User Talk: 44 Gabriel

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

September 2024

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hi, 44 Gabriel. Thanks for patrolling new pages. I've declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion ↗, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to read the new tutorial for patrollers ↗, criteria for speedy deletion ↗, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria ↗. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion ↗ or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons ↗, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion ↗. Thanks!  2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E0C1:A3E1:922:144 ↗ (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Liz. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions ↗ have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse ↗ or the Help desk ↗. Thanks. '''''L'''''iz '''''Read!''''' ↗ '''''Talk!''''' 07:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

:Hi @Liz, why can't these pages that have no history or other affluent pages or anything literally be deleted? There is no rule that allows this, in fact I even wonder if I create an infinite number of redirects if no one is going to delete them the way you have done, even if I have no use for it. Can you help me select or indicate the correct criteria to use? 44 Gabriel (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:@Liz. Why am I going to use test pages or my sandbox if the intention is to delete the same ones that are empty, without tributaries, without history! 44 Gabriel (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

25px|alt=Warning icon ↗ Please stop. If you continue to vandalize ↗ Wikipedia, as you did at :Vitoria-ASC ↗, you may be blocked from editing ↗.  ✗plicit 11:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hello, 44Gabriel. While checking over the Estádio D. Afonso Henriques ↗ article, I found that you copied text from an outside source with this edit ↗. That is a copyright violation. I have removed the initial text I've noticed (although there may still be more.) Please do not copy text from other sources. Doing so usually constitutes both a copyright violation and plagiarism. This general rule includes copying material from websites of charity or non-profit organizations, educational, scholarly and news publications, and all sources without a copyright notice. For further information, you should review WP:COPYPASTE ↗. If you have questions, please ask. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:'''By the way''', you wouldn't mind giving your opinion in the discussion of the merger or elimination, whichever is best from the article Estádio D. Afonso Henriques (1965) ↗. This is because there were only 3 articles that said that there were 2 different stadiums in Guimarães, when that is not true. However, I put it up for discussion on the Spanish wiki ↗ and the merger has already taken place there, on the Dutch wiki ↗ a consensus has already been reached and it will be held in the merger soon. However, on the English wiki ↗, no one seems to be interested in this, nor do they even respond. Am I doing something wrong or in the wrong place, at least from what I read they say to have a discussion next to the article, while in the previous two there is a dedicated space for discussion and so it was very simple, convenient and effective!? 44 Gabriel (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:Good mornig @CactusWriter. What I did was translate the Portuguese article into English, because the article was quite simplistic, or now articles are only translated when they don't exist. In any case, the references are there to prove it. But of course I know that copying paste shouldn't be done and that wasn't the intention. 44 Gabriel (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks for explaining. That's understandable. For future reference, it's always a good idea to be cautious when copying text from other sources -- including translations from other Wikipedias. Not all Wikis have the same level of oversight and review. I can take a look at the merge discussion and see if I have a qualified opinion on the subject. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi 44 Gabriel. Thank you for your work on Vitória S.C. (water polo) ↗. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol ↗ and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=please add a ref to the target page for the water polo team (and the other teams).}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>MPGuy2824<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{Re|MPGuy2824}}Hi, what are you referring to, was doing something like I did in this edition ↗?
:'''By the way''', you wouldn't mind giving your opinion in the discussion of the merger or elimination, whichever is best from the article Estádio D. Afonso Henriques (1965) ↗. This is because there were only 3 articles that said that there were 2 different stadiums in Guimarães, when that is not true. However, I put it up for discussion on the Spanish wiki ↗ and the merger has already taken place there, same on the Dutch wiki ↗. However, on the English wiki ↗, no one seems to be interested in this, nor do they even respond. Am I doing something wrong or in the wrong place, at least from what I read they say to have a discussion next to the article, while in the previous two there is a dedicated space for discussion and so it was very simple, convenient and effective!? 44 Gabriel (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::*Adding refs: Yup, that's kind of what I meant.
::*Merger discussion: You've put it in the right place. It is possible that the folks who comment on most of the merger discussions are off-wiki (or at low-activity). I wouldn't recommend that you close the discussion yourself or do the merger unilaterally, given that there has been some objection. Have patience, more editors will respond eventually. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::*:I think so too, thanks 44 Gabriel (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Football in Mozambique ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pemba ↗. 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) 19:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

CSD R3

Hi, 44 Gabriel. Please note that CSD R3 ↗:

Only applies to recent creations

Generally does not apply to redirects that are the result of a page move

Is not merely for redirects you personally view as not worthwhile, but rather for names or misspellings that, as the criterion says, are ''implausible''.

When in doubt, the correct venue is WP:RfD ↗. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:Hi,@Tamzin. Ok i will try there, but make no sense when even the title is completely wrong! 44 Gabriel (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::I mean 7 similar redirects for what!? 2 or 3 still leaves room for different ways of seeing the article now 7? If there is no more. 44 Gabriel (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:::That's the kind of argument you're free to make at RfD. It isn't a valid reason for speedy deletion though. Redirects from misspellings and alternate spellings are allowed. R3 is just for cases where the misspelling is very unusual and unlikely to help anyone. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 05:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Hi again, Is this how it should be done? F.C. Porto and Sporting C.P. rivalry ↗
::::I mean the first time, I performed Step I " Tag the redirect(s).   Enter <code>{{subst:rfd ↗|content=</code> at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter <code>}}</code> at the very end of the page." as it says to do WP:RfD ↗, more specifically How to list a redirect for discussion ↗.
::::So if the first option isn't the correct way and if the latter isn't either, I honestly can't understand, the article may not be as useful as it seems and I'll have to ask you for help! Thanks. Thanks.09:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC) 44 Gabriel (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::@Tamzin, Also where do I found this "XFD" thing? And I looked through the page and it doesn't show me anything for that. «
:::::# Enable Twinkle ↗ in the Gadgets tab ↗ of your preferences.
:::::# Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
:::::# Fill in the form and submit it.
:::::» 44 Gabriel (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::If you've enabled Twinkle, there should be a button labeled "TW" in the top right corner of every page. Click on that and there's an "XFD" button. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I dont find it, so it means its not enabled and i can use. So it has to be like this ↗? 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::You have to enable Twinkle in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets ↗. Or you can follow the manual instructions, but so far you have not followed them. When it says to put <nowiki>{{subst:rfd|content=</nowiki> at the start of the page and <nowiki>}}</nowiki> at the end, that's all you do, nothing else. No deletion reason, no other templates, not for step 1. That comes in step 2, when you edit the RfD log page. Or, again, enable Twinkle and use that.
::::::::If you're still struggling, please ask for help at The Teahouse ↗. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks is working now 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:unrelated to the csd part of this discussion, i'll recommend using wp:massxfd ↗ for nominating multiple similar redirects at once. should reduce the workload by at least 3 seconds~ '''cogsan ↗ (nag me) ↗ (stalk me) ↗''' 12:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::I've already enabled the script, but the massCfD button doesn't appear. By the way, CfD isn't for categories, because when I switch to CfD in XFD it only gives an error message for categories. 44 Gabriel (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::it'll appear in the "tools" menu around the left corner, as the "mass cfd" and "mass rfd" options
:::also, i'm not entirely sure what kind of error you're getting with categories. twinkle's xfd menu automatically selected cfd when i went to nominate a category '''cogsan ↗ (nag me) ↗ (stalk me) ↗''' 13:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::its true but you can change that in top of the box. 44 Gabriel (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::yeah, but... why would you? the xfd tool automatically selects the right venue '''cogsan ↗ (nag me) ↗ (stalk me) ↗''' 13:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::because I must have done something wrong and the massCfD button isn't showing up. 44 Gabriel (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::can you show a screenshot of the "tools" menu? should be in the left or right corner, depending on your layout
:::::::for example, it looks like this on my end. eyes more astute than those of a newborn naked mole rat ↗ will notice that the mass xfd options are available
:::::::thumb|there's probably some personal info in there ↗
:::::::'''cogsan ↗ (nag me) ↗ (stalk me) ↗''' 14:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::@Cogsan Anyway, you can't discuss it in one topic as if it were for all of them? I think this is one of the few cases where they've played around with creating redirects. Other similar pages don't contain as many redirects as this one. 44 Gabriel (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::how so? i'm not much of a Guys Kicking Balls™ expert, but those seem like differently worded variants of the same redirect to me '''cogsan ↗ (nag me) ↗ (stalk me) ↗''' 13:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Nicolinas

Hi, you changed some dates at the Nicolinas ↗ article… could you provide the sources for that change? That would make the article more accurate and suitable to read. V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:here they are:https://www.nicolinos.pt/s/79 44 Gabriel (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::also here:https://www.instagram.com/p/DB7Rz_aIPVz/ 44 Gabriel (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:the reference used is a blog really:https://www.viajarentreviagens.pt/portugal/guimaraes-nicolinas/, the one i gave are from the '''Nicolinas Festivities Committee'''. It also has a lot of information, history and other very useful articles. 44 Gabriel (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

February 2025

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to :Vitória S.C. (women's football) ↗, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines ↗ in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test ↗ Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page ↗ to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 02:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

FC Porto (women) ↗ moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to FC Porto (women) ↗. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because '''it has no sources''' and '''no context, a blank page'''.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page ↗.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. QEnigma (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Draft:FC Porto (women) ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗
{{Quote box|quote=If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article ↗.You may want to consider using the Article Wizard ↗ to help you create articles.|width=20%|align=right}}
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, :Draft:FC Porto (women) ↗, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗ and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox ↗ for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page ↗ if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by visiting the page ↗ and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Draft%3AFC+Porto+%28women%29|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here ↗.  QEnigma (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: :List of stadiums in Algeria ↗

Hello 44 Gabriel. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of :List of stadiums in Algeria ↗, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not recently created. Thank you. '''Salvio''' '''giuliano''' 18:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

:@Salvio giuliano, Maybe because it's just over a year old and highlights the fact that no one has realized that it's a minimalist repetition of the existing one. What criteria should be used? Thank you 44 Gabriel (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
::I have just redirected the page to the main article, which, in my opinion, takes care of the problem. As a general rule, speedy deletion criteria should be strictly construed, because they are basically exceptions to the principle that to delete an article you need consensus at WP:AFD ↗, so if a criterion does not apply in its entirety, it can't be used. For that, speedy deletion is a very technical area of the project. Anyway, when no criterion applies, the alternative is WP:PROD ↗, WP:AFD ↗ or, as in this case, a different alternative to deletion ↗. Best. '''Salvio''' '''giuliano''' 18:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I didn't see that you had made the redirect, Thank you.44 Gabriel (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

July 2025

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines ↗ in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name does not follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus ↗ needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test ↗ Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page ↗ to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. glman (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

September 2025

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Please stop your disruptive editing ↗.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute ↗ with another editor, 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 noticeboards ↗.

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing ↗.  Snowflake91 (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

See Official website ↗, 18 titles overall, Czechia and Slovakia 1 each (not shared as one), while Ukraine is nowehre listed. This was already discussed many times at the talk page and the current version is what was accepted as a consensus, any furhter reverts instead of starting a new talk page discussion will lead to a report for being disruptive on purpose, edit warring and not accepting established community consensus. And for the third time, Slovakia CANNOT be listed above Portugal if their record is 1x winners / 0x runners-up, while Portugal have 1x win / 1x runners-up. The list is first sorted by number of wins, and then if equal, by number of runners-up positions. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

:@Snowflake91, But if you look closely at the team and the game, the 1976 title was won by the now-defunct Czechoslovak Republic, so the title is shared between the two, as are the results up until their separation. Please click and tell me what's present in these two teams/countries, and you'll see how right I am. 17 editions can't produce 18 champions. 44 Gabriel (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

:: I know, and this is why the 1976 should be listed simply as Czechoslovakia national football team ↗, and not Czechia or Slovakia, and the problem would be solved. But the community wanted to do it the way UEFA did at their website, i.e. using Czechia and Slovakia separately. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
:::@Snowflake91, Initially, it would have made sense when UEFA only recognized one team/country as the successor to each of the previous republics, but now this is just plain stupid. Ukraine and Georgia should also be recognized, since the USSR team that won in 1960 had players from only three of the 15 countries (Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia) that formed the USSR. If it weren't for the war, this would certainly be on the table today.
:::Can you help open a new discussion to revisit this? 44 Gabriel (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes its stupid, but this is how UEFA does it, I proposed that we use the names of the countries at the time when they won those honours / reach the finals (Serbia ---> Yugoslavia, Czechia ---> Czechoslovakia, Russia ---> Soviet Union), but this proposal was dismissed for whatever stupid reasons because of that table at UEFA website. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to :Football in Portugal ↗. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments ↗ to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview ↗ button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 03:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to :Template:S.L. Benfica sections ↗. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments ↗ to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview ↗ button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 23:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

:This is the second time you have caused this issue. This time it was on a template and caused major issues. You need to WP:PREVIEW ↗ your edits!!! '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 23:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
::Hi @Zackmann08, the template has no problem at all, it hasn't become unformatted, what I did was actually merge the two tables, using other templates as examples, such as: Template:FC Bayern Munich sections ↗. I think you're misinterpreting the changes I've made, because I do use the preview and it was exactly as I wanted.44 Gabriel (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
:::You are not reading what I wrote. You introduced CAT:DUPARGS ↗ when you made your merge... If you use preview you will see a large warning saying ''"'''Warning: Template:S.L. Benfica sections''' (edit) is calling Template:Sidebar ↗ with more than one value for the "titlestyle" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. (Help)"''. I have no objection to the merge, but when you did it, you duplicated a parameter which caused an error on every page using the template... '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 23:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Problem solved, I didn't read it all, and it seemed normal, since it appears that way in all editions. 44 Gabriel (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:FC Porto (women) ↗

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, 44 Gabriel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:FC Porto (women) ↗, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted ↗, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it ↗ again or request ↗ that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted ↗ so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

:I had started writing this article, but someone decided to delete it right away, without giving me time to refresh the page, so if anyone wants to do that now, go ahead, because I don't give a shit in this particular case. 44 Gabriel (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

December 2025

30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ Your recent editing history at :List of European stadiums by capacity ↗ shows that you are currently engaged in an '''edit war ↗'''. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please ''stop editing the page'' and use the '''talk page ↗''' to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus ↗ among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished ↗. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗ such as a third opinion ↗. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection ↗ while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

'''If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing ↗ Wikipedia'''—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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'''— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Dl2000 (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

:Hi there. The other user involved will also be notified, it seems not yet, or are sides being taken now... just to clarify?
:As for the rest, thank you for your concern, I know how to behave, but I don't expect different treatment...44 Gabriel (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:Yup @Dl2000, It's always true, you still haven't done anything on his talk page. Discrimination and differential treatment always exist, which is what I've always feared, and that's why Wikipedia is getting worse and worse, unfortunately! Have a good day with this policy, but I'm here waiting for justification for such an attitude, thank you. 44 Gabriel (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

::Guess that wasn't done by the WP:DEADLINE ↗, so WP:ABF ↗? Anyway, it's WP:DR ↗ time between you and {{ping|162 etc.}}. Dl2000 (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::It clearly took a very long time, but now it's resolved and that's what matters.44 Gabriel (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Dl2000}} Thank you for your attention to this matter. However, nothing is resolved, I'm afraid. List of European stadiums by capacity ↗, as it reads today, still contains incorrect information because of good faith, yet misguided edits by User:44 Gabriel. Further discussion should be done at Talk:List of European stadiums by capacity ↗, not this talk page or mine. 162 etc. (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::@162 etc., @Dl2000 In my opinion, one of two things must be done. 1st - change the title of the article to: List... by seating capacity or 2nd - list all stadiums by total capacity and at the bottom with FIFA capacity, which is more accurate, given that since last year UEFA has allowed clubs to use seating and standing capacity in their international competitions and even advises them to use this in national leagues as long as it complies with accessibility and safety regulations.
:::::So I don't know what you want me to say, because you're just messing around with the method and you don't even have an opinion other than being against it! 44 Gabriel (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm not "messing around with the method". The article uses seated capacity. It should continue to use seated capacity unless consensus determines otherwise.
::::::Nobody at Talk:List of European stadiums by capacity ↗ has expressed support for your proposed changes. I urge you once again to use the talkpage for discussion, and to revert the edit in question. 162 etc. (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

:::::::This discussion should indeed be continued over at Talk:List of European stadiums by capacity ↗, not here or at another user talk page. Perhaps some discussion at WT:FOOTY ↗ can help resolve the dispute here. Dl2000 (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:FC Porto (women) ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

Hello, 44 Gabriel. This message concerns the Articles for Creation ↗ submission or draft ↗ page you started, "FC Porto ↗".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy ↗, and this one 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|Draft:FC Porto (women)|edit the submission}}, and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can '''request its undeletion''' ↗. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia!  DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

UEFA star system for stadiums...

...have not been used for nearly 20 years already, so do not add those stars icons to the infoboxes, they should be removed from every single stadium article. Star system does not exist anymore since 2007, so no stadium today can be "rated as 4 stars". There is only Category 4 (Elite) stadiums now, and those are only the top stadiums which can host the final of the Champions League or the final of the European Championship, so all stadiums that were rated 4 stars in 2006 are NOT category 4 by today standards. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

:You're wrong, the stars only represent the category they refer to. And there isn't only category 4, there are 3 others, and besides, you can have category 4 stadiums with 8,000 seats without hosting finals or European competitions, as long as they meet all UEFA requirements ↗. 44 Gabriel (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

::"You're wrong, the stars only represent the category they refer to." – according to who or what source? The icon clearly show stars, the icon clearly says 4/4 stars if you move mouse cursor over it, so this is outdated system that was abolished in 2007. You can call it "Category 4 UEFA Stadium" if you want, but without stars icons because this is outdated and misleading. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I have added it now, caption should be the picture caption and only after that it should display "UEFA Category 4 stadium", not icons with stars. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ You may be '''blocked from editing ↗ without further warning''' the next time you disrupt ↗ Wikipedia, as you did at :List of football stadiums in Spain ↗.  Snowflake91 (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

:You have several stadiums under construction across the country, so don't play innocent... 44 Gabriel (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
:Even if you want to take it literally, when someone removes the grass, the venue should be removed from the list because it's not among the current stadiums, seriously. 44 Gabriel (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

::Make a separate "Under construction" and "Demolished" sections then, and list future / past stadiums there? There are zero reasons to list under construction stadiums under "current stadiums". Snowflake91 (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
:::This makes no sense; all you need is a note saying "under construction." This isn't some pretty paper or 3D model saying you're going to build it without actually moving forward with the project. 44 Gabriel (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Conduct

Hi. I'm responding to the edits you made to List of association football venues in the Republic of Ireland ↗, specifically this edit ↗ with an ad hominem comment and this other edit summary ↗ which contained an accusation.
Writing that a user is 'a little communist' and accusing them of incompetence ↗ are violations of our policy against making personal attacks on other editors ↗. Please see here ↗ for how calling someone a communist is a personal attack.
Personal attacks and saying to a user 'You don't know how to edit, do you?' are rude and hurtful to them, and therefore also break our rules on editing and discussing in a constructive and civil manner ↗.
These policies, also known as WP:NPA ↗ and WP:CIVIL ↗, are important core policies in the Wikipedia community.
I understand you may be frustrated with my edits, however, incivility is not excused on the grounds that an editor has the "correct" position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes.
Can I ask that you please withdraw your uncivil comments by striking through them, or to re-word them calmly and neutrally. You can do this by putting the comment within a strike like this: <s>within a strikeout</s>. If you want to politely restate the points you were trying to make, that would be great, but retracting the actual attack would be very helpful.
I hope that the explanation above is clear and helpful but if not, I'd be happy to explain further. The Wikipedia community expects that everyone who is participating will respect each other and cooperate in a collaborative manner. I hope that you understand how important civil discussion is for the community to thrive. I expect that you will try and discuss things in a more constructive manner in the future.
Thank you. ElfmanWriter (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, When absolutely all my edits are reverted without even the slightest consideration, and this practice is repeated time and repeatedly, what do you expect to happen? This is tantamount to persecution through censorship. It is a deplorable attitude, incompatible with the principles of an open community, which automatically devalues the contributions of other users. Yes, I hate it when someone undoes an edit I made, only to then re-edit it without even apologizing, as if some kind of regime with predefined rules existed there, hence the analogy. The worst part of these disputes is that many times it takes a little nudge to wake people up, which is why we're here discussing this, because the truth is what you demonstrated was an attitude of reverting just because, since you didn't even notice the error and didn't bother to check the corrections to the table's distortion, which were all too obvious.
:However, as I always do when it makes sense, as is the case here, I apologise for comparing your attitude to <s>communism</s>.
:"You can do this by putting the comment within a strike like this: <s>within a strikeout</s>." - You say to do this in the edit summary, because there I can’t change it, but I’ve already done it on the talk page.44 Gabriel (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
::Hi @44 Gabriel,
::Firstly, thank you for your apology. I appreciate you recognising that your comments were not appropriate or helpful to the community in these instances. However, I am concerned that you have ignored the derogatory references to my editing ability, failed to retract your uncivil comments and only struck out the word "communists" on the talk page. If this was an oversight on your part, please take the necessary steps to address these personal attacks.

::While I did not ask you to strike out the edit summaries, as you correctly point out, most editors are unable to perform this removal hence why it is a violation of WP:CIVIL ↗ and WP:NPA ↗ to include personal attacks in this location. It will require an administrator to remove your edit summaries, which we may be able to request if you are amenable to it.

::Finally, making bold edits followed by reversions is part of the Bold, revert, discuss cycle ↗ strategy on Wikipedia, assumes good faith and should not be taken personally. If you do not wish to get involved in the discussion cycle, it may be helpful for you to consult this article as simply reapply your edits instead can be viewed as edit warring by other editors.

::In summary, personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia and reversions you don't agree with is not a reason to attack other editors. Please retract your comments so we can return the discussion to the content changes. ElfmanWriter (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vitória S.C. (basketball) ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ricardo Montero ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)