User talk:Afreoleidddra

Welcome![edit]

Hi Afreoleidddra! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic treble[edit]

I honestly think it's sufficiently clear the way it is now. Given that the competitions linked to are the men's versions of themselves, I don't think we need to specify any further that Man City are the first men's team to win a domestic treble. Context is key. – Pee Jay 16:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I'm happier just by naming the EFL Cup specifically as opposed to just 'a league cup', with a lower-case l and c, for the reasons I mentioned on your talk page. Naming the competitions provides the (male-only) context that just 'a domestic treble' doesn't. I wasn't trying to be argumentative or awkward in naming the PL; just thought it was a harmless bit of extra information. I'll leave it be now then. Thank you. Afreoleidddra (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I didn't read it that way at all, hence my apology in the edit summary on the article. It would have been a good addition but for the fact that the Premier League hasn't always been the top tier of football in England. No harm done anyway! Have a good one :) – Pee Jay 23:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Emily Ratajkowski. 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. General Ization ^Talk 01:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why you've reverted my edits (which, incidentally, was not intended as vandalism) and then reverted them back again five minutes later? Afreoleidddra (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Emily Ratajkowski 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.

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. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cameron Carter-Vickers. 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. As I explained in my reversion of your last edit, Carter-Vickers's footballing nationality is not ambiguous, as discussed at length both on the article's Talk page as well as the Talk page of WikiProject Football, because he has only represented the United States internationally. On top of that, immaterial to ambiguity, the article is written in the version of English most related to the subject, which, in this case, is American English. So reverting "soccer" to "football" is a violation of the established bounds of the article as well as extremely unproductive. Anwegmann (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying my reply to your message on my Talk page here simply for an additional record of it: Look at the lengthy discussions that we have had on WP:WPF and on Cameron Carter-Vickers's talk page. You are not saying anything new. This has all come up before, and it was consensus to list him has an American soccer player. There's no reason to argue this with me. I didn't make this decision. The community did. Before you continually make changes to established articles, you need to read the discussions and get an idea for where consensus sits. If you don't, your edits are tantamount to vandalism. Please stop making these changes. If you think we need to revisit his footballing nationality, bring it up again on the article's talk page. You cannot make these types of decision unilaterally. I am pinging @GiantSnowman: here, as he has been involved in the Cameron Carter-Vickers discussion as well as many, many others related to this exact issue. Please stop acting unilaterally and making unproductive, counter-consensus edits. Anwegmann (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]