User talk:Scientelensia/Archive2

February 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Roberto Firmino. GiantSnowman 20:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear GiantSnowman,

As you may have noticed, none of my edits were or personal. They merely stated Firmino's status as a world-class striker, which, if you have watched him in recent years, you would see as well. I believe the continual improving of pages is necessary therefore this is why I added descriptions of each of Firmino's seasons, similar to as is done here. They may be my own descriptions but they were based off content already on the page so I see no reason why you cannot change them to meet your standards or opinions rather than simply going backwards again in the editing process. However, I want to thank you for opting to include some of my edits the second time as I do believe that they do improve readability.

Thank you,

Scientelensia Scientelensia (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agatha Christie's Poirot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Yelland.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Darwin Nunez article

Why did you remove the sentence? It is obviously not vandalism if the claim is sourced by three different reliable references. Mwiqdoh (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I removed it as it if not generally done for subjective harmful comments to be allowed on a footballer’s opening biography. Let us take Harry Maguire as an example. Despite often being criticised for his performances, this criticism which many called unfairly directed to him has not been added to the immediate paragraph on his Wikipedia page. Instead, such information has been detailed on his Club Career section.

Moreover, Nunez has only missed some chances recently in his career and at Benfica was a prolific striker. Thus, it is unfair to say that he is “notorious” for missing big chances as in the Liga Portugal he is not “known” for this in any way at all.

Finally, Nunez’s critics normally come from fans who are not disposed to like the club he plays for (in particular other ‘Big Six’ clubs such as Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United) and thus there may be an element of bias or jealousy in whoever added the statement. You can see that the sources the user cites actually also display many positive stats of Nunez.

Ultimately, if you insist on seeing this statement on Nunez’s Wikipedia page then I recommend you move the statement to Club Career in an appropriate format. But thanks for your message: it’s nice to talk in a non toxic manner which is not something often found here! Scientelensia (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why we don't include criticism of a player in the beginning sections if we include the strengths of a player. Mwiqdoh (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I know what you mean yet Nunez has been recognised (if not known) for his ability at Benfica across a couple seasons. This ability is beginning to be shown at Liverpool I reckon. Whereas, Núñez’s missed chances is only becoming a big thing this season and so it’s questionable whether most would normally associate him with missing. Also the word notorious is not entirely unbiased as a lot of Liverpool fans love him and many others recognise his talent. Also, to take Ousmane Dembele as an example: when he first joined Barca, he was booed by fans for poor performances and had lots of injuries and this was detailed under his club career section due to him not being known for having many injuries at his previous club. Again though, thank you sincerely for engaging with me rationally and calmly, it’s discussions like these that help make Wikipedia better 😄

Many thanks, Scientelensia (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Roberto Firmino, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Per MOS:LEAD. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

But (not to be rude) isn’t the same style where a players’ status is somewhat detailed at the top used in other articles? Like Suarez for example. I could name so many others. The rest of the Mane Salah and Firmino trio have such descriptions, so why do you insist on removing this information and other stuff like it on other pages? Look at his stats over the years: he clearly deserves this description. If you want me to add more sources, please tell me. Finally, can I ask how it makes accessiblity and readability worse? Scientelensia (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, upon this: “ wasn't part of the squad for the final, and Liverpool's website isn't independent enough a source to use for one of their player's honours ” wasn’t he still part of the matches before. Maybe just add a different source then! And please read my response if you are going to leave a message, do not ignore it. Scientelensia (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear User:MattytheWhite and User:GiantSnowman,

I am sorry to have offended you in any way, shape or form. I am just very confused about the nature of your reverts. Perhaps you could explain to me – I would be very appreciative if you read this.. I edited the article Roberto Firmino, adding with references that “Regarded at his peak as one of the greatest strikers in world football, Firmino is known for his clinical finishing, proficient technical ability and impressive workrate.”

I had seen such comments added to the top (and not just the Style of Play sections) to several notable footballers such as Cafu, Philippe Coutinho and Fernando Torres. Thus, I thought that adding a widely-held view to the top of an article fitted with the Manual of Style policies as it was consistent. Please correct me if there is something about Firmino which means he is not designated such a comment as I am so far unaware of this. Notably, the two other players in ‘the Fab Three’ attacking trident, Sadio Mané and Mohamed Salah are allowed descriptive comments at their top and if you look at Firmino’s stats I feel like he merits the descriptive comment I added. Moreover, the article previously linked for Fernando Torres includes his nickname, as does the article for Salah, but me adding “also known as Bobby Firmino” was removed for a reason I am not currently aware of.

Furthermore, I updated his honours, mentioning that he had won a trophy (the EFL Cup) but this was reverted as he had not played in the final. However, him being unavailable for the final/not having played in the final has no impact on whether he won the trophy or not. A recent example of this is Martin Dúbravka, who won the latest tournament of the EFL Cup without having played in the finals. I also updated his honours in the top description as this information only went up to 2020 or so, yet this was removed, along with the fact that Firmino was in an attacking trio with Mané and Salah which picked up many trophies. Again, I am not sure why this was reverted. If the reason is that you believe my edits have been disruptive in the past, I would beg you to look past this and focus on the quality and factuality of the edits, not on what you think of me for any incorrect statements that I may have made.

Finally, User:GiantSnowman mentioned that I did not “inspire confidence” as they believed I removed my own edit. However, I hope I am not wrong in pointing out that the evidence provided ( removed it 15 minutes previously) in fact shows that i added the information, whereas this information: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roberto_Firmino&diff=next&oldid=1142674094 shows that User:GiantSnowman actually deleted it as I had been “reverted” in the past.

I am sorry to have cause offence to you or your edits and hope that you will consider what I have written here.

With warm regards, Scientelensia (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you really find the description that annoying then instead of removing could you perhaps change it to a more suitable format in your opinion? Scientelensia (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

You have already been reverted - please do not re-add the information. GiantSnowman 19:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not re-add information, this was new stuff. You can check the history and read the edits: I was just giving the page a bit of an update, like trophies he won more recently. Scientelensia (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

As a heads up, competence is required to edit Wikipedia. You asking why content was "mindlessly" removed (the EFL Cup honours), when you yourself removed it 15 minutes previously, does not inspire confidence. GiantSnowman 21:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Click on that last link – that is me adding information, not removing it…

you can see that it says reverted, meaning the info was deleted. Scientelensia (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

No, that second edit shows you deleting the EFL Cup from the honours. This is the version of the page immediately following your edit - no mention of EFL Cup in the honours. If you cannot even read a basic diff, my concerns are amplified. GiantSnowman 09:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you actually serious? The link I sent shows that you made an edit and then deleted it. However, is you refuse to believe this, perhaps you will let me re add the content. Scientelensia (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Like actually click on the clinks? I am astounded! Also if you have any comment on what I also said, may you tell me? Scientelensia (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Per the request on my talk, I am working back through this, but meanwhile, please see my post at GiantSnowman's page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks :) Scientelensia (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Roberto Firmino

• 17:47, February 5, 2023 GiantSnowman removes a series of Scientelensia edits as UNDUE and POV.
  • This edit added content to the lead that was not already in the body. "Regarded at his peak as one of the greatest strikers in world football, Firmino is known for his clinical finishing, proficient technical ability and impressive work rate." Keep in mind WP:LEAD: leads summarize the body, and starting out editing the lead of a developed article by adding to the lead rarely works out well. You should first add content in the appropriate part of the body, and then work with others towards summarizing to the lead. However, I'm missing what the POV from GiantSnowman's edit summary is (not an association football fan).
  • It is also unclear if those sources are adequate for that kind of content. As but one example, see WP:FORBESCON.
  • While it is true that many articles use the kinds of section headings added by Scientelensia, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies and working towards consensus on talk would help.
• 20:03, February 5, 2023 Scientelensia edits again, a few changes, but essentially similar content, same sources.
• 20:39, February 5, 2023 GiantSnowman reverts again
  • Scientelensia, this is edit warring. There is no discussion on talk. Once you've been reverted once, you should always initiate a discussion on talk before re-inserting similar content. Throughout this issue, there is no discussion on talk, which doesn't reflect well on anyone in this matter (that is, all three parties).
• 16:22, March 3, 2023 Scientelensia again added the same content but immediately reverted it.
  • What was that about? In this case, if you had used a descriptive edit summary to explain yourself, it could have helped. Was it a misclick, etc ?? Better use of the article talk page, and edit summaries, will help avoid having others lodge a WP:CIR charge.
• 19:45, March 3, 2023 Scientelensia adds new content in a later series of edits.
• 19:51, March 3, 2023 GiantSnowman reverts with the edit summary, "you have already been reverted".
  • I am not seeing that; this seems to be new content with new sources. Did I miss something?
• 20:01, March 3, 2023 Scientelensia reinstates the content with the edit summary, "EFL Cup. Why was this reverted mindlessly?"
  • This is somewhat understandable as the reason given by GiantSnowman appears inadequate. But. Same as above. First, take it to talk. Second, avoid using edit summaries that will only inflame the situation (eg, words like mindlessly) even if it seems true.
• 20:03, March 3, 2023 Scientelensia makes a minor one-word change with edit summary, "Mattythewhite please could you read my reply to you and maybe consider it/ think about it?"
  • In circumstances where one knows other editors well and they have a long history of mutual editing, they often use pings in edit summaries to alert each other. That is not the case here, and you shouldn't use edit summaries in place of discussion. Again, there is nothing at all on article talk, and this is a problem here (on all counts).
• 07:59, March 4, 2023 Scientelensia uses edit summary for attempts to communicate.
  • OK, I understand that it is frustrating that Mattythewhite and GiantSnowman aren't communicating with you on talk, but there is an accumulation of issues here, and it all starts at the same place.

Conclusions; no one involved here is coming out looking great. But ... Scientelensia:

1. Don't ever reinstate an edit that has been removed once. Take it to talk, always.
2. Don't attempt communication via edit summaries unless you have a long history of editing with another editor and a very good relationship, and even then, do so sparingly.
3. It does not appear to me that you have been treated entirely fairly here, but on the other hand, it is understandable that your first edits back in February may have left others frustrated. Because you are operating under a previous topic ban (which may have been too harshly applied as my first foray in to WP:AE), it is likely that others will scrutinize your edits, and your own behavior has to be top-notch regardless of what other editors do.
4. I'm not really understanding whty MattytheWhite and GiantSnowman are may seem to be ignoring your pleas.

Hope this helps, and my suggestion is that you may find it easier to edit in other areas for a while as you develop knowledge of Wikipedia. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Faulty ping above, re-do: Mattythewhite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I've replied multiple times here, with explanations and diffs, so why are you accusing me of ignoring this editor? GiantSnowman 20:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it reads as an accusation; it would be better to state that even I did not understand your responses above, and they don't fit with the history as I can reconstruct it. I may have missed something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said above - I did not remove the EFL Cup honour, Scientelensia did themselves, see here. It was then reinstated by Scientelensia and then removed by MTW for the reasons set out in his edit summary (the sourcing was inadequate). GiantSnowman 20:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

If Mattythewhite reverted that specific content, I missed it in my summary and still don't see it. At any rate. What is more important at this juncture (rather than getting mired in diffs and who did what when) is that Scientelensia take on board my recommendations going forward. I empathize with everyone's frustration at this point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Diff here. GiantSnowman 20:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

GiantSnowman I may be misreading, but I thought that edit was not Scientelensia's ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

They added it, then removed it in the next edit, then re-added it, and then Matty re-removed it. GiantSnowman 20:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh sorry, if that’;s true I didnt intend that…? Scientelensia (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to say, I’ve not used the talk page here instead of changing it: Talk:Roberto Firmino#Proposition Scientelensia (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if I removed the EFL Cup part, but I did not remove the other parts you said I did which were detailed above. Thanks SandyGeorgia for evaluating this so greatly :) Scientelensia (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. At this point, it's probably best to stop discussing who did what when, and move on. I've left you a lot of advice and recommendations above, and you need to take all of that on board. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Please clarify what you think I accused you of removing? GiantSnowman 20:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought you accused me of removing the parts detailing other trophies and updates to the description up top. Essentially, this: “After starting his career with Figueirense in 2009, he spent four-and-a-half seasons at 1899 Hoffenheim. His 16 goals in 33 games in the 2013–14 Bundesliga season earned him the award for the league's Breakthrough Player. In July 2015, he signed for Liverpool where he earned plaudits for his creativity, goalscoring and work-rate, with manager Jürgen Kloppreferring to Firmino as the "engine" that propels the club's counter-pressing system. Firmino was notably part of a successful attacking trident with Sadio Mané and Mohammed Salah. In the 2018–19 season he won the UEFA Champions League, and the following season won the UEFA Super Cup, the FIFA Club World Cup after scoring the winner in the final, and the 2019–20 Premier League title. Following this, Firmino has also won the 2021–22 FA Cup, the 2021–22 EFL Cup and the 2021–22 FA Community Shield.

Firmino made his international debut for Brazil in November 2014. He represented the nation at the 2015 and 2019, the latter of which he won with his country. Furthermore, Firmino has played for his nation at the 2021 Copes América as well as the 2018 FIFA World Cup.”

I was confused as you yourself removed this later and I didnt know that you were referring to the EFL Cup. Scientelensia (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, so it was a messy situation, best now to let it go and use article talk in the future, and Never Ever Edit War. Those are the main things that led to the problem to begin with. I'm moving on now :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Good plan 😅 Scientelensia (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Darwin Núñez. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Darwizzy is the goat

Make the title of the darwizzy wiki to darwizzy is the goat. And make there be more emphasis on the 7-0 win I don't think it's mentioned enough. V much appreciated and I will be in contact shortly .

Ligm a Darwizzy 89.106.143.3 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)