User talk:Mattythewhite

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32	Archive 33
Archive 34	Archive 35	Archive 36
Archive 37	Archive 38	Archive 39
Archive 40	Archive 41	Archive 42
Archive 43	Archive 44	Archive 45
Archive 46	Archive 47	Archive 48
Archive 49	Archive 50	Archive 51
Archive 52	Archive 53	Archive 54
Archive 55

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

Oversighter changes

Technical news

Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help and/or guidance with an editor we have both warned

Hello, would you mind offering me some help and/or guidance with the situation here, as well as the section above it on the Talk page titled "February 2025." This editor has called my statements of and references to consensus "stupid," reverted consensus-based edits over and over again, and accused me of prejudice against Indonesian players. This editor has been warned multiple times, by both me and you, and they don't seem interested in understanding the process of arriving at consensus. I have invited them to bring up the issue at WP:FOOTY if they believe that the current consensus is incorrect, and I have provided them with examples of their own edits that are indeed correct, in order to show WP:GOODFAITH, but they continue to insist that, somehow, the argument is a "personal" one between the two of us. I'm at a total loss about what to do here. I would appreciate any help and/or guidance you can offer. Anwegmann (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anwegmann: I see that GS has stepped in so I won't intervene for now, but let me know if you need help if this persists. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ian Wolstenholme

On 13 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ian Wolstenholme, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that English footballer Ian Wolstenholme once saved three penalty kicks in a 1966 match? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ian Wolstenholme. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ian Wolstenholme), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Mac Allister

Hi I noticed you and another user make a few edits here and there are a few problems. For starters you stated "Mac Allister is a family name originating from Scotland" which is redundant as not only did the Gaels in Scotland originally come from Ireland to begin with but Mac Allisters have been found in Ireland since at least the 14th century, so their Irish descendants aren't exactly "Scottish" anymore. It would be like saying "X is a family name originating from Normandy" for any English footballer with a historical Norman name.

Then you said Mac Allister "stated that he is aware of links to Scotland" which he did not say at all in the interview (which you removed as a source). He said the surname is Irish and he doesn't know why people keep claiming it's Scottish.

Lastly your source to apparent Fife ancestry states "Information on the move from Fife to Argentina is scarce, but reports from the Irish Times, tie the family links to Finglas in Co. Dublin". So there's no actual proof of Fife ancestry and you'd think Alexis would have mentioned it in the interview alongside his Irish family if there was. More speculative nonsense. Stevenbfg (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevenbfg: I restored content that had been previously added as part of a wider revert. If you can improve on the content, then great. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We both seem to be on the same page when it comes to that user with no account edit warring without sources. If you report him, i'll back you up. Stevenbfg (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sock report

Good evening to you,

after what i saw/reverted at Rubén García (footballer, born 1993) (for the second time!), really i don't feel much imagination is required at this point, this IP you warned/blocked here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.125.139.219) is also the account User:Pablo Cepeda-Salas. Note how the latter was blocked back in the day (and it is CONFIRMED they are a sock of User:Olimpia de Minas, who also only "contributed" in adding honours); the ban was then lifted, but they continue making the same shenanigans (i.e. this, they added YOUTH honours to Bernardo Espinosa without any sources; they would have been unencylopedical even with one no? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernardo_Espinosa&diff=prev&oldid=1276112402). Additionally, i have seen many instances of the 70 IP adding, as the sock Olimpia did, FRIENDLY honours to players bios; ALL three parties (70 IP, the two accounts) only edit in the same department, honours, no further proof needed i wager.

Brought this originally to the attention of @Yamla:, who had blocked O. Minas, did not receive one inch of a reply. Attentively c (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RevampedEditor: I've given them a warning about editing while logged out. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sébastien Puygrenier

Hi Matty. At Sébastien Puygrenier, why did you change [[Category:Men's association football central defenders]] to [[Category:Men's association football defenders]]? Also, why did you remove his L'Équipe profile? As far as I can tell infobox caps are unverifiable now. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, at Didier Digard, without the BDFutbol, L'Équipe and Soccerbase profiles, where's the verification for the infobox caps? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't feel we need the more specific position categories hence why I changed it. I mean, we don't have subcats for defensive midfielders or centre-forwards, so why do we for central defenders and full-backs?

@Robby.is.on: The infobox appearance and goal data should be properly sourced to begin with, and an external links section is not the place for that. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanations, Matty. I don't feel we need the more specific position categories […]. Okay. But they exist. Wouldn't it be more constructive to initiate a deletion discussion of the categories instead of having editors editing differently and according to how they "feel"? To me, it makes sense to use the categories as long as they exist. we don't have subcats for defensive midfielders or centre-forwards I don't know whether it has been discussed whether we should differentiate defensive and attacking midfielders. I'm skeptical whether that differentiation is as useful as that of central defenders and full-backs. I don't know what a centre-forward category would do for us – we do have a sub-category for wingers.

The infobox appearance and goal data should be properly sourced to begin with Okay, fair enough. How would we go about that without a stats table? The way I see it we're worse off without the ELs at Puygrenier and Digard. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: That's fair regarding the categories. Having a project-wide discussion to establish consensus would be better than my drive-by changes based on personal preference.

Hmm, we could restore the ELs, or even better would be to include them in the references section (like here). Mattythewhite (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. a project-wide discussion to establish consensus I'd welcome that. For infobox stats, I'd be fine with the Keith Fahey solution, it's clearer than ELs. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]