Ikhouvanjou14

Welcome!

Hi Ikhouvanjou14! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

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

Learn more about editing

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

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

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Liu1126 (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Maakt het voor iedereen makkelijker... Drmies (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, please start using edit summaries. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Final warning: per WP:COMMUNICATE, you need to acknowledge these concerns and start communicating. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reminder. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Futsal logo

Can you explain why you reverted the Futsal World Cup logo? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yours has many blank spaces, also too big. When the bot shrinks it, the logo itself (excluding the blank spaces) is smaller. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think your logo has too little space and looks a bit untidy. Is there any way we can get the Futsal World Cup logo without the background similar to the other logos for FIFA competitions? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I have not found that logo with either transparent background or dark texts, therefore this is the best for now. Same with the U-20 WWC. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2024 FIFA Futsal World Cup.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2024 FIFA Futsal World Cup.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use File:2024 FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup.png

Thanks for uploading File:2024 FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Second inauguration of Donald Trump. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Happily888 (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

prabook.com

Hi, I haven't double checked, but was under the impression that it is not an RS. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:896D:92:B85F:9FCA (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Coppa Italia final

Please do not change players position. See pdf final report for line-up positions. Image will be fixed. Island92 (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

All based on https://img.legaseriea.it/vimages/68250f90/2024-25_CPITA_FINAL_UNI_1_MILBOL_ENG.pdf and attached match report https://www.legaseriea.it/en/match/winner-match-41-winner-match-42-coppa-italia-final, both formations and squad numbers which you got wrong at. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Positions were correct once I informed @S.A. Julio: for the image to be adjusted per final pdf report. You changed positions as well as numbers. Now all fixed. There is no rush needed here. Island92 (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

How do you know the weather was wrong? Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Because I watched the match on the television and no clear indication of that forecast. Island92 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2025 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2025 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing on 2025 UEFA Nations League final

As with many of your contributions on the European finals this season, you did not source any of the information you added to 2025 UEFA Nations League final. Please keep in mind WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR apply; claims on Wikipedia need to be supported by credible sources. As much as I trust you're correct in asserting the Nations League final is the 41st Iberian Derby, this needs to be backed up by a reference. Therefore I have removed the information for the time being, and can be restored with a reliable source. Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

Hello, I'm GiantSnowman. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Josiah Trimmingham 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. GiantSnowman 08:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025 (2)

Next time, don't falsely accuse a good faith edit updating the squad of "vandalism". You can simply update the preliminary information and not make dangerous accusations. Thanks! PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 02:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

captions

Hey, could you please see WP:CAPFRAG? In short, lone sentence fragments as captions don't end in full stops. Remsense 🌈 论 23:31, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

OTD for July 15

Hi, thanks for editing the July 14 and July 15 page for WP:OTD. I see that you are moving around a lot of hooks, even though I swapped the hooks for 2025 a couple days ago. Are you interested in helping with the project? If so, I suggest looking at the "View History" tab first to ensure that an editor hasn't moved around the hooks yet, so that work is not duplicated. I might take a look at pages you have edits already to ensure that the articles you selected are eligible to be on the Main page. Let me know if you have any questions and happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I might want to help, but just because I am now quite not busy as I usually do. Would help if I have time. I have always looked at the articles I added to see if there is any notices. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in OTD. Just note that articles with yellow or orange banners, or with lots of uncited text, cannot be in OTD sets. See WP:OTDRULES for the criteria for inclusion for OTD. Let me know if there are any questions. Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help with OTD. Just noting here that OTD gives preference to people and events with a centennial birthday, which is why I reverted your edit to July 29. Also, OTD doesn't require two births and two deaths per day: WP:OTD just says to include births and deaths, males and females, and general variety of careers and geographic location: there's no need to ensure that there are even numbers of everything. Let me know if there are any questions! Z1720 (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

There are many dates with all four births, also some missed centenary, such as on July 10 with Mahathir Mohamad. I only added his name after realizing his 100th birthday a few days later. And your revert on July 29 made B-D with no female representation, which I have restored. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Updates

We do not post live updates per WP:LIVESCORES. Just wait for the games to finish, thanks. Kante4 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see this and you getting reverted by another user aswell. This is disruptive editing against consensus, please stop that. Kante4 (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is any differences between finished basketball quarters and finished games in tennis and badminton, seen here and here, all of which were already stable and thus not exactly live report. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Should have been reverted. A match is "live" until it is finished, so no quarter score, half time score or so should be entered. If you disagree you can start a discussion at the correct venue of course. Kante4 (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

From what I saw I think that has been the usual practice in both racquet sports for a long time. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Which does not make it correct. Some editors (more the newer ones) don't know about that policy. Kante4 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Bach

story · music · places

Thank you for bringing Bach to the OTD section of the main page! I thought of it but you did it ;) - I decorated my user pages for the occasion. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

July 2025

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Repeatedly: duplicating cite template parameters, removing appropriate links, adding web addresses, and de-abbreviating, is all unnecessary. The first three behaviours are highly discouraged and generally reverted on-sight. The latter also makes it harder to read and therefore use a citation. Why you've taken it upon yourself to do this thankless worsening of the encyclopedia, I don't know, but cut it out. And it's beyond laughable that you call users cleaning up your garbage editing vandals. Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

No. It is you who needs to stop. You have provide absolutely no reason and have always refused any discussion. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Are you unable to read edit reasons? You haven't asked for discussions. What the hell are you on about. Kingsif (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

No, you just reverted without any edit summary, those are refusal to discussion. It was User:S.A. Julio who have always done the "Union" thing, since like forever. And why do you need to add Final (competition) to the UEFA Women's Euro 2022 final, screamed WP:OVERLINK to me. And saying that Finalissima is major tournament is a nonsense, sounds like you cannot differ major tournament or not. A major tournament is not just one-off game, same with UEFA Super Cup and FA Community Shield, not even when teams play two games to win, like the FIFA Intercontinental Cup. Ask User:S.A. Julio. And Special:Diff/1303266942 is WP:PA so look in the mirror. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

1. I linked the diff below with an explanation, for one of your edits. I've also explained this in the past with Julio. Being told what's wrong with an edit, you should listen and not repeat it elsewhere. 2. I didn't add anything, I literally just reverted to the previous version - and FWIW, your edit adding a wikilink to "football". Is that not OVERLINK to you. 3. Finalissima is different from all those others, not least because it's between international teams rather than clubs for the cash. The fact that it's beyond the continental tournament but, most importantly, UEFA and CONMEBOL both consider it a major tournament does indeed make it so. 4. No, I won't just ask Julio about everything, pointing me to your mate is not how you get out of behaving like this. Kingsif (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

That is how things are, see UEFA Euro 2024 final and 2026 UEFA Champions League final, you wanna edit those too? Julio did that, not me. I have always following his examples, including the "Union" thing (Special:Diff/1293241474) that you said "whoever keeps doing this with UEFA refs across Wikipedia needs to stop already. it's garbage levels of excess text and very clearly worse in general". Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I have always following his examples - Again, it's not a suitable defense for not listening to explanations, to say that you are simply copying another user's editing. You take on responsibility for all your own edits, and as you noted at Julio's talk page when you went to complain about me, I have reverted them doing this in the past, too, and have explained it. If you knew this already, why are you still copying the edits you know have been challenged? And yes, I would edit those other articles, too. As you said, you know I've removed this in all instances, not just with you. Speaking of the edit reason of mine you quote here, that is probably referring to Julio, if he has been doing this longer than you, and I think you're aware of that? Kingsif (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Diff - from before your immaturity. See, I provide edit reasons that fully explain what I do. You don't use edit reasons and go report people as soon as they don't let you do whatever you like. Kingsif (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Erasing the warning on your talk page is another sign of refusal to discuss. Hence, I suggest to look in the mirror again. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Removing clearly silly warnings is commonplace. And reminder that you have never asked for a discussion: you literally ignored my edit reason explanation, reverted my next edit by calling it vandalism from the very start, edit warred without any explanation in your defense, whined to your mate, then went to a noticeboard for 'clear vandals'. Someone here needs a mirror and it's not me. Kingsif (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Absolute lie. I did not call any vandalism from the "very start" unless it is a clear one, and on neither page I said so. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I will assume you have simply forgotten. This was my first edit to the content in question. This is the very next edit: you calling my edit "vandalism". You could have used that edit reason to ask why, to explain your edit, even to call out my lack of an edit reason in that instance, but you went straight to ad hominem. Kingsif (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

My first edit was this. That was already the third. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure, but I was referring to your first after when I got involved - which is surely obvious? It can't be from the start of the issue if it's before the issue. Kingsif (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

Do NOT continue to make edits you know are bad. What is the point mate, why are you insisting on making references twice as long and harder to read. And why have you suddenly decided to add irrelevant info to the leads of articles. Your edit reasons say you're 'fix'ing them, and if you actually think you are, you might want to read Wikipedia a bit more before editing. Kingsif (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You insist on adding Final (competition), is it good edit? You insist to have moot parameter in language=en, is that good edit? Of course those nonsenses are good because those are your edits, whatever real fixes I did are bad edits. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Very ironic from someone who insists on wikilinking football and adding moot parameters in author= and website= (while also taking the single piece of info for that and making it worse and less accessible in both cases)!

But you are also perfectly aware that I do not insist on those things; I revert your objectively bad edits to a stable version edited by the community which has small things that could be improved but aren't actively bad. Nothing you have edited in these article are fixes. In fact, they fly in the face of MOS. Again, if you don't know this, learn before editing. Kingsif (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

When your edit is automatically tagged for prose issues, is it a good edit? Kingsif (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

"Possible". All of my edits are bad, and all of yours are perfect and shall never be disputed nor fixed. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Mate, you know I have never suggested that - you are the only one who brings up 'my' edits, which are simply correcting yours and therefore aren't even content edits to be disputed or fixed. This is about your poor edits and arrogant behaviour, and trying to ignore criticism by throwing shit at me isn't going to stick.

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. This and this are deliberately misleading edit summaries to deliberately hide edits to the lead that you have previously been informed - at this talkpage, at another article, and at the article in question - goes against MOS. How many times do you need to be told. Kingsif (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Henning Berg, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Per MOS:NOPIPE. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Honorific nicknames in popular music. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 04:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I asked politely and you accused me this, remind you I have not violated WP:3RR. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

If you're edit is reverted, gain consensus before re-adding it, or else it is considered disruptive editing. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made, and you can still be blocked without violating 3RR. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 04:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I have added two more sources, all of which are from different outlets. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Huh? As far as I recall, I have never opened the article even once before you issue this warning. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

You just called someone a "pro-Iran editor" for an edit they made over a Hamas attack in Israel. That is very much related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to post-1978 Iranian politics. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1978 Iranian politics is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

September 2025

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at 2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Specifically, here. Even if you disagree with the edits, please do not label the edits as "vandalism". Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The two editors never agree on something, one of them never replied. At the other hand, I got two editors who disagreed with KyleRGiggs thanked me for returning the old format, User:Steveo1980 and User:Erkatta11, thus rendering your argument of soft consensus invalid, because it was only KyleRGiggs who wanted the footballbox. If you don't believe me, you can ask them yourself, whether my claim of them thanking me is true. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I confirm that I am all for the old format, I left a message in the talk section of the page as well. It looks more concise, clear and classy and we've used it for years. No one cares what other teams' pages look like. Erkatta11 (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm in agreement the old format is preferred. It seems our page has been subject to a lot of vandalism of late. Steveo1980 (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me this rampant vandalism. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Removing parameters

Why are you removing valid parameters from templates such as "|language=en" as you did here? Toddst1 (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Because it won't be shown on English Wikipedia anyway, so I shorten them. Saving a lot of spaces. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic 2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

James Trafford

Something being official does not mean it is worth mentioning - for example, we do not track assists, only goals and games. We are an encyclopaedia, not a sports almanac or fan site. GiantSnowman 13:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Why are you suddenly doing this, after two seasons? You wanna discussion? You open it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, because it is you who have a problem with this, not me. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

17 September

I tried an anniversary, and you removed it, without an edit summary. Why (twice)? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Balancing, if it is his 100th or 125th bday, I would gladly let it stay. But 105th? Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

You didn't explain why you didn't write an edit summary. - I see many without any "round" anniversary, - please explain why you'd want only quarter centuries. Arvo Pärt yesterday had "only" 90, - per your reasoning I'd expect that we should have waited until 100. For Jung, I discovered the selected anniversaries only when 100 had already passed, and sort of wanted to make up for having missed it. It's an interesting life of diverse interests. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

This is complicated, because in my opinion, it should be two births and two deaths. If we remove Vera Popova, there will be no female representation. Modi is celebrating his 75th bday, so kind of a good number. I understand that you want to do so, that is why I added Mahathir Mohamad when longtime editors like Z1720 missed his 100th birthday last July, or Lauren Bacall's last year. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

That we have to have a balance of deaths and births seems like a personal preference, or do we have a guideline for that? (I always go for births.) - I do understand a balance of women and men, but think one woman three men would represent our articles. I'd also wish we could have balance as a goal which leaves room for exceptions. - I will keep hoping for edit summaries ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

OTD

Thanks for your hard work at OTD with swapping hooks. Please remember to check the articles that are placed in the template, as articles with orange or yellow banners are not allowed to appear on the Main Page per WP:OTDRULES #4. You can ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

If it is about "too much uncited", I think I will need you to do it, because I am quite busy in real life, working and attending college and dating. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Articles need to be checked before placed in the OTD template. After I check templates, I notice you go back and put new articles in the template for "balancing". This means I to recheck the template, which is time-consuming. For example: at October 6 I checked the hooks, then you replaced two articles in the template, both of which I rechecked and had to remove as ineligible. Please only swap hooks if you have the time to check the bolded article every time it is placed in the template. I use User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages to highlight uncited statements and to provide information about each hook, including maintenance tags. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I want to inform you that I started a thread at WT:OTD concerning your balancing edits and article selection at OTD. Z1720 (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2024 FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup (logo).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2024 FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup (logo).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Yom Kippur

I saw your edit on October 2, and just wanted to clarify a few things. Yom Kippur this year begins at night of Oct 1 until night Oct 2. Because of that, the main holiday is Oct 2. We had a discussion a while back about whether to include the day before or not, and the end was just include the main day, which is why Oct2 is used, and why for other Jewish holidays the day is used and not the night prior. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Interpretation

Thanks for waiting!

Traditionally the names are written like this: Javier Hernández ----> Hernández 34' or H. Hernández if necessary.

Exceptions:

1. °1 China PR, Korea DPR, Korea Republic (inverted order): We usually write the Full name. Vietnam maybe.
2. 2 Mongolia, Brazil, Portugal they made some changes. For example Pedro Henrique is the 1st name and the last name Silva but the FIFA name is Pedrinho so we put: 10' Pedrinho

3# Hungary and Japan: Hungary has a inverted order, but Japan since 2021 has the order Last name-common name (Wikipedia didn't know about that and users prefer to keep the former order, before 2021.

1. 4 Thailand: the order is the same but we put only the name: Thanatta Chawong -------> (Thanatta)
2. 5 Egypt and Arabia Saudi: They are register in FIFA tournaments with both first name-last name at the same time.

Example: Talal Abubakr Abdullah Haji is register as: Talal Haji.

How we know that?

I'll give you the references in a moment: Rey1996ss (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Please, on page 7

1) You could se the Player name

2) Go to page 8 in French names....Lisandru OLMETA ---->capital letters is the guideline.

3) Go back to Egypt and Saudi Arabia: the Player name (legally by FIFA) has capital letters.

4) Why is so confusing? Because of the name on shirt....sometimes FIFA write in the website report the name on Shirt or the Player name, so this is confusing for us (the users) jaja Rey1996ss (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

5) capital letters is the guideline but another exceptions are monosyllabics (China PR, Chinese Taipéy, Korea Rep...)

6) What happened with Mo Salah in 2018 FIFA World Cup or Saudi Arabia in Qatar 2022? We tried to fix it but maybe the users didn't know about that..So we didn't want to have a big discussion...Maybe some user are thinking that the names for Thailand, Egypt Saudi Arabia etc must be exceptions.

7) Am I trying to display the full name? No haha because Talal Haji is the surname.

8) Honestly we cannot talk about UEFA club competios because they change the registration..for example Jenni Hermoso is Jenni in UEFA but Hermoso in FIFA...Mo Mohamed Salah is Salah in Uefa but is Mohamed Salah in FIFA (having the surname with 2 words).

9) Nothing wrong in the past. We only edit from today onwards.

10) Maybe you arrive late but we already have a friendly concencus in the past Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament please see the Names according FIFA and International Olympic Committe for Iraq and Egypt.

Orphaned non-free image File:2025 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2025 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Dispute for Oct 16

Hi, I notice that on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 16, you keep swapping out Liam Payne for someone else. I personally think Payne should stay since it is the 1 year anniversary of his death. I think it would be really nice. jolielover♥talk 10:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I usually do the same, say on August 26, 2025 for Sven-Goran Eriksson as well as preparing for July 3, 2026 for Diogo Jota and his brother, as well as Jane Goodall for Oct 1. But this time, I have to relent, since the guy was a US senator who died 25 years ago, kind of an anniversary, innit? And for the Mughal king, he was only there because the WP:OTDRULES number 6. Since I am advocating for two births-two deaths on every OTD, there are two deaths already, so no more vacancy there. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

TBF number 6 isn't even a rule, just a suggestion. It's also not limited to deaths/births, it addresses the entirety of OTD. Since there are two blurbs from before the 20th century, this shouldn't matter. jolielover♥talk 17:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright, i've adjusted it so everyone can be happy. Mel remains. I added Oscar Wilde for our pre-20th century bill. I also added an Indian actress for some racial and gender diversity. and, finally, Liam Payne. Hope this works. jolielover♥talk 18:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720: Please review. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jolielover and Ikhouvanjou14: The criteria are what editors should use to make their selections for the OTD templates, including #6. 2 births and 2 deaths per template are not required. I have no concerns with the articles currently selected for that date, including Liam Payne. Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Dealing with vandalism

Hello, thank you for your efforts to deal with 180.150.29.225, who has vandalised a lot of articles today. However, at Central railway station, Sydney, you only undid one vandal edit while the IP actually made two of them; a similar thing happened at the article for Blue Mountains Line. This can be a very easy mistake to make. Please try to make sure you undo all edits by a user in cases like this. Don't worry about those particular cases; I've fixed them. Tools like Twinkle and RedWarn can make it much easier to revert and warn vandals. Graham87 (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FIFA Women's Champions Cup.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FIFA Women's Champions Cup.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

FIFA U-20 World Cup

Exactly what part of my edit was vandalism? I edited the article in full after the match ended. Wa$hingtonFTFan26 (talk) 1:10 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The Moroccan goalscorer should still be bolded because they are still playing. Other edits are incomplete updates. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

OTD: putting eligible hooks in chronological order

I noticed that when swapping hooks, you are putting hooks at the bottom of the eligible list. For example, here. Instead, please return the hooks to chronological order. This allows the pages to stay organised and makes it easier for future hook-swappers to select hooks from a variety of dates. Please ping me if there are any questions. Z1720 (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It is to differ the recently swapped out (2024) with the others. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The 2024 swapped-out hooks do not need to be differentiated. Please put the swapped hooks back in chronological order. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I see with this edit that you are still putting articles at the bottom of the eligible list, instead of in chronological order. Please do not do this. Instead, put articles back in chronological order. If you feel that there should be a change in how articles are listed in the eligible list, please open a discussion at WT:OTD and get consensus for the change. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

OTD

Thank you for the activities on OTD! Thank you for bringing an opera there!! Thank you for adding the image of the the composer!!! - Having said that, I have a few requests. Please use edit summaries. (You heard that before, right?) I wanted to find which edit added it, and then which edit added the pic, and couldn't find it easily. Please consider "round" anniversaries, - this would have been a little "rounder" next year. Please, generally, don't repeat the longish given names of a person widely known by his last name. In the case of Mozart (Beethoven, Wagner ...), avoid these given names altogether. In the specific case of Mozart, I strongly recommend to say nothing, because it's a name he never used. If nothing seems too little, "W. A." would work. Could you point me at other changes to facts about opera and classical music, please, because once they are protected (one day before the day), I can't simply copy-edit. Today I'd have to think about going to ERRORS where they will tell me it's not an error? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I use edit summaries in general, so just search "refreshed for 2025". Well I added it simply because no other article that has not been used for the past OTDs. Use the date's article to find out. In regards of name, I will follow suit. Thank you and you are welcome. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Friendly editions

I made a friendly edition.

According to the tradition in either FIFA or the press some last names can be different.

I read, studied and I want to share some tips with you, those things I learn here in wikipedia and in the collage (university). Countries such as Brazil, China, North and South Korea, Portugal, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Netherlands are quite different.

In fact the 2024 CONCACAF W Gold Cup wikipedia's Page has last names with 2 words such as Gabi Nunes, Bia Zaneratto, Duda Santos.

I reckon that isnt a mistake, It is very different but it's correct. In order to respect the tradition since 2008 U17 Womens' World Cup and all pages where Brazil scored goals, we could keep and respect that interesting situation. Thank you! 187.184.7.146 (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit summary

In this edit summary, you stated "balancing, something that Z1720 could not care less." Edit summaries are "a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page" (WP:ES), not a place to comment on an editor's conduct or quality of edits. If there is a concern with articles I select for OTD, please start a discussion on my talk page. If you think it is more approriate to get other editors' opinions, please start a discussion on the appropriate noticeboard/talk page (like WT:OTD). Please ping me in any responses below. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

If you change something, please do it while I can change it (2 days prior) tops, so that if there is time for me to try to satisfy your concerns. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• A single editor does not WP:OWN OTD: it is a collaborative process. Sometimes I notice that articles are ineligible a couple days before the template runs, and I cannot control my timeline or schedule for checking articles. I try not to swap hooks chosen by others unless there is a reason why the hook is ineligible. Please ensure articles are eligible to run before placing them into the template to avoid having to swap hooks. If there are any questions about the guidelines, please ping me. Information on how to ping an editor is at WP:PING. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Ikhouvanjou14, the next time you come even close to this level of unnecessary personalization, I'm referring the matter to WP:ANI. We need careful, collaborative, civil work. Instead, you've been making quite a few errors and sniping at our most experience volunteers. Stop. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

OTD 27 Oct

Regarding your message on my talk, and your "refresh" edit: the result looks unbalanced regarding centuries (only one 18th century, but two 21st century), and misses a 300th anniversary. The reason why I added BWV 56 this year was that I hoped to have it as TFA (rerun) next year). I noticed only later that it ran last in 2022, and the rulez request five years before a rerun. Please reinstate it, best with an image for the occasion. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Reinstate where? You have added it and allowed it to be published this year, so letting for another year is no refresh, also Z1720 would not agree to that, since he swapped out Angela Lansbury which I intentionally left behind (then made TFA). Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: Articles typically do not run in sequential years. I suggest that next time you add an article to the "Eligible" list instead of putting it in the template. Ikhouvanjou14: it is far too soon to be scheduling 2026 templates as article go through many changes in a year and we don't know which articles will be selected for TFA yet. I suggest sticking to swapping hooks two weeks ahead of the date, maximum. Z1720 (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  I know that, and tried to explain that I wanted it for TFA next year. When I noticed that it wasn't possible, I should have removed it for this year. I don't remember if it was already too late (page protected). I see so many repeated that I hope we can make an exception for a much beloved piece. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  • @Gerda Arendt: I would make the request closer to the date, in October 2026. Z1720 (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

    This wasn't a request for an exception. Thia was a request to User:Ikhouvanjou14 to realize that the "refreshed" set is unbalanced year-wise, and perhaps revert the refresh and do it closer to the date, quite generally so. There may come up better anniversaries during 2026. It's usually with the turn of the year that things to be remembered show. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Your OTD "refresh" for November 10th

A discussion was previously opened on Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/November 10 regarding the Edmund Fitzgerald photo. Let's discuss there whether or not the ship should be pictured again in OTD. - Shearonink (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Do not add ineligible hooks to OTD sets

Please re-read the rules at WP:OTD and ensure that ineligible hooks are not added to prep sets, as was done on November 10. "Balancing" is not a justified reason for adding ineligible hooks to sets, and it is not other editors' job to ensure that the hooks you add are eligible. If you are unsure what hooks are eligible, please do not swap sets. Please go to WT:OTD if you have any concerns or questions. Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

How can I know that, IIRC I did not add President Banana into the OTD. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• Check the hooks before you add them to the set to ensure they meet the requirements. Sometimes editors add the hooks to the eligible list when they are ineligible, other times problems are added to the article after they are added to the list. Z1720 (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• After engaging with the above message, you again added an ineligible hook as Mary Millar's deathday is not cited. Furthermore, WP:OTD gives precedence to significant anniversaries over topic diversity. A two-year gap between OTD appearances is fine. Everytime you swap the articles for "balancing", I have to check to ensure that it is eligible, and after several months you are still adding ineligible hooks. Competency is required and the Main Page has additional scrutiny than other articles. Please stop swapping hooks: you can add hooks to the "eligible" list until you become more familiar with the OTD requirements. If you continue adding ineligible hooks to OTD sets, I will seek a topic ban on WP:ANI. Z1720 (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  I find that your reason to set aside Ms. Millar is false, since with a simple tag added by the already-there obituary by The Independent, the death day is now confirmed. The one that is tagged so is the crematorium, to give you credit. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Not false! Just fixable. We're counting on you to notice and fix those issues or avoid promoting ineligible hooks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

U17 Group G

Third place has at least one point. It matters for the ranking even if the team is unknown! Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 16:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism? :D Thanks for the constructive talk Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 17:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You reverted my update to save your notes and then update yourself. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2025 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2025 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

2025 FIFA U-17 World Cup

Columbia will end as 9th or 10th runners-up. If they end 10th, they have to play Germany, but this ist forbidden (same group). In that case the 10th and 9th runners-up switch opponents - and again France vs. Columbia. GregorBungensheim (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to 2025 FIFA U-17 World Cup, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Unjustified and unexplained allegations of vandalism

Hello @Ikhouvanjou14 you have unjustly deleted my well-sourced contribution, calling it "vandalism", with no explanation. You then proceeded to partly add back my contribution, simply calling it "fix". This seems to me like unbecoming behaviour, and a swift scan of this page suggests that you are very methodical in making these kinds of interactions. Please consider changing your ways. Perhaps it is you who is acting wrongly, and not the rest of Wikipedia combined.

As to the matter at hand, I accept your addition of the new sub-section, and some other additions you made, but I also added back some of my contribution which you have wrongly removed (and corrected your English). غوّاص العلم (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, the thing you added are in #Controversies already. Stop using the same sources with new citation. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I see. I take back a lot of what I say, and I genuinely apologize for getting as angry as I did and writing in the tone that I did.

However, without taking away from my genuine apology, I do want to note that if you had made better use of the edit descriptions and/or written to me on my talk page, instead of just writing "vandalism fix" and "fix", this would have been avoided.

Thank you and good tidings غوّاص العلم (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Apologies too. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

fifa futsal women world cup

Why did you remove the number of teams in the qualification on the Women's Futsal World Cup page? I had written it down and collected it. Amini1999ad (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you point out which one? Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I wrote the number of teams in the qualification section on the Women's Futsal World Cup page, but you deleted it. Amini1999ad (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

You are on the verge of vandalizing on FIFA U-17 pages, if not over the verge

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at FIFA U-17 World Cup and 2025 FIFA U-17 World Cup. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted.

You cannot just remove a bunch of well-sourced and relevant information by posing a rhetorical question noting your dissatisfaction with the info being present in several articles where it is relevant. In whichever article an information is relevant, it should be there. You also changed info in a way which isn't supported by the sources cited.

Please do some reflection on how you edit, and how you explain your edits (to yourself and in the edit description).

غوّاص العلم (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

You are very zealous about the Qatar migrant thing, why? Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Great job addressing the argument.

Not that it's any of your business, as this site is about the content and not the people, but I'm an editor of WikiProject Qatar, and migrant workers are a very important part in that.

Anyway, your behavior is clearly toxic. You make arbitrary and factually wrong edits with poor edit descriptions, and when challenged on them you resort to personal attacks without addressing the actual situation in any way.

Do better. غوّاص العلم (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you give any proof? Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I feel like you're trolling, but I will give some examples which prove what I said while trying (quite hard) to avoid using an ironic tone:

1. This is an example of an arbitrary edit, where you removed well sourced and relevant information with the poor edit description "is it have to be everywhere?"
2. I originally also cited this Amnesty source, which is from 2025. It seems that through your repeated attempts to muddy the water on this subject, the source ended up being removed from the article, and now you decide to act like it doesn't exist and change the date. Also, this edit was again made with the poor edit description "fix".
3. Regarding "when challenged on them you resort to personal attacks without addressing the actual situation in any way", this very thread is just another obvious example.

غوّاص العلم (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Irreversible binomial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Past, Present, Future. 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) 19:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Question regarding parameters

Hello there, @Ikhouvanjou14, I noticed that you removed two of the new parameters I added to this article informing about their biggest wins so far and biggest losses (*twice). I'd like to know the reason you removed them because in many other season articles, this parameter exists (Ex- THIS ARTICLE. Please let me know the reason. Vinizex94🌍 08:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, it has been widely known that ManUtd seasons' articles have certain styles that are different from other clubs' (i.e. fixtures list, positions by round, etc.) per Talk:2025–26_Manchester_United_F.C._season#Matches_summary. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Michael Carrick

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Michael Carrick, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Question as to why my edit was reverted

Hello. You reverted my edits on The Original Rivalry with the only explanation being "as if this rivalry is the most important in the world that merits such details". I am willing to concede that citations weren't provided for all the added information, however, references do certainly exist and can be added if that is a problem. I believe that those edits improved the quality of the article, so I am wondering if you have any other reason to have reverted these edits beyond you personally thinking that this article isn't important enough to be expanded. Milkk7 (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi. In my opinion some of those stats are not well-sourced, therefore are WP:OR. And also leaves whomever updating them after any match with a whole lot of stats that require details and patience (player caps, clean sheets, etc.) Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:2027 FIFA Women's World Cup.png

A tag has been placed on File:2027 FIFA Women's World Cup.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

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. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

Please stop. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at File:2027 FIFA Women's World Cup.png, you may be blocked from editing. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Unexplained edit deletion on Man utd season 24-25 and unfair warning

Hi can you explain why you undid my edit and claim it was vandalism I made a honest edit about man utd's current season saying that Michael carrick is interim manager I don't understand why you deleted my edit. I personally find what you did was wrong and offensive. I would prefer if you did not give me a unfair warning or undo my edit, I actually have autism and don't like what you did or appreciate what you actually did, I don't understand what I did was wrong, and I personally disagree with your unfair warning and wrongful undoing of an edit that was faithful and that was correct as of the time when I edit.. ~2026-84933-8 (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Said title of interim is only in the media, ManUtd never said so. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how good or bad the editing was, but the way you dealt with it wasn't good. I see no reason to think the editor wasn't acting in perfectly good faith, even if mistakenly, so calling their editing "vandalism" was inappropriate. Also, even when editing is vandalism, an immediate "only warning" is suitable only in the case of really grossly unacceptable vandalism, such as appalling personal attacks; this wasn't anywhere near that level. JBW (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I have now also seen that you restored the message after the editor had removed it from their talk page. Apart from a very limited set of circumstances, once an editor has seen a message posted to them on their talk page, there is no reason why they shouldn't remove it if they wish to. If they do remove the message, it should not be restored. JBW (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Checking your editing history I have now seen that you have posted a huge number of similar messages. You really need to stop; otherwise there's a serious likelihood that you will be blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay I will refrain from doing such thing. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2027 NBA All-Star Game (February 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CostalCal was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This topic needs more than only one citation. This time you submitted the article; it isn't WP:TOOSOON, as it is almost a year away.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2027 NBA All-Star Game and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CostalCal (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Ikhouvanjou14! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CostalCal (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Participate in the RfC on "Foreign players" tables in season articles

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#RfC on "Foreign players" tables in season articles regarding a topic in which you may be interested. Thank you and have a nice day. Lâm (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Links to draft articles

Please do not introduce links to draft articles in actual articles, as you did to 2026 NBA All-Star Game. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2027 NBA All-Star Game (February 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hurricane Wind and Fire was:

It is still far WP:TOOSOON for this. The event is happening in over a year and the 2026 All-Star Game just happened. We should wait at least a few months before creating an article on this topic.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2027 NBA All-Star Game and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 14:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C.–Manchester City F.C. rivalry

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Arsenal F.C.–Manchester City F.C. rivalry, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. Footballgy (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

You never update the article, but suddenly care so much that you want it to be preserved the way it was, obsolete. Zinchenko already left Arsenal and you insist on having him as an active Arsenal player. If you insist on the caps and goals, update that after every league game. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I actually created the article. Who knew?! Just find it a bizarre peculiar edit to try and reinforce, “removing stats so they don’t have to be updated”. Little tip, don’t waste your time on here making edits that dumb down, or lower the quality of an article as you’ll hit just have your edits reversed. Looking at your talk page it looks like this is a common trait, as for Zinchenko…I’ve not even mentioned him? Nobody is going to dispute you marking a player has left when he is, but they will if you bulk

delete informative sections of an article. Footballgy (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Removal of language field in sources

Hello, please do not remove the language of the sources, even if the language of the source is English: this is because we record the varieties of English used by sources, and Conversations about Important Things is not the only article where we do this (source). --Minoa (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Block

I asked you to stop posting inappropriate warnings to editors, including immediate "only warnings" for things which did not merit them. You said that in future you would "refrain" from doing so, but, as you know, you have in fact continued to do it. I considered giving you one more warning; on reflection, however, I decided that in view of the fact that you regard just one warning as sufficient for quite minor, often good faith, mistakes, there is no need to give you yet another warning for far more serious unacceptable editing practices, so I have blocked you from editing. At present the block is for just three days; I hope that will be enough to convey the message to you. If you believe there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock. To do so, first read the guide to appealing blocks, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of this page, replacing the words "Your reason here" appropriately. . JBW (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ikhouvanjou14 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I issued warning on obvious vandals only, see their contributions yourself; Ezeclaps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), ~2026-12062-94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and ~2026-12145-21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wrong answer. You were advised by a highly experienced admin to stop with the "only warnings". You said you would refrain from doing so. You didn't refrain, and hence these consequences. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

--jpgordon So what am I supposed to do with obvious vandals, report to AIV without any warning and admins will dismiss it as they have not been "sufficiently warned". Warn them and face blocks like this. I thought I am allowed to warn obvious vandals, not that I promise not to warn anyone. Is JBW virtually ban me to even warn obvious vandals like Ezeclaps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), ~2026-12062-94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and ~2026-12145-21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? If so I retract that promise, because I only promise not to freely warn anyone, not those who are obviously vandalizing. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

You're not being advised not to warn people. You were advised not to give those "final warnings" -- which you are not empowered to act upon anyway, so the threats are hollow. Take a look at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace. You'll notice that the warning levels are tiered. You have lots of choices. That being said, your work in general is pretty good, which is why the block is so short; all you need to is agree to stop issuing these warnings. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

So I have to go with 1st tier first? Can I go from 2nd or 3rd onwards? I think the first one is pretty soft for those who are determined to troll and disrupt, based on my experience. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:VANDALISM#Warnings has a table that should be useful. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Some advice, which I hope may be helpful to you

I see from the things you have written above that you are unclear about some of the issues involved, so here are some answers to some of the points you have raised. I hope they may help to clarify things for you.

• Personally I almost never post any kind of "level 1" warning, and certainly never the "level 1" vandalism warning. If the editing really is vandalism, then we need to to say so, which that message doesn't. If, on the other hand, it is good faith but misguided editing, not vandalism, then telling the editor that their edits "have been undone because they did not appear constructive", without making any attempt whatsoever to help them understand what is unacceptable about it is, in my opinion, inexcusable. So no, you don't have to go through the levels starting at level 1; however, there's a huge difference between that and jumping straight to a level 4 "only" warning. As I have already said, those warnings are for extreme and exceptional situations. I doubt that as many as 1 in a thousand cases of vandalism warrants a level 4 "only warning".
• It is not actually true that all your warnings have been to people who have obviously been vandalising. Consider, for example, the case which I mentioned in my first post to you, above. It is far from obvious that that was vandalism. Bear in mind that if an editor honestly believes that what they are doing is constructive, then it isn't vandalism, no matter how wrong they may be in believing that it's constructive.
• I suggest that you may like to consider thinking more or less along the following lines:

1. Start by thinking "Is it certain, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this person is deliberately being unhelpful?"
2. If the answer is either "No, they mean well, and don't understand that they are doing something unhelpful", or even "Well, they are probably deliberately being obstructive, but it's just possible that they mean well and don't understand what is wrong with what they are doing", then don't post any of the pre-written vandalism messages: instead post a friendly message explaining what you think is wrong with their editing. If one of the other pre-written messages (not a vandalism one) is suitable, then you may like to use that, otherwise write an individual message. (Yes, that takes more time and effort, but that is no excuse for not bothering to do it. Ready-made messages should be used only when what they say fits the circumstances.)
3. If you have decided that the answer to the question in step 1 is "Yes, they certainly are deliberately doing things they know are wrong", then post a message warning them against vandalism. What I usually do in this situation is give a level 2 warning first time. An immediate jump to level 3 is appropriate very rarely, and since some of the things you have said above make it clear that you have some uncertainty about these things, I suggest that you stick to making it always level 2, to avoid possible problems.

I have put some time and thought into writing these comments, in the hope that they will be helpful to you. However, please feel welcome to let me know if you think there's any further clarification that I may be able to give you. JBW (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay thanks, in the meantime, can you protect 2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season and 2025–26 Liverpool F.C. season, since there have been (almost) daily vandalism there? Thanks. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on John Davidson (activist)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page John Davidson (activist), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2026 AFC Women's Asian Cup.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2026 AFC Women's Asian Cup.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

Hello, I'm Pipe058. I noticed that you recently removed content from Africa Cup of Nations without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. pipe058^{Talk * Contribs} 22:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Central Military Commission (China), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please also review WP:NOPIPE. Amigao (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Flag of China. 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. Amigao (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, Ikhouvanjou14, there, from Amigao, are some examples of exactly what I mentioned above: messages saying that something you have done "did not appear to be constructive", with no attempt to explain why. I have no idea why anyone would think that would be a good idea. However, in the course of checking those edits, I noticed that you make even less of an effort to explain yourself than that, in your edit summaries. Almost all of your edits either have no edit summaries at all or have edit summaries which give no indication whatsoever of what the edits are doing, with "fix" being your edit summary for just over half of your last 100 edits. That, together with equally vague edits, most commonly "add", and edits with no edit summary at all, together make up almost 100% of your edits. There are already twelve messages on this page referring to your giving either no edit summaries or unhelpful ones. You have had more than enough requests to change your ways, and you don't need any further reminder, but even so I am giving you just one more; please start providing an edit summary which briefly explains what your edit is doing, for every edit you make. If you don't, you are likely to be blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

After writing my message above, I found that your use of vague edit summaries such as "fix" was mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Archived here) and that you responded there after it was mentioned, so you were clearly aware of it. JBW (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@JWB...and it just keeps going even after your comment. More edits here and here with just "fix" as the WP:ES. There is clearly a long-standing failure to WP:COMMUNICATE, perhaps veering into an issue of WP:NOTHERE. - Amigao (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, no piping. So everything good I did is void because you insist on using the PRC redirect? Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing. This cannot come as a surprise, as you were warned that it would be likely to happen if you continued in the way you were going. Some of your persistent failure to communicate constructively may possibly due to a failure to understand, but it is difficult to see your continuation of giving "fix" and "add" as edit summaries, right after receiving the messages above, as anything other than deliberate defiance.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ikhouvanjou14 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Sorry. I promise to adequately add edit summary and communicate better if and when unblocked. It is just that I am very busy in real life lately to adequately response anything better. I am begging you, please unblock me. If in the future I am doing this kind of things again, feel free to indef me. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you are too busy in real life to properly edit Wikipedia, you are too busy to edit Wikipedia at all. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ikhouvanjou14 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

@Jpgordon: I promise to communicate, if that is the problem. I think an indef block for failing to communicate properly is very harsh, using WP:NOTHERE as if I only do harm to the project. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm normally really happy to give out last chances, but I can't bring myself to ask JBW to okay this one. Please take a break for now, and take the standard offer. I'm sure we'll be happier about giving another chance after that. asilvering (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yes, communication is the problem. Communication is required on Wikipedia. Without communication, then every edit dispute becomes an edit war, and that's the end of Wikipedia. And indefinite block is not an infinite block; it just means that there's no set time, and it can be anywhere from one minute to forever.

If you're too busy in real life with something to be able to devote time to communicating about your edits, that's fine, but that also means that you're too busy to make edits at all, because this is a basic responsibility that comes with editing, and you can't have one without the other. I think it's likely you will be unblocked when an administrator trusts you will communicate in the future, but you'll also be expected to live up these promises, or a similar, future block is far less likely to be lifted. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: I promise to do so. I am trying to better manage my time. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• You don't need to be close to Wikipedia 24/7. But you do need to communicate within a reasonable time frame. You don't need to beg, we just need to know that you will be better about communicating. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@331dot: I promise to do so. I am trying to better manage my time. Maybe I will activate any notif from Wikipedia on my phone, so any talk page conversation can be acknowledged at once. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

But that isn't really the issue. The issue is that you're doing things like not using edit summaries. -- asilvering (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Then I am following that, complete edit summaries from now on instead of short, non-descriptive one. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• I have noticed two edits of yours in which you have either added a ping to an existing message or changed the target of an existing ping, but neither of those will work. For a ping to work it must be made in an edit which is signed with ~~~~ and which also adds at least one new line.
• You say nice things about using edit summaries, evidently because you think that will get you unblocked, but in fact you are still not giving edit summaries. Since the present block was imposed you have made nine edits. None of those edits has had an edit summary. Can you really expect an administrator to consider unblocking you while you are repeatedly doing something at the same time as saying that you won't do it? JBW (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  You want long edit summaries? Okay, coming right after the unblock. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

If you really thought that what I was saying was that I wanted long edit summaries then I doubt that you will be able to communicate with other editors satisfactorily, because that suggests you have serious difficulties understanding what is said to you. JBW (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2025–26 Real Betis season (April 18)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Hurricane Wind and Fire, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

This draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all content be supported by reliable sources.

• Reliable sources include: reputable newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and books from respected publishers.
• Unacceptable sources include: personal blogs, social media, predatory publishers, most tabloids, and websites where anyone can contribute.

Replace any unreliable sources with high-quality sources. If you cannot find a reliable source for the material, it should be removed.

The only source is not independent of the subject and does not verify most of the content, only the players.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:2025–26 Real Betis season to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs) (Why I declined your draft)🔥 20:29, 18 April 2026 (UTC)