User talk:BEN917

Welcome to my talk page!

Leave a message to comment on my contributions so we discuss if it is to keep them or remove them.

-Comment bellow:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Stelios Skevofilakas, you may be blocked from editing. GiantSnowman 10:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, your device must be malfunctioning, there is no other explanation... The content I added was a direct translation from the sources that are already in this article, some of which are crosschecked and thus verify my every sentence. I didn't alter a single aspect or put anything beside what the sources were refering, neither I added my personal point of view. But of course you wouldn't notice, maybe because you didn't bother to open any of those sources and see what are they about. Nonetheless, you did bother by the fact that my contributions made your mouse unstick from your favourite "undo" button and actually move you from your chair to "take action" by deleting every sentence I wrote without a cite at its end, deeming it unsourced. You even deleted the honors' section I created, that beside the noumerous sources that verify it, you can also go to the club's article or officia site and check it out by yourself. (Did you?)

As you see, this article has been rated as stub, but has the material to be expanded, if only you take a look in the part under the title which writes "References". You chose not to, but I really just want to help, under the rules and policies of Wikipedia. My opinion: change the article back to my last version, or try yourself to use the sources to expand it, as you don't like me to do this work (You can ask me for help). Do as you please, you may need to get your device fixed, if that's the problem. Alternatively, you may do dislike the facts, but do not shoot the messenger. BEN917 20:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<ref name=1"/> & <ref name=2"/> in 2018–19 AEK Athens F.C. season
the name should always use "" (it encloses even spaces inside) BUT just 1 & 2 are Not valid
After someone added the missing leading " only
the page had 15 - Cite error: The <ref> tag name cannot be a simple integer (see the help page).
Always use : with a simple number as in <ref name=":1" /> & <ref name=":2" />
Dave-okanagan (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for the creating more AEK Athens' seasons, cleaning up the Greek Cup's season articles, adding the match datas (goalscorers, attendances and referees) and splitting the Finals in a separate article, just keep it up. I have a request to creating a more Beta and Gamma Ethniki season's articles, and a creating more new and developing existing Olympiacos, Panathinaikos, and a more Greek clubs's season articles, and a adding the top scorer lists in a existing Beta and Gamma Ethniki season's articles that do not have it. Jolicnikola (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also you can make the lists of seasons of Panathinaikos and many more Greek clubs, and develop the lists of seasons of Olympiacos and OFI. Jolicnikola (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much mate! It means a lot to me coming from a user like you. I will see what I can do about the top scorer lists on lower divisions. Unfortunately, in order to pull the Greek Cup and the Greek Championship project off, I had to sideline my main project for a great deal of time now and I just want not delay it any longer. Strangely enough, you can find my checklist in my sandbox. I will keep going with the Greek Cup Finals for a while as the main reason which I started the projects with the greek competitions was to improove the way of how these article were made so in the future they would be better made, as well as to help with my main project which is linked to such articles. Till we'll meet again! BEN917 10:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	This is an excellent article for a team's season. Well done! Whiteguru (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting content from reliable secondary sources? Those sources are reliable secondary sources from Canadian national newspapers. Those sources you removed confirm that those Greek players played in the National Soccer League during the European offseason. You did not provide a valid reason as to why you removed them. Thank you Shotgun pete (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some issues about the content I removed from those players.

1. What reliable sources? There was no URL to lead me to any site to cross check the information. For all I know you could have made it up since only the title can be seen. Thus the sources are for sure not reliable and the content which reverted back to those articles is poorly sourced at least. Find better sources that other users can check their reliability.
2. Every source about the players bio I checked does ever mention about them playing for Toronto homer. I can cite them to the articles fyi.
3. When you reverted my edits you also reverted other things I changed, such as fixing redirects. Any reason for you doing that?

I'll give you some time to find the appropriate sources that valid your content (if that ever happened) and fix the redirects, or else the articles must be reverted to my last update so the poorly sourced (unsourced) content would be removed and all the redirects would be fixed, as well. BEN917 9:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The material in section Overview appeared to be a word-for-word translation of [1] with a bit of reshuffling. Nothing on this site suggests that it has a license compatible with Wikipedia or is public domain material, so that content appeared to be a copyright and I removed it. Previously, I removed it and requested its deletion as a copyvio, though I see you reinstated it after the previous revisions were deleted. I'm once again tagging it for revision deletion per the copyright policy; please try to avoid such close paraphrasing in the future. ComplexRational (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ComplexRational The site is not a public domain material, and you can use it in wikipedia. And even if it wasn't, the text descibes the FACTS that occured in the article. But did you even bother to read it? If it is the site that bothers you can just delete the source and leave the text be, don't mess with my work without a proper reason. Furthermore, if you find the overview to be inadequate why don't you write it yourself from scratch, instead of ruining other people's efforts? Nevertheless, I will add to the article more reliable sources but the text stays. BEN917 14:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The site can only be used within Wikipedia if it is either public domain or has a proper CC BY-SA or GFDL license. I read the text and determined with a translator that it's nearly a word-for-word copy of the source, which is most certainly a proper reason for removal, because sometimes there are legal implications. I'm not objecting to the content, only asking that you write it in a way that doesn't copy the source word-for word (i.e., paraphrase). Also see Wikipedia:Ownership of content – you do not own the article, and if there are policy-backed reasons for removal of content, content will be removed. ComplexRational (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ComplexRational When I asked if you read it, I was referring to the article as a whole, so you could check if the text is corresponding to the article's content. Of course I know that I don't own any wikipedia article. Nevertheless I'll see what I can do about the configuration of the text. BEN917 17:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've done a bit of work on the text, though the paraphrasing is still too close to the source, and would in any case need considerable copy editing (though that's outside the scope of this discussion). My personal recommendation would be to rewrite it entirely (and then have the original revision-deleted) – a season overview is definitely welcome in the article once the copyvio issue is solved. ComplexRational (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to chime in, I think most of it is fine as it is facts and no one owns facts. However, there are several descriptive lines that are clearly translated derivatives and violate copyright of the source website.

Towards the end of the season, administrative turmoil and some financial issues began, as the players started having "absurd" demands for the time

The rematch at Diekman Stadion was turned into a real nightmare for AEK

That's two but there may be others. Please review your work and make the necessary corrections and rev-del request. Slywriter (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the parts that you mentioned and it would be nice if you suggest me any other parts that need change if they exist. Moreover, as long as I searched it I don't understand why you consider the site "kitrinomavro.gr" as a public domain. I tried to find a section where you could sign-up or log-in the site to edit its content, but it was fruitless. Thus, from the moment that not anyone can access the site's editing sections why consider it a public domain? Unless there's something I got wrong. In conclusion, if I'm correct there is no need of further changing the text as I placed the source at the end. BEN917 13:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding. Since the site is not public domain, it is subject to copyright. That is the website owns and controls the text including the right to translate the text. Any word for word machine translation violates the copyright of the website. You need to summarize in your own words. Slywriter (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ComplexRational Why do you continute doing what you doing after I explained to you that the source is not a public domain and since I changed all the parts that needed changing? The overview contains most of the main sources, so thats more than enough for not deleting the overview. BEN917 3:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you reworked the text, which is good, but older revisions of the article are still copyright violations and need to be redacted. Once again, the overview section is fine as long as it's in your own words: the tag simply requests deletion of the un-paraphrased version, not the current version. And you answered your own question: I explained to you that the source is not a public domain means that there is a copyright unless the license is very clearly compatible with Wikipedia. Conversely, public domain means there is no copyright, and public domain material will generally have a clear indication (e.g., copyright expired, or the author has labeled it as public domain). Please read up on public domain and the copyright policy—it still seems like you're misunderstanding the crux of this issue—and try to follow the advice that I and other editors have given you. ComplexRational (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BEN917

Thank you for creating 2015 Greek Football Cup Final.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BEN917,

Thank you for creating Petros Karavitis.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for the article, though please remember that a word-for-word copy or translation from another source is a copyright violation and thus inappropriate. There are no indications that AEKPEDIA is freely licensed, so I had to remove close paraphrasing of the machine translation. However, I was able to preserve some non-infringing text, and feel free to expand the article in your own words. I've warned you about this issue before, and because copyright infringement is a serious matter, your contributions will come under further scrutiny if this continues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ComplexRational}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

^Complex/_Rational 14:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: Do you want to send you the sources and write the articles yourself? BEN917 19:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that will be necessary. Are you aware of the problems with copying and pasting non-free source material? Your articles are most welcome, but Wikipedia cannot accept copyright infringement. ^Complex/_Rational 16:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: I know what are you talking about but, sometimes it seems that you check too thoroughly on the material and it is a little rough for me to change facts that are simply put within the source. (ex: "Ben plays for Diagoras." I don't think I should bother in changing that kind of phrases.) Furthermore some of the sentences are transitional between the facts, while the way some sentences are written are difficult to understand their exact point (mainly because of them might have double meaning) so I keep them as they are, to not risk to write misinformation in the article. I spend a lot of time forming the text but my priority is to keep all the facts in the article and provide as much information I can so I primarily focus on not to miss out or make a mistake about the material that is provided. BEN917 21:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some short and simple phrases can be left as they are, and trying to paraphrase them can be cumbersome. Similarly, I very much understand that you don't want to misrepresent the facts. However, when a whole paragraph (or, even worse, an entire page) is nearly identical to the source material or translation, there is cause for concern. Checking for copyright and close paraphrasing is an essential part of the new page patrol process; I don't intend to single out your edits, but it's important to keep in mind that yhe consequences of not checking thoroughly could potentially result in legal issues between Wikipedia and the copyright holders. There are, however, plenty of ways to maintain information integrity without running afoul of copyrights.

One way – and that also helps keeping information accurate, unbiased (I'm not trying to imply that something else is wrong with your edits), and unambiguous (i.e., avoiding double meanings) – is to refer to multiple sources and rewrite the pertinent information in your own words, introducing transitions naturally as you go along. In doing so, you avoid the risks of close paraphrasing and introducing bias (since many sports publications are inherently biased), and likely provide a more complete picture than any one source gives on its own. Sometimes, this may not mean "keeping them as they are", and I'm not claiming to be infallible, but take a look at how I reworked the text in this article (Petros Karavitis) to keep most of the facts and avoid mimicking the source. Language such as "the red and whites" can be easily reworked to be neutral and originally worded; additionally, several other instances are awkward machine translations, so the necessary copyediting to make it read naturally as English is the perfect opportunity to rewrite in your own words and introduce other sources. That's all you need to do – it may sound like a lot, and I didn't learn about all this overnight, but the majority of Wikipedia articles are built this way and I'll be happy to answer any more specific questions that you have. ^Complex/_Rational 21:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BEN917. Thank you for creating 1960–61 AEK Athens F.C. season. User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for making this project better!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BEN917. Thank you for creating 1959–60 AEK Athens F.C. season. User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your contributions! Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Come on please make an article of a 2022-23 season of the Greek Football Cup, when you could make a major rearrangement of a season's articles of the Greek Cup. Jolicnikola (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolicnikola: Done! Anything else that needs to be done? BEN917 12:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC+3)

Μία παράκληση όταν δουλεύεις σεζόν Κυπέλλου. Μην αλλάζεις την σειρά της κλήρωσης, άσχετα με το πως ορίζονται οι αγώνες μετά. Και σε όλα τα άρθρα της UEFA η σειρά με την οποία κληρώνονται οι ομάδες μένει ανέπαφη. Συνέχισε την καλή δουλειά. Μπράβο Abudabanas (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC+2)

@Abudabanas: Έγινε και ευχαριστώ που καθαρίζεις απο πίσω μου. Απλά όταν διορθώνεις τη σειρά των αγώνων στο Summary κάνε το και στους Αγώνες από κάτω! Επίσης αν μπορείς να συμπληρώσεις τους αγώνες στη φετίνη σεζόν. Ευχαριστώ για τη βοήθεια! Keep it up! BEN917 13:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC+2)

@BEN917: Μόλις βρω λίγο χρόνο, θα διορθώνω και τη σειρά στα ματς, έχεις δίκιο, έτσι είναι και στα Ευρωπαικά απ'ότι βλέπω. Abudabanas (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Διόρθωσα στο ΠΑΟ-ΠΑΟΚ το Κύπελλο γιατί δεν έβγαινε καλά όπως το είχες κάνει. Abudabanas (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Επιλήφθηκα επ' αυτού. Ο,τι βοήθεια χρειάζεσαι μου λες. Επιπροσθέτως θα ήθελα αν μπορείς να τσεκάρεις εδώ και να αλλάξεις τους αντίστοιχους τομείς και για τα άλλα ελληνικά ντέρμπι. Και όπως σου έχω πει και παραπάνω, αν μπορείς να συμπληρώσεις τους αγώνες από όλες τις φάσεις του Κυπέλλου στις σεζον 2022-23 και 2023-24. BEN917 10:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BEN917. Thank you for creating 1964–65 AEK Athens F.C. season. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BEN917. Thank you for your work on Theofilos Vernezis. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BEN917. Thank you for your work on Nikos Zagotsis. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that user sandbox pages such as User talk:BEN917/sandbox are not allowed to be filed in mainspace categories as if they were completed articles. Categories may be added to the page if and when you're moving it to mainspace as a real article, but are not allowed to be on the page while it's in sandbox. Since I note that the page has had to be removed from categories five times in the month of November alone, please note that this is not a rule you're free to disregard at your leisure -- it's a rule you can actually be outright blocked from editing Wikipedia at all on disruption grounds if you continue to flout. Bearcat (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben. I'm afraid your changes to the "Honours" section at Angelos Charisteas were regressions. Using semicolons (;) instead of ''' violates MOS:PSEUDOHEAD. Going forward, please use the standard layout and formatting as outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players which is the result of past discussions of the community of football editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football.

Also, " Greek former professional footballer" is preferable to " Greek former international footballer" so I have also reverted that change. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: Thank you for letting me know. I'll change it to other articles too! BEN917 13:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC+2)

You're welcome. Very good! :-) Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the correct term is 'footballer' not 'football player' - I have reverted some of your edits accordingly. GiantSnowman 19:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greek football PSAP awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Markus Münch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a correct tables of Gamma Ethniki from 1982 to 1997 because on the tables that I took up from RSSSF there are mistakes, such as points, wins, draws, losses and a goal differences, so maybe you have you a that tables? Jolicnikola (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolicnikola Look on the Greek articles and if they don't help I'll try to look it up tomorrow. Note that some mistakes might have been due to punishments or something. BEN917 00:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC+2)

@Jolicnikola You should also look the results of each team in order to check if the tables are right. BEN917 9:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC+2)

@BEN917 You could be help to order the table since I can hardly do it alone, I don't have much time for it. Jolicnikola (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BEN917 It's possible that the results tables are incorrect, and that's why they are not included in the table. Jolicnikola (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please be aware of MOS:OVERLINK which says to not link "names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar", for example nationalities like Greek. I have removed the link at Mimis Papaioannou. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a correct tables of Beta Ethniki from 1961 to 1983? The same story as with third division tables. Jolicnikola (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolicnikola Follow the corresponding Greek articles, I couldn't find any better. As far as I've seen you could find out the correct point deductions and they also provide with additional sources to insert to the ones that you make. BEN917 17:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC+3)

Hello BEN917, while searching for misspelled words, I came across History of AEK Athens F.C. and applaud your attention to detail. However, Wikipedia Guidelines have upper limits for page length; see WP:LENGTH. For example, most people would agree that the articles on World War I at 144,261 bytes (22,636 words) of prose and World War II at 85,016 bytes (13,248 words) of prose have world-wide importance, and both articles approach or exceed Wikipedia's upper size guideline of 100,000 bytes (15,000 words) of prose. In comparison, the History of AEK Athens F.C. has particular importance to Greece, but not necessarily the world-wide importance of two World Wars; yet, its page length of 138,395 bytes (22,376 words) of prose exceeds the guideline recommendation. I bring this to your attention because another Wikipedia editor may come along and take a wrecking ball to all your effort. You might wish to review WP:LENGTH for recommendations on ways to reduce article size. Size information on articles can be found using xtools. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Papatheodorou, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the AIV report you made here as the edits in question are not vandalism. While I have left a comment on the other editor's talk page here, I think it's worth bringing up those same points here. When you made this revert and described it as Revert page-move vandalism that is inaccurate; the page move you reverted was not page-move vandalism and describing it as such can be construed as a personal attack. While you did mention page-move warring in your AIV report, it is also important to note that while they have made three reverts back to their preferred title in the past five days, you have made four reverts back to your preferred title and as engaged in the page-move warring as they are. Unless I'm overlooking it I also do not see any attempt from either editor to discuss this in any way. Continued page-move warring may result in a block to prevent further disruption; please utilize the article talk pages and start a page move discussion with WP:RSPM if necessary before reverting each other further. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh Yes, but since the issue of moving the page name has not been put by the user that wants to change the name in the first place, shouldn't that be reverted back to the initial name (either I agree or not with the name change), especially if the name format of the other corresponding articles is the exactly the same? BEN917 11:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying (WP:CONSISTENT) may be a persuasive argument in a move discussion but it does not create an exception that allows for move/edit warring (Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.) While the editor whose move was reverted should ideally be the one to open the RM, that does not prevent others from doing so if there is an ongoing dispute regarding the name. - Aoidh (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh So would it be OK if I reverted back to the initial name and then put the issue to discussion? BEN917 10:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this situation I would suggest reading and following the process described at WP:PCM. From a glance it looks like the articles currently at AEK Athens F.C. in European competitions and AEK Athens B.C. in European and worldwide competitions and the reason for changing both titles are similar enough that a multiple page move request would be warranted. - Aoidh (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh Is that good enough or is there anything that I missed? BEN917 09:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the timestamp issue that needed to be fixed, no. Per the third paragraph at WP:SIGPROB, the timestamp should follow the normal standard, as there are many things that rely on the time being formatted correctly that do not work if it is altered. For example the bot that monitors RM discussions won't detect and read that timestamp and so wouldn't know when the discussion was opened and so wouldn't be able to notify people of the move, update relevant pages, and so on. Talk page archival bots similarly can't read that and so discussion may remain despite needing archival, and notifications will not be sent properly because the notification system does not detect that as a valid signature. For example, I did not get this ping and was not notified of anything, I just happened to check this talk page and came across the comment, but I did get this one. Please utilize the default timestamps so that the talk pages can function properly, as there are a lot of talk page-related things that do not work properly otherwise. - Aoidh (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh, I belive that the IPs, 2A02:587:3210:EA6B:E4C3:A912:A3CC:EE5F and 2A02:1388:8D:EE35:1AC:21CD:2A8E:D01B, that vandalized AEK Athens F.C. in European football are probably King of the Q socking and retaliating for being blocked. Also, in here and here the one who made those edits, swears in Greek (Greeklish), probably referring on me. BEN917 18:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my previous comment and stop signing your comments with a modified timestamp (e.g. 20:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC+2) instead of 18:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC) because it is problematic for the reasons I mentioned. I did not get your ping, for example, I only saw this comment because this page is now on my watchlist. Per WP:SIGPROB: The timestamp must adhere to the system-generated format (HH:MM, D MM YYYY (UTC)) and must not be customized. This is necessary for clear communications and for archiving bots to function correctly. Timestamps that are customized may be considered disruptive and editors using them may be blocked accordingly. Please take this as a warning to cease altering the timestamp of your comments in this way and to correct any instances where you have altered the format of the timestamp. - Aoidh (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh, I'm sorry, I don't do that in bad faith, I just want to be sure that I'm typing the correct time, while I answer. Nevertheless, did you check about the socking and the swearing I mentioned previously? Is there anything it could be done? BEN917 7:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The range for the IP that has been editing has already been blocked, which seems to be the correct route for this instance. If disruption continues it can be addressed as necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mimis Papaioannou you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mimis Papaioannou you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mimis Papaioannou and Talk:Mimis Papaioannou/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mimis Papaioannou you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mimis Papaioannou for comments about the article, and Talk:Mimis Papaioannou/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings BEN917 - Thank you for about 20 or so football player Article assessment requests here. Just one suggestion, to please add WikiProject Football on those Talk pages so that interested editors there will see them. Thanks for helping improve Wikipedia. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re reverting undiscussed moves like here, please read the instructions at WP:RMUM and then try to move them yourself. If you cannot move them, nominate them in the WP:RM § Requests to revert undiscussed moves section. It's generally not good to clog up the system by using the normal WP:RM process for these. However, since this user is persisting in this case, it might be good to let this one proceed just to get a consensus on the record. —  AjaxSmack  15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I have noticed extraordinary efforts from your part to preserve, enhance, analyse and expand on Greek Football as a whole on Wikipedia. And as a Greek myself, I applaud your efforts (and I am somewhat jealous of them because I am terrible at sourcing my edits). However, I have noticed that the English article for the Olympic Stadium (OAKA) has been notoriously lacking, with little information, lack of structure, and seemingly more emphasis on the concerts that took place than its illustrious position as our national stadium, with rich and enormous history for a ground that's barely over 40 years old. So I would require your expertise in refining that article and bringing it up to standards, if you want. Bill L. Hal (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could use the information given on the German article and translate it properly in English or you can google its history specifically and find proper sources that would enrich the article the way you want. If you need further help feel free to contact me. BEN917 19:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will be terrible at sourcing so there is that for a thorn. Bill L. Hal (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made some significant expansion covering all the football events, it surely needs expansion on the 2004 Olympics Games section of its history. In the German article that I mentioned earlier, you could use the sources available if you want to cover that part as well. BEN917 09:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will try to take it over from there, although I doubt the sources will work. Thanks for your help! Much appreciate your work. Bill L. Hal (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thanks for the citation of sources when referring to my claims. There is a rather funny, if not somber story from the 1987 Cup Winners' Cup final, most likely an urban legend, about the ~200 Lokomotive Leipzig fans who travelled from East Germany all the way to Marousi for the match, and even though the stadium was unroofed back then they enjoyed its modern (for the time) anemities, and apparently because of a delay at the Ellinikon, one of the fans decided to permanently stay as a political refugee to avoid the Stasi. I know I can't put it in the article itself but it is a legend I felt worth sharing.

That aside, I will try to expand on the opening paragraphs to be more in line with how the Stadio Olimpico article is formed in the opening paragraphs, and probably expand on the history of the ground with football events relative to the teams and the disaster at the end of the '04 Paralympics which is mentioned in the German article. Bill L. Hal (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Give it a try. If you want, try to expand on the Remodeling and the Summer Olympics section as well! BEN917 10:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I was thinking of the Summer Olympics section as particularly poor, treating it more like the Panhellenics in track than the most prestigious sports event in the world (in its homeland no less). It also is problematic that the disaster in the '04 Paralympics was not a centralised accident but rather a memorial to those fallen from the intense commotions in the summer tournaments. Nonetheless, the article is far from being "Good article material but it is always great to see the refurbishment it so needs (as with the stadium itself). Hopefully it'll input the stock pictures I have (from stadia.gr and my own visits), cause pictures always provide style and visibility to an article! Bill L. Hal (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to apologise for adding a notification on this mostly abandoned talk, but lately I have put aside work on the Olympic Stadium to focus on my club's (PAOK's) article. A few days ago (I am also at slight fault for this) it was a complete mess of biased information overload which was a slog to read through, especially regarding the 2018 championship. So, I have practically rebuilt the article, especially its history section, to be more in line with good and featured articles of clubs like Malmö FF, Liverpool, Manchester United and Juventus, in hopes of a peer review that can add a good or featured badge. I ask for your help in general improvement of the club articles (like the AEK Athens article since it's the club you support) and perhaps assist with peer reviews. I believe it is a needed effort, that is, if you don't mind. Bill L. Hal (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure about what sort of changes do you mean, but I understand that it would be a diffucult task since other user may have different opinions about the article's contents. Nevertheless that an issue that with good arguments on both sides could be solved and imporve the article. The only input I can give you on your task is that apart from the proper sourcing in any doubious information, is that the teams in English language are referred to in the plural. (ex. PAOK are a team from Thessaloniki. AEK Athens were the title holders of that season...) Best of luck! BEN917 11:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have to add that Abudabanas reverted all the changes made to the PAOK FC article provisionally so that might be why you were not sure of it, but thanks for the advice, even for my relatively high level of english the inconsistency with the Greek team names in english gets confusing.

I'd like to clarify on what I initially meant with "changes" were general quality of life refinements to the main club articles in terms of readability, word size and general presentation. Before Abudabanas reverted the changes to the PAOK FC article I had shortened down the history subpage so to be in line with good and featured articles (neutral POV, summary of important events without recentism etc) and made additions and refinements in the facilites subpart.

That being said, your work on the main AEK Athens F.C. page is great (especially regarding financial information and general facts) but leans too much on the club's recent history (which is a problem since it can't be distributed in depth like the history article).

Thanks for your time! Bill L. Hal (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know Abudabanas, he is an experienced editor with good knowledge of the terms of wikipedia. If he has any objections he'll probably has good reasons for it. You should open a dialoge on the talk page and discuss the issue with other users as well, if it is to take the big decision.

As a mater of fact, I don't have much involvement on the main article of AEK Athens, but in reality I did many updates and expansions in almost every section of the history article. It will be difficult to add more details on that article since I had to trim it from this to what it is today due to wikipedia length issues. With regards! BEN917 17:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Abudabanas has done great contributions in recording PAOK's history and we reached an agreement on the annulment of the article restructuring, although I feel that eventually it will be reverted back to the changes so that we can build the article from there. Nonetheless, main articles for Greek football clubs and the stadium articles are mostly in dire condition and I really think good and featured article distinctions help in the popularity and the attention the articles recieve.

It's alright that the main article of your club didn't have much involvement from your part, in its present form I'd say it's closer to a good article than PAOK's page (albeit both are rated B class on the content assessment scale) and since you successfully rehabilitated Mimis Papaioannou's article into becoming a good article I think your efforts do not go in vain.

Much regards! Bill L. Hal (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reliable source and should not be used. GiantSnowman 17:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see yet again no argument presented so if don't find any other source for the content in question I'll just use aekpedia, since it is a reliable source presenting the same argument as you do. BEN917 08:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why are you reverting my edit? Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a waste of space, since there is no any practical difference. BEN917 17:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a waste of space That's not WP:CIVIL. Mazewaxie's edit is correct per MOS:CURLY and I have reinstated it. Beware of WP:OWN, BEN917. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how is any of all this aply on my behalf. I'm civil to my felow editor since the phrase I used wasn't an attack placing a justification on it. I didn't mention anything about quotation marks neither the edits are about them. I don't even know why you mentioned WP:OWN to me. BEN917 18:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply your pov needed. Active disagreement there on i) inclusion of a top-4 table and ii) whether the R16 apps should be included on the distinctions section or from quarter-finals onwards. Talk page and edit history will guide you on this. Opened also a discussion on Wiki Project football and asked for a 3O too. Glad if you shared your thoughts. Abudabanas (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the neighborhoods! I really have never seen anything like this before! Anyway. Without sources even 100 supporters to bring, you can't disprove something substantiated with sources. However, Ben's917 point of view is welcome, as long as he provides evidence for his position. 2A02:586:813D:2A91:D0F3:FFFB:1F09:796B (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AEK Athens F.C. results in European football is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AEK Athens F.C. results in European football until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

S.A. Julio (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]