Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pedri, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pedri, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Pedri, you may be blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was resolved Vicpumu (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at FC Barcelona. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at FC Barcelona, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Unsourced content. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When editing wikipedia, please ensure your edit summaries actually reflect the changes being made, and why. Accusing other people of vandalism such as in this edit summary "Correct the vandalism act. Political reasons" when there is no vandalism and no "political reasons" will lead to your edits being reverted. The same issue obviously exists in this revert here. "STOP VANDALISM. REPETITIVE WORDS: It is not necessary to specify the nationality in this section. At the end of the sentence it is clearly stated that it is based in Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain." - there is no vandalism, and in fact if you have summarised your initial reversion by saying "removing unnecessary duplication" - there would have been no scrutiny of the change as the reasoning would have been obvious. Koncorde (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Robert Lewandowski, FC Barcelona, and FC Bayern Munich) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at FC Barcelona, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being obsessed of my edits. Robert Lewandowski still active in FC Barcelona players list. Spolier: Not added for me. You may not have reviewed my edit before making a reversal? If you dedicated your fierce obsession to other areas, I am convinced that Wikipedia could benefit from your good editions. Vicpumu (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, now removed. That's interesting feedback, do you have any suggestions for where I could direct my "fierce obsession"? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at FC Barcelona, you may be blocked from editing. Players added are not included in the source. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Raphinha in your Source? I repeat. This FC Barcelona source Barça players have many important errors. raphinha is not in this source. Can you explain me? Vicpumu (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop reverting edits en masse and stop accusing others of making unsourced edits. Pizzigs (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the unsourced edits like you make continously in Real Madrid CF page, please utilize the Talk page. Thanks Vicpumu (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Example: There is no source that assures that the Padrós brothers earlier met the Corinthian FC players. Vicpumu (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All my edits are sourced. If your problem is with one specific word, replace it instead of reverting edits en masse. Furthermore, I cleaned up after you on multiple occasions because your edits contain numerous grammar mistakes. Try being less combative, and given the history of your talk page, I'm not the only struggling to understand your logic. Pizzigs (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2022–23 FC Barcelona season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2022-23 FC Barcelona season page is being repeatedly edited without reliable sources. These edits are mostly made by anonymous users. Contractual changes or the addition of new players must be from reliable sources, not from breaking news notices. Vicpumu (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get blocked for reverting an edit without a trusted source. Editions based on journalistic news and that do not provide any official source must be reversed. Vicpumu (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can. Lack of a source, or insufficient sourcing, is not an exception to 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2022–23 FC Barcelona season. Please self-revert or I will report you immediately. You have already been warned several times. Sakiv (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Sakiv:,

at no time have I done any vandalism. I have clarified some information for casual readers. I have explained the reasons and clarified that globally there are people who do not know whether the Spanish league has ended or has recently started, hence the addition of remaining matches. I think it is not vandalism to add clarifying information. in reference to reverts, the one who made abusive edits was you who removed other improvements without specifying the reasons. I ask you to stop editing abusively and reversing edits without specifying the reasons. Thanks. Vicpumu (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are funny.. Barcelona plays in the Spanish league, which has only completed two rounds. How does the reader suppose that this is the final position for them? The other "improvements" were because they were not justified and there was no need to add the same introduction every year. You can add whatever you want but do not change the introduction which is understandable and simplified. The warning remains and be civil when writing.--Sakiv (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again @Sakiv::

I'm not trying to be funny. Adding a number to the classification without clarifying that the competition is active, a casual reader could interpret that this is a definitive classification. Not everyone knows or knows the competition systems. You are pretending that everyone knows how the competitions work and believe me that is not the case. the introduction has been improved with new, clearer wording and new links. it is not a crime to want to improve the page and think about the readers. Don't pretend to lead the editorial line because you don't like the others.

Vicpumu (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the introduction has not been changed at any time. has been improved. it says exactly the same thing with better wording. please avoid abusive reversals. Vicpumu (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chipping in as i reverted the same (talking about the current standing in the box) for the Real season. That is standard usage across all articles (i just checked ManU, chelsea, sevilla to name a few and they all use the italic method), so your change needs a discussion if you want to change it. Raise it at the Footy project if you want and more people can comment on that and we go with the result but edit-warring is not the way to go as you wanted to change something and was reverting. Next step is a discussion per WP:BRD. Kante4 (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kante is correct. Since you are making the bold change, you need to start the discussion. You can discuss at the article page if you think it should apply only to that one article, or you can take it to the WikiProject if you think the change should be wider. You are at the three revert limit in the article, and the other editors' removal of your addition is not vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kante4:,

I have just used the Talk pages to make the change regarding the provisional numbering. I think it is necessary because not everyone has the knowledge of when the seasons start in each country. If, for example, you or I wanted to be interested in the current season of a Brazilian, Russian or Japanese club, we would be grateful if you could specify how advanced the domestic league is or if the classification is already final. With the other competitions it does not happen because the rounds in which the team is currently are specified.

Vicpumu (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @C.Fred::

I just replied to Kante4. Please read my last reply. Vicpumu (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replied but think as it does not only concerns one article, it should be discussed at the footy project. And you can't assume that people are confused as i have not yet seen a confused editor about that in my time here. Kante4 (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you do are not an improvement. Spaces on header, caputalize main, see also and so on. Those things are good and working as they are. Kante4 (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that they don't generate any different aesthetics in the end result for the reader, but at the editing level it's fine for all headers to have the same homogenous format. Headers are currently written in different forms. my intention is that they all have the same format. With your rollback, you've left uneven headers. I don't understand your desire to revert without thinking that it might be good to establish a homogenous pattern. it is definitely an improvement in organization and a featured page should be well organized and not with different styles and formats. If I don't get your answer I will change your revert again. Vicpumu (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at home now and will check later today with the header. To go to articles and just change header in every section seperately and not even in one edit, looks odd and a bit of edit count boosting and like i said, no difference for the reader. Once again, if you want to have headers in one form for every article, this needs wider discussion. Once you are reverted a discussion should take place and not another revert as you "plan", not how it goes here on wiki. Kante4 (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4:

I don't think it's necessary to start a discussion debating whether headers should have the same format. In a high-quality articles such as Real Madrid CF's, it should be like this. There is an obvious improvement. As a user who regularly edits with a mobile device, it is easier to be able to edit section by section. Vicpumu (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you edited every header in the 2022 season to "your" preferred version is not correct, as they already were in the same format and did not need an overhaul. If you disagree, then we are at the point of dicussing such a change. Why not try and do other things and help wiki like improving articles (like the Barcelona article which you work good on) and not such things like headers and stuff where there are bots better suited for. Will be home later as it is hard on the phone for me, so more text if needed later today. Kante4 (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will look forward to your review later. It's not my preference, it's simply a homogeneity of editing for better ordering. Vicpumu (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My review is pretty much above and the reasons why those edits are not needed are given. So, like i said those header edits and others, are aesthetical and do not change the article in any kind or form. Once again like the standings before, no one complained or questioned the headers/capitalizing "main", "see also" and stuff. You go on a rampage on an article, make 24 seperate edits just to space the heading. This is not what wiki is about and we have better things to do (write an article, improve one, find sources and so on...) And your edits had 3/4 editors come to your page or reverting your edits. This means that something is not correct and needs a discussion. Kante4 (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is it better? Stop distrupting and realize that what you are doing is not constructive. Your edits are only aesthetic and an editor has cancelled your preferred outlook.--Sakiv (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Sakiv:,

I'd like you to explain (I doubt you will) about the edit I'm attaching below about an edit you made yesterday where you made the exact same edits you're criticizing right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022–23_FC_Barcelona_season&diff=1106443003

Vicpumu (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not answer you anything until you accept the advice of all the editors who warned you and start working as a reliable user here. Your question is also not related to our discussion.--Sakiv (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2022–23 FC Barcelona season. Stop now and self-revert. You are only here to disrupt our efforts. Sakiv (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not answering the reason for your edits made yesterday and so criticized today when other users make them. You should ask yourself who is doing unreliable edits and rollbacks. Try it again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022–23_FC_Barcelona_season&diff=1106443003 Vicpumu (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not vandalizing wikipedia. Vicpumu (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what you're talking about and the block is coming. And why didn't you retract the very same edit I cancelled yesterday. Yes your only mission here is to vandalise.--Sakiv (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your way of speaking is abusive, authoritarian and disrespectful. I have not vandalized wikipedia at any time. I haven't made any edits that prove it, and all you have to do is add yourself to a conversation to criticize the same edits you made yesterday. You have no reason. Vicpumu (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's another personal attack on me. I'm very surprised you haven't been blocked yet.--Sakiv (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to make any personal attacks on anyone. Your ways seem disrespectful to me and so I let you know how I feel. You want to be right without justifying it. You continuously threaten retaliation without wanting to know the reasons for the edits and make reversals without giving reasons. You think you are the authority. Vicpumu (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List the vandal edits I've made. I doubt you can… Vicpumu (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to help with Barca season page, If you think I made a wrong edition, please let me know , and If I have any questions about anything you add I will let you know as well Thank you and happy editing! 108.30.205.112 (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vicpumu, you were blocked 16 July 2022 for edit warring. You were warned about edit warring again on 4 August 2022.

In a period spanning 24 hours from 24 August to 25 August (yesterday), you conducted seven reverts [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. It doesn't matter if the reverts were for different things. The WP:3RR policy is extremely clear on this, even highlighting it in a red box; "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.". Given that you've been previously blocked by User:C.Fred for edit warring, and you've been pointed to the Wikipedia:Edit warring policy on multiple occasions, it is hard to imagine that you haven't seen this policy. Yet, here we are, it's late August and you're edit warring again. I don't think the lesson is coming home to you. It doesn't matter if you find yourself in the incredibly unique position of thinking you are right and everyone else is wrong. The edit warring itself is disruptive, even if everyone really is wrong and you're the only one in the room who has all the right answers.

I strongly, in the most adamant terms, encourage you to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Edit warring is not a means to an end. Given that you've previously been blocked for it, and given that the lesson doesn't seem to be coming home, the next time you engage in edit warring you will almost certainly be blocked for it. Had I been watching yesterday, I would have blocked you for it then. The next block you get might be for a considerably longer time.

Let's be clear here; this isn't about anyone else's behavior, or the veracity of your edits. Trying to justify your actions by calling out problematic edits of other editors is not a way through this. It is your disruptive edit warring that is the problem, and MUST be resolved. You have a choice before you. Moving forward, you can either agree to abide by our Wikipedia:Edit warring policy or find yourself blocked.

Understand; the project will never be perfect. There is always going to be something wrong on Wikipedia. I am reminded of this xkcd comic. If something is wrong on 2022–23 FC Barcelona season or any other article, the world isn't going to come crashing down with Wikipedia causing the end of civilization. Take a deep breath, take a break, walk away, ...something. Don't edit war. With all intent of giving you positive support, you must understand this is a final warning. Whether by me or another admin, if you start edit warring again (and you don't have to be in violation of 3RR to be edit warring; read the policy) you will be blocked. Please, stop. I hope I've been clear. If you have any questions about this, certainly let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to avoid using all capital letters in talk page posts or talk page section headings like you’ve done at Talk:FC Barcelona for the reasons given in WP:SHOUT. Even though your intentions may be the best, using all capital letters might be mistaken by some as being overly aggressive, demanding or as a sign of anger. Posting in such a manner isn’t really conducive to promoting WP:CIVIL discussion, particularly when what’s being discussed is likely going to contentious. The way the Wikipedia software works regarding section headings is that they already stand-out enough to make discussions easy to follow and find. Adding all capital letter section headings is unnecessary and might predispose others to already feel negatively or opposed to the discussion even before actually reading about what you actually are trying to discuss. — Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Vicpumu reported by User:Sakiv (Result: ). Thank you. Sakiv (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at 2022–23 FC Barcelona season. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Hammersoft (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite giving you an extensive, personalized warning above at User_talk:Vicpumu#Your_edit_warring_must_stop, you decided to engage in edit warring yet again with [8][9][10][11]. It wasn't until after all that that you decided to start engaging in actual discussion at User_talk:Erminameraz#Unsourced_edits, and even then only after you were reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You've previously been warned about edit warring, and have been blocked for it before. You don't seem to be getting it. Since you insist on disrupting the project with your edit warring, I have issued this three day block. You've been linked to the appropriate policies before. Read them. We work in a collegial environment here. We do not work by bludgeoning other people into submission by reverting their edits. If you continue the edit warring behavior after this block expires, you can expect the next block will be for considerably longer. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How easy is it to block a user who has only been active for 7 months. You don't care if people edit and post information without a reliable source. The aim of wikipedia is to provide to the reader, often sporadic, with the best information based on reliable sources. If I were to publish information without checking and there was a user who made me 4 reverts, I am convinced that you would not have the same criteria. What is more serious, repeatedly publishing information without a reliable source or reversing these publications that manipulate the information? Vicpumu (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You have been blocked for edit warring before. You've been warned several times before. Even with this rejoinder now, you don't seem to be understanding the seriousness of edit warring and how disruptive it is to the project. You are trying to claim an exemption for your edit warring due to lack of source, yet User:C.Fred specifically told you the exception you were trying to claim didn't exist [12]. You might disagree with this, but the community has already spoken about this. You are welcome to request an unblock via posting {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} here on your talk page. But, given that you don't seem to be getting it that what you were doing is wrong, I think it highly unlikely another administrator would unblock you. If you intend on continuing on this project you had better gain a full, complete understanding of our Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policies. We are quite happy to help you if there is something about those policies that you don't understand. We want you here. We really do. But, we do not want the edit warring. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Since you decided to evade your block by creating a sockpuppet at User:Dalí's Mustache, I have extended your block by a week. I'm certainly open to being proven wrong, but it's blatantly clear this is the case. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Since you decided to continue to attempt to evade your block by creating another sock puppet at User:The Garnet Book, I have extended this block to indefinite. Please read and understand the Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry policy. If you're not willing to abide by that policy, this account will remain blocked. You are welcome to add an unblock request with {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, it is important you agree to abide by that sockpuppet policy and understand what you are doing wrong. If you have questions about this, let me know. You can ping my by adding {{ping|Hammersoft}} and sign your post (else, the ping won't work). --Hammersoft (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]