --esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You just do not understand the difference between a legal entity and the team's name. Please stop edit warring about this.

To compare Manchester United F.C., where "football" in the UK means "association football", or Real Madrid CF where "Fútbol" means "association football", or FC Bayern Munich, where "fussball" means association football, or and other team outside of places where "football" means "gridiron football", is inappropriate. Those are not the legal names that are presented, they are their official, common names. Atlanta United FC is commonly known as Atlanta United and if "football club" is present, it is not used in media or by the league. The legal entity is immaterial.

As one further point, you have two editors who are arguing against you and so at the very least, make your case on the article's talk page and gain WP:CONSENSUS as you do not have that either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the difference better than you, as you have now confirmed (the example with Manchester United FC supports my point, cheers). The only one edit warring is you. Just to remind you: first you wanted sources, as you initially claimed this is not the franchise’s name. When sources were provided, you changed the narrative and all of a sudden claimed that its formal name is "irrelevant".

Atlanta United Football Club even has the FC in the club’s crest, which is used in media coverage and on merchandise -- yet you are removing sourced and correct information because of your personal preference and based on your claims (without evidence) that they are commonly known without the "Football Club" in the name.

What you fail to comprehend is the difference between an abbreviated name, nicknames and the official name. The official name is Atlanta United Football Club, abbreviated to Atlanta United FC or Atlanta United. Nobody disputed that they are also referred to as Atlanta United, but your repeated removal of the official name is a violation of WP:EDITWAR. Manchester United Football Club is COMMONLY known as Manchester United, Man United, or even Man U, yet nobody removed the club’s full name.

The fact that you may not like it is unfortunate, but irrelevant and not a valid or acceptable reason to revert correct and sourced edits. "Football Club" is very well present when Atlanta United is the subject, thus your claim is false and not based on facts.

The City of Atlanta itself calls the team (meaning the football squad) Atlanta United Football Club. [1] The club calls itself a football club [2]. Media outlets and publications as well as book authors call the club Atlanta United Football Club [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] -- the name Atlanta United Football Club was decided upon after the club’s supporters picked it in a poll [19] -- and they still call it Atlanta United Football Club [20]. Again, as I said, you evidently don’t have a football background and thus are not familiar with the topic: consensus among football editors on wikipedia is that the full club name is presented [21]. Unless you can prove that the club is NOT called Atlanta United Football Club and NOT regularly referred to as such, I’m afraid further removals of the name will be viewed as vandalism and edit warring. - esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume that you know better than other editors, or you know what other editors do and do not know.

In the United States, where this team exists, "football" is played with a helmet and an elongated ball. The sources you found all reference the company name, not the team name. That was explained to you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the two primary sources that you failed to appeal to: https://www.mlssoccer.com/clubs/atlanta-united/ and https://www.atlutd.com/ . Where on there are they called Atlanta United Football Club? If you'd like to discuss on the article's talk page, or at the FOOTY project, go ahead. You will not convince me with the sources you have supplied. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t need to convince you, you are not an authority that grants permission to edit articles, albeit you assume the role of one. All the provided sources reference the club as a participating team in the league, not the company or legal construct behind it. What’s more, there primary source you refer to says exactly the opposite to your unfounded claims: [

https://www.atlutd.com/club/about]. Deflection and non sequitur claims are not helping your point and claim. I shall proceed as announced. -esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But you do need to learn how to edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 4 October 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) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prva nogometna liga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HNL.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use native names for Croatian football competitions, we use English naming convention per WP:COMMONNAME, and comparing HNL to La Liga, Bundesliga, Ligue 1 etc. is literally laughable – those are all well-known leagues with well-established international names, while "Hrvatska nogometna liga" is not. Now check other leagues which are not world class how are they named:

• Armenian Premier League
• Austrian Football Bundesliga
• Azerbaijan Premier League
• Belarusian Premier League
• Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Cypriot First Division
• Czech First League
• Serbian SuperLiga
• Slovak Super Liga
• Montenegrin First League
• Swiss Super League‎
• Ukrainian Premier League‎
• Super League Greece
• Slovenian PrvaLiga
• Macedonian First Football League
• Maltese Premier League

etc., you can clearly see the English-naming pattern there. Furthermore, even the Croatian Football Federation uses "Croatian Football League" in their English-language news, for example at SuperSport becomes title sponsor of Croatian Football League Snowflake91 (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I’m not quite sure which of your fallacies I should address first, so let’s do it chronologically: please provide any evidence that my comparison with the articles for the French, German and Spanish leagues is »literally laughable«, otherwise it’s a non-argument that you use, and figuratively laughable. The well-established INTERNATIONAL names would be »The League«, »Federal League« and »League 1«. What you mentioned are the proper NATIVE names of said leagues. You use a lot of buzz-words without any factual backup - what is »world-class« supposed to mean in this context which is the usage of the native name proper? Irrelevant and unfounded. In addition to that, you contradict yourself: »Austrian Football Bundesliga« uses the German name (Bundesliga) (English »Federal League«); »Serbian SuperLiga« uses the Serbian name (SuperLiga) (English »SuperLeague«), »Slovenian PrvaLiga« uses the Slovenian name (PrvaLiga) (English »FirstLeague«). The Swiss and Maltese Leagues use English naming by default, why you mention them here is beyond me. Clearly, you perform significant POV-pushing here, at best your criteria are arbitrary and inconsistent as is the entire messy naming process - unless you proceed and change these names to English names, your stance has no credibility. Lastly, you mention the english edition of the Croatian Football Federation - they call it the »First Croatian League« on the respective page, which is incorrect. You conveniently ignored the official league website, hnl.hr and the name is »Hrvatska Nogometna Liga«, period. I will not engage and waste my time in correcting POV-pushing, however. Good luck. --esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert use of the adjective "deadly" ("likely to cause death"; superlative "most likely to cause death", not "likely to cause deathestness") without discussing on the talk page. Thank you. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what should be discussed, the use is incorrect, as is your analogy. You misunderstood, either inadvertently or deliberately, my point. Deadly = lethal - the outcome is certain death, not the likelihood thereof. Not sure what you mean by »deathestness«. There is nothing that can go beyond deadly, even though it is semantically possible to form a comparative or a superlative, in this case even a hyperlative. Either way, feel free to push your POV, wikipedia is built on it. -esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to be a native English speaker, which plainly you are not. Perhaps you should revise your count of "native languages". Your point is simply beginner's confusion. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resorting to assumptions and ad hominem attacks, nice one. By all means, if it makes you feel better, continue to do so, I have no time to indulge your nonsense, since you don’t have a valid point. Good luck. -esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Atlanta United FC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AUFC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now seeing that you've been edit warring over this point for 3+ years. Stop. "Football Club" is the name of the corporation, and that's all. This article is not about the corporation, it is about the club, which is always known as "Atlanta United" or "Atlanta United FC". You will not find the full spelled out name on any MLS site, on the ATLUTD style guide, in any media coverage, etc. There's a reason your one source dates back to 2015. Please stop warring over. this. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:alyo, couple of things first: I have not been edit warring FOR 3+ years, that is a lie, I’m afraid I can’t let you write that on my talk page without rebuking it.

I have provided sources for the TEAM name, not the corporation name. That »Football Club« is the corporation name is an unfounded claim by user Walter Görlitz who was in fact edit warring.

If you had done your research, you’d have probably realized it AND you would have learned that this user in question was blocking the change that had been advocated by a number of other editors: Club names in Major League Soccer. I had provided sources, the other user has not, period.

Secondly, I’m not sure how or where you came to the conclusion that you are entitled to tell me what to do (»stop«), so kindly take your own advice and refrain.

There is a reason it’s called full name vs. abbreviation. You conveniently ignored my reference to Liverpool FC, Chelsea FC and countless other examples here on Wikipedia, another is FC Bayern. The more interesting point however is that none of said articles has provided a source corroborating that the respective name is Liverpool Football Club, Chelsea Football Club or Fussball-Club Bayern München, so I have in fact done more than was done in these articles. If you really were interested in applying the arbitrary standardization rules you mentioned, why don’t you go ahead and abbreviate them to the common name with which they are referred to? I’d love to see how that goes.

The case with Atlanta United Football Club is that a group of users seem to believe they can claim something without providing proof, and sadly, they seem to be right in their belief.

Find a source where the team or club says that they are NOT called Football Club and that this is only the suffix for the legal entity.

Until then, your actions are more in line with WP:OWN and WP:CPP. The year of the source is irrelevant, it’s official. There’s a reason you haven’t provided any source, and neither has the other edit-warrior.

Have you even looked at a single one of the sources I provided (of which there are 18 - in words: eighteen - listed) instead of assuming? Of course not, otherwise you wouldn’t have claimed that that the full name is not spelled out in »any media coverage«, which is false and either caused by ignorance due to lack of research or a lie based on deliberate ommission of facts that prove the contrary. XD

Why don’t you do an editor’s homework first and check the sources: From the Atlanta United official website: »We are a football club […]« [22]. Oh wait, there’s more: »The club engaged with the city’s community from the get-go—Atlanta United Football Club was a name decided by fans through online polling.« [23]. There are 16 more sources, help yourself. According to your and the other user’s reasoning, fans decided on the corporate name by way of an online-poll, right? They must be fans of the enterprise, but not the team, impressive.

Let’s have a look: Atlanta United Football Club is mentioned in the following media sources: »Atlanta United Football Club is already breaking Major League Soccer records. More than 26,000 fans paid deposits to secure season tickets. And it’s for a TEAM that doesn’t start playing until March 2017.« [24]; »“We are the ‘A’”: Atlanta United, Nationalism, And What It Means To Belong« (page 3) [25]; »Support your club and the City of Atlanta community with other like-minded fans of Atlanta United Football Club.« (Resurgence Supporters Group) [26]; »Atlanta United Football Club« (World Soccer Shop) https://www.worldsoccershop. com/shop/clubs/atlanta-united; Peach Review [27]; Saporta Report [28]; Yahoo Sports [29]; Fox 5 Atlanta [30]; CNN [31]; Atlanta Voice [32]; Museum Tower [33]; Atlanta City Council [34].

So, both official club and independent media sources use it over and over again, but what is not allowed, will be denied existence on Wikipedia. XD I am curious though, why did you add Football Club to the full name section when it’s allegedly only the name of the corporate entity and not the »team«? And if it’s the corporate name according to your claim, where is the LLC suffix?

I’ll tell you what, you can go on and indulge in manipulating articles to your liking, every so often I’m reminded what a toxic cess pool this is. Good luck. --esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my talk page. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect SportAccord has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 4 § SportAccord until a consensus is reached. JennyAnderson 2 (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]