User talk:FCBWanderer
| This is FCBWanderer's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
List of men's footballers with 1,000 or more official appearances
[edit]Hello! With all due respect, please do not ruin all the work, of many years and research for references and sources done, as well for match reports/details of some, which are only found in a single source. Why you say non-senior appearances are not official? If there are non-senior appearances included, are only the ones made in the basic football pyramid of the respective Football Association, as explained in the intro of the article, e.g. like Barcelona B club, et c., which is something discussed over more than once in the past, i.e. matches of B/C/reserves team in competitions where A teams also participate in. Of course they are official, as well as youth international levels. Also, this has been discussed many times in the past both in the talk section of the article and WP:Footy. For such a radical change, please seek for consensus in WP:Footy first. P.S. Of course, my friend, you're more than welcome to make a subset in another section of the list without youth international levels if you like, but I implore you to keep the main superlist in the form it is right now. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk)
Other people's userpages are none of your business
[edit]Other people's userpages are none of your business, unless there's something likely to bring Wikipedia into disrepute on them, which was absolutely not the case here. It's not for you to change what people say about their own political orientation and to substitute your opinion for theirs. Please don't do something like that again. Bishonen | tålk 17:11, 4 January 2026 (UTC).
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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. Justthefacts (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, this is not vandalism. FCBWanderer did correct edit how infobox should be layed out. Justthefacts, be aware that you are violating Wikipedia rules attached to Wikipedia:ATWV. That could lead to administrative action against you if you continue such messages to users. Please avoid such messages in the future. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, it is vandalism. The Wikipedia Vandalism policy specifically states that "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content" constitutes vandalism as the very first definition of "a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia", which is precisely the case when it comes to the wholesale removal of content supported by multiple reliable sources. Furthermore, the Wikipedia Vandalism policy also states that "Removing encyclopedic content without any reason" constitutes vandalism, which is precisely the case here. Moreover, Wikipedia:Vandalism is policy, while Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal" is merely an essay. Finally, Wikipedia policy prohibits false threats of "administrative action" such as yours as "it is unacceptable to threaten another with some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken". You should learn the difference between policies and essays before issuing false threats such as yours in violation of an actual Wikipedia policy. --Justthefacts (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, this is not malicious removal or deliberate attempt. FCBWanderer did edited how he believes it is best according to reality. You added references next to statements, while the references doesn't contain such specific statements. I said that repeating of sending vandalism warning to normal eligible reverts could lead higher need for resolution by the community through noticeboard. I haven't said that Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal" is a rule. I said your action can led to violation of rules attached to Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal", read thoroughly. ThecentreCZ (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, it is vandalism. The Wikipedia Vandalism policy specifically states that "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content" constitutes vandalism as the very first definition of "a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia", which is precisely the case when it comes to the wholesale removal of content supported by multiple reliable sources. Furthermore, the Wikipedia Vandalism policy also states that "Removing encyclopedic content without any reason" constitutes vandalism, which is precisely the case here. Moreover, Wikipedia:Vandalism is policy, while Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal" is merely an essay. Finally, Wikipedia policy prohibits false threats of "administrative action" such as yours as "it is unacceptable to threaten another with some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken". You should learn the difference between policies and essays before issuing false threats such as yours in violation of an actual Wikipedia policy. --Justthefacts (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 19
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SpaceX, a link pointing to the disambiguation page XAI was added.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)