Welcome to my talk page!

-Comment bellow:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, BEN917

Thank you for creating 2015 Greek Football Cup Final.

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

Thanks for the article!

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

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

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

Hello, BEN917,

Thank you for creating Petros Karavitis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for making this project better!

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

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

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

Thanks for your contributions! Happy editing!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for creating the article!

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

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

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

Thanks for creating the article!

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

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

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

Thanks for creating the article!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Εξαιρετική δουλειά στο List of Greek Cup finals και με κάθε Τελικό ξεχωριστά. Εύγε Abudabanas (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Να σαι καλά, εύχομαι ανάλογες επιτυχίες και σ εσένα! Where are my bleeping barnstars?!?! :D BEN917 10:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Προσωπική μου γνώμη για το ΑΕΚ-ΠΑΟΚ, πιστεύω είναι καλύτερα για κάποιον που διαβάζει τους πίνακες με τα αποτελέσματα οι αγώνες των πλέι-οφς να είναι μαζί με τους αγώνες της regular season. Αν είναι σε ξεχωριστό πίνακα κάποιος που θα θέλει να δει τα αποτελέσματα μίας σεζόν, πχ τι έγινε όταν πήρε η ΑΕΚ το πρωτάθλημα το 2022-23 ή ο ΠΑΟΚ το 2023-24 θα πρέπει να σκρολάρει πάνω κάτω. Με εκτίμηση Abudabanas (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Έκανα όμως αναβαθμησάρα κατά τ' άλλα εε;; ΕΕ;; :P Αν και δεν θυμάμαι καθαρά γιατί τα διαχώρισα θα πω αφενός επειδή σιγουρα θεώρησα άσκοπο να φαίνεται η αγωνιστική και αφετέρου κρίνοτας ιστορικά και μακροσκοπικά το πρωτάθλημα, τα play-offs είναι κάτι παροδικό και μια "ιδιαιτερότητα" του δικού μας πρωταθλήματος (σκέψου τί θα γινότανε αν τα έφερνε έτσι και είχαμε περισσότερα μπαραζ πρωταθλήματος παλαιότερα). Επιπροσθέτως σε αυτό που λες σχετικά με τις παρεχόμενες πληροφορίες πιστεύω ότι είναι αδόκιμο, γιατί τα άρθρα που αναφέρονται στις συγκεκριμένες σεζόν (πχ 2022-23 AEK, 2022-23 PAOK και 2022-23 Super League) είναι αυτά που πρέπει να δεί. Εμένα αυτή ειναί η γνώμη μου.

ΥΓ1:Αν μπορείς κάποιες από τις αλλαγές (αν όχι όλες) να τις περάσεις και στα υπόλοιπα ντέρμπι του ΠΑΟΚ.

ΥΓ2:Tip-Εκμεταλλεύσου το αρχείο του gazzetta για την Αθλητική Ηχώ για να επεκτείνεις-βελτιστοποιήσεις τις σεζόν του ΠΑΟΚ.

Με εκτίμηση, BEN917 08:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Γενικά έχεις κάνει πολύ καλή δουλειά σχεδόν σε όλα τα ποδοσφαιρικά άρθρα και μπράβο. Ευχαριστώ και για τα tips με Αθλητική Ηχώ στο gazzetta. Στο ΑΕΚ-ΠΑΟΚ θα επιμείνω όμως. Μπέρδεμα ο πίνακας. Πολύ μεγάλος και δεν είναι τόσο <<ξεκάθαρος>>. Προσωπική γνώμη, μπορεί να διαφωνείς, οκ. Τον προτιμώ όπως ήταν πριν. Οπως είναι στο ΠΑΟ-ΠΑΟΚ πχ τώρα που μιλάμε. Φαίνεται με μία ματιά το εντός-εκτός ας πούμε. Οπως το βλέπεις πχ σε στοιχηματικά sites όταν είναι να παίξουν μεταξύ τους. Και για τον διαχωρισμό των play-off το ίδιο. Το να βλέπω σκόρπια αγώνες play-off δεν εξυπηρετεί. Οι αγώνες της ίδιας σεζόν πρέπει να είναι μαζί. Για να είναι πιο εύκολο να καταλάβει κάποιος τι έγινε τη συγκεκριμένη σεζόν χωρίς να σκρολάρεις πάνω-κάτω. Καθαρά χρονικά πρέπει να είναι μαζί. Δε πρόκειται να τα πειράξω με edits, απλά σου λέω τη γνώμη μου και ξέρεις ότι έχουμε την ίδια τρέλα με στατιστική. Είναι λίγο μπέρδεμα όπως είναι τώρα, χάνεσαι κάπως ενώ πριν ήταν πιο ευδιάκριτα για τον αναγνώστη. Προτιμώ 100% τους πίνακες όπως είναι στο ΠΑΟ-ΠΑΟΚ. Αυτό. Να είσαι καλά Abudabanas (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Αν και δεν θεωρώ ότι αυτός ο διαχώρισμός είναι βαρύνουσας σημασίας, πρέπει να γίνει κατανοητό ότι ιστορικά τα μπαράζ πρωταθλήματος/υποβιβασμού/διαβάθμισης που γίνονταν από τα 60'ς μέχρι τα 80'ς και ήταν μονοί αγώνες θεορούνται και αυτά play-off. Το big three έτυχε πολλούς τέτοιους αγώνες συναμετάξυ τους, απλά στο συγκεκριμένο ντέρμπυ δεν έτυχε. Αν είχαμε όμως πώς αυτό θα απεικονιζόταν με ωραίο τρόπο; Άμα μελλοντικά κατάργηθουν τα play-off δεν θα φαίνεται παράξενο στους επόμενους που θα βλέπουν οι ομάδες να παίζουν άλλοτε 2, άλλοτε 3 και άλλοτε 4 αγώνες πρωταθλήματος στην ίδια σεζόν και αντί για αριθμό αγωνιστικής να γράφει "p-o" ή και ξέρω γω τι άλλο προκειμένου να ταιριάζει στο πίνακα; Μην μπαίνεις στο κόπο να μπερδεύεσαι προσπαθόντας να βγάλεις κάποιο συμπέρασμα από τους πίνακες του Match list που κάνουν απλά καταγραφή. Οι στατιστικές και τα συμπεράσματα βρίσκονται κυριολεκτικά σε όλο το υπόλοιπο άρθρο. BEN917 10:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Δεν έχει βαρύνουσα σημασία, ούτε μπερδεύομαι. Είναι απλά θέμα στο πως θα μου άρεσε πιο πολύ ή πως πιστεύω ότι είναι και πιο εύκολο για τον αναγνώστη. Προσωπική μου άποψη καθαρά. 1) Προτιμώ τα αποτελέσματα μίας σεζόν να είναι μαζί χωρίς να χρειάζεται να σκρολάρω. Για να μπορώ να καταλάβω πιο εύκολα και γρήγορα τι έγινε μία συγκεκριμένη σεζόν. 2) Προτιμώ όταν βλέπω ένα στατιστικό πίνακα να πάει κατευθείαν το μάτι στο ΑΕΚ-ΠΑΟΚ για παράδειγμα. AEK home, τόσο-τόσο-τόσο. PAOK home μετά, τόσο-τόσο-τόσο. Η δουλειά σου είναι μια χαρά, δεν αμφισβητείται. Και έτσι όπως είναι τα βρίσκεις. Απλά δεν είναι τόσο εύκολο στο μάτι όπως ήταν πριν. Εμένα μου αρέσει πιο πολύ το προηγούμενο, αυτό. Δε θα το άλλαζα το ΠΑΟ-ΠΑΟΚ και το ΟΣΦΠ-ΠΑΟΚ. Ενώ άλλες φορές είδα κάποιες ωραίες βελτιώσεις που έκανες σε άρθρα και τις υιοθέτησα. Abudabanas (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Υπάρχει και κάτι άλλο που παρατήρησα στους πίνακες που έχεις κάνει και το θεωρώ λανθασμένο. Δε γίνεται να περιλαμβάνονται τα αποτελέσματα πριν το 1959, όπως στο ΑΕΚ-ΠΑΟ που έπαιζαν τοπικό Αθηνών και Τελικά Πανελληνίου σε ένα σύνολο που χαρακτηρίζεται σαν Super League Greece results. Δε θα το δεις πουθενά αυτό. SL σύνολο αποτελεσμάτων είναι από το 1959 έως τώρα. Πρέπει να υπάρχει ξεκάθαρος διαχωρισμός που να πηγαίνει 1) Τοπικό Αθηνών 2) Τελική φάση Πανελληνίου 3) Α' Εθνική - ΣΛ 4) Κύπελλο 5 και 6) Οτι άλλη διοργάνωση υπάρχει. Και μετά από κάτω αν θέλεις εννοείται μπαίνει και total. Είναι λάθος τα 3 πρώτα να είναι σαν 1. Δε το έχω δει πουθενά. Γιατί τα δύο πρώτα δε θεωρούνται league results. Δεν εμφανίζονται ποτέ στη προιστορία των ομάδων. Ξέρω ότι ήταν αλλη μορφη διεξαγωγης και πάλι είναι μέρος του πρωταθλήματος αλλά είναι λάθος για μένα. Πάει 1-2-3-4-5-6 και μετά total και όχι 1 έως 3 μαζί και μετά 4,5,6 για να βγει total. Με εκτίμηση Abudabanas (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Μα στο ΑΕΚ-ΠΑΟ εχω βάλει ξεχωριστά τους αγωνες του ΕΠΣΑ και ξεχωριστά του πρωταθλήματος και στο "Matches summary" καί στο "Matches list". Από εκεί και πέρα Πανελλήνιο Πρωτάθλημα-Άλφα Εθνική-Super League είναι συνέχειες της ίδιας διοργάνωσης. Το μόνο που μπορώ να αντιληφθώ ως λάθος από εκεί και πέρα είναι ο τίτλος, ο οποίος μπορει να αλλάξει σε "League" και για τα υπόλοιπα έχω προσθέσει επικεφαλίδες. Το οτι δεν το εχεις δει και δεν θα το δείς πουθενά οφείλεται 2 λόγους:

1. Δεν βρήκες άλλο πρωτάθλημα με την ίδια οργάνωση με το ελληνικό (πριν το 1959), που αμφιβάλλω αν υπήρξε κιόλας.
2. Δεν υπάρχουν καταγεγραμένα σε καμία άλλη βάση δεδομένων τα αποτελέσματα των αγώνων του Πανελληνίου Πρωταθλήματος (πέρα απο τη wikipedia φυσικά!).

Οι τίτλοι του Πανελλήνιου Πρωταθλήματος όπως σίγουρα έχεις δεί όμως μπαίνουν μαζί με τα πρωταθλήματα των επομένων χρόνων γιατί ως γνωστόν είναι ο ίδιος τίτλος (άσχετο που αλλάζει ο τρόπος ανάδειξης). Αν δεν ήταν, εκτός ότι θα λέγαμε ότι πχ ο ΠΑΟ έχει 17 πρωτάθληματα και 3 πανελλήνια κλπ αντί να λέμε οτι έχει 20 πρωταθλήματα (πράγμα που δεν ισχύει φυσικά), ενδεχομένος να μην έδινε εισητήριο για τον Κύπελλο Πρωταθλητριών όπως όλα τα πρωταθλήματα από την ίδρηση των Ευρωπαϊκων διοργανώσεων. Το να διαχωρίζαμε το Πανελλήνιο Πρωτάθλημα από την Άλφα Εθνική-Super League έιναι σαν να θεωρούμε ότι είναι διαφορετικές διοργανώσεις, το οποιό θα ήταν επιεικώς αναληθές. Με εκτίμηση, BEN917 10:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Οι τίτλοι και πριν το 1959, θα δεις ότι βρίσκονται και αναγνωρίζονται παντού στο ίντερνετ. Δε χωρά αμφιβολία σε αυτό. Μιλάω καθαρά για το πως ένας ξένος θα δει τα league results ή ένας Έλληνας θα δει τη προιστορία των ομάδων στο Πρωτάθλημα. Παντού στο ίντερνετ (και σε ξένα και σε ελληνικά ΜΜΕ και στο site της SL) θα δεις ότι ο χαρακτηρισμός league προορίζεται για το 1959-present. Πριν από το 1959 δεν έχουμε league. Εχουμε Greek Championship με άλλη μορφή διεξαγωγής, όχι Greek League. Η διαφωνία μου έχει να κάνει με ορολογία καθαρά. Μεταξύ του τι σημαίνει και πως αντιλαμβάνεται κάποιος το League και το Championship. Δε μπορείς να βάζεις τον όρο Super League Greece και να περιλαμβάνεις τα αποτελέσματα συνολικά προσθέτοντας όσα ματς έγιναν σε ΕΠΣΑ ή Τελική Φάση Πανελληνίου Πρωταθλήματος. Εγώ θα το έκανα για το ΑΕΚ-ΠΑΟ πχ σαν total κατηγορία να μπει ο όρος Greek Championship. Υποκατηγορίες 1) Panhellenic Championship era matches, με α) ΕΠΣΑ β) Τελική Φάση και 2) Αλφα Εθνική Κατηγορία/ SL matches ή League matches σκέτο. Ο όρος league matches για τις αναμετρήσεις πριν το 1959 είναι λάθος για μένα. Όλα αυτά τα ματς είναι σαφέστατα Greek Championship matches, δεν είναι όμως league matches. Το ίδιο ισχύει και για τα Αρης-ΠΑΟΚ που έπαιζαν ΕΠΣΜ και μερικές χρονιές και σε Τελική Φάση Πανελληνίου. Και RSSSF θα δεις το ίδιο και στο επίσημο site της SL πολύ εύκολα θα έβαζαν σε προιστορίες αναμετρήσεων όλα τα αποτελέσματα. Υπάρχουν τα ματς πριν το 1959. Δε τα βάζουν όμως μαζί. Ποτέ. Αν θέλεις το πάμε σε Wiki football και ζητάμε βοήθεια. Με εκτίμηση Abudabanas (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC) Και κάτι τελευταίο για παράδειγμα, έφαγα φλασιά μόλις. Αν σε ρωτήσουν πες μου το πρώτο official league match της ΑΕΚ, η απάντηση είναι το ματς της 1ης αγωνιστικής του 1959. Το ίδιο και για biggest league win/defeat και γενικά για τα πάντα όλα σε στατιστικές κατηγορίες. Το league πάει στο 1959-present. Abudabanas (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Καταρχάς σου έγραψα και πιο πάνω ότι ΔΕΝ έχω βάλει ποτέ τους αγώνες του ΕΠΣΑ μαζί με του Πανελλήνιου Πρωταθλήματος, σου έβαλα και το λινκ για να μπείς να το τσεκάρεις και μόνος σου. Δεν χρειάζεται να αναφέρεις κάτι τέτοιο ποτέ ξανά γιατί ποτέ δεν τέθηκε θέμα. Οι δυο αυτές διοργανώσεις είναι ξεχώριστα και θα ήταν λάθος αν κάποιος τις έβαζε μαζί. Αφού ξεκαθαρίσαμε με αυτό προχωράμε παρακάτω. Όπως σου εξήγησα και παραπάνω τα σαιτ που προανέφερες δεν έχουν καταγεγραμένα στατιστικά του Πανελλήνιου Πρωταθλήματος και επειδή δεν έχουν μπέι στον κόπο να κάνουν έρευνα, δεν εμφανίζουν κάτι. Δεν υπάρχει βάση δεν δεδομένων που να έχει καταγεγραμένα αποτελέσματα και τους σκορερ όλων των αγώνων του Πανελλήνιου Πρωταθλήματος. Αν βρίκες κάποιο σαιτ που έχει καταγεγραμένους αγώνες και στατιστικά ή ξένο πρωτάθλημα με παρόμοια οργάνωση, στειλέ λινκ να δω πού τα έχει ξεχωριστά. Θεωρώ ότι η ορολογία που αναφέρεις βρίσκεται απλά στην ευχέρια του μεταφραστή. Εξάλλου όπως σε όλα τα ντέρμπι (που αφορούν την ΑΕΚ) έχω κάνει διαχωρισμό με επικεφαλίδες στους αγώνες όπως σου έγραψα πιο πάνω και αυτό αρκεί. Αφού προφανως και συμφωνήσαμε ότι ο τίτλος προς κατάκτηση (πρωτάθλημα) ήταν ο ίδιος, δεν είναι δυνατόν αγώνες που σου δίνουν τον προαναφερθέν τίτλο να έιναι διαφορετικοί. Ευχαριστώ για τη κατανόηση, BEN917 10:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ναι, οκ με το ΕΠΣΑ, είδα ότι το έχεις χωριστά. Τεσπα, διαφωνούμε. Δεν έχω διάθεση και να το τραβήξω, δεν είναι και σημαντικό. Απλά επιμένω στο παράδειγμά ότι first official league match είναι πάντα για τον ΠΑΟΚ (και για κάθε ομάδα ) πχ το ΠΑΟΚ-Μεγας Αλέξανδρος Κατερίνης το 1959 και όχι το Ολυμπιακός-ΠΑΟΚ το 1931 (Τελική Φάση Πανελληνίου). Το ξέρω ότι Πρωτάθλημα το ένα, Πρωτάθλημα και το άλλο, σαν κατάκτηση τίτλου μετράει το ίδιο, υπάρχει διαφορά όμως και δεν έχει να κάνει με βάση δεδομένων κι αν μπήκε κάποιος στον κόπο να κάνει έρευνα. Το SL Greece results πρέπει να έχει SL+A' κατά τη γνώμη μου. Το Greek Championship results μπορεί να τα έχει όλα με διαχωρισμό σε α και β υποκατηγορία. Να είσαι καλά Abudabanas (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Έψαξα να δω πρωταθλήματα με παρόμοια μορφή με το ελληνικό. Τουρκία. Κι εκεί το 1959 ξεκίνησε League. Μπορείς να πας πχ στο άρθρο Beşiktaş–Galatasaray rivalry. Θα δεις ότι στα head to head matches στη στατιστική, υπάρχει ξεκάθαρος διαχωρισμός μεταξύ των αγώνων μετά το 1959 που είναι league και πριν το 1959 που γράφει Istanbul League και κάποια Turkish National νομίζω. Στο τέλος τα προσθέτει όλα και γράφει total official matches. Σε άλλο άρθρο στο Galatasaray records παρατηρείς επίσης ότι υπάρχει ξεκάθαρος διαχωρισμός στις νίκες ρεκόρ κτλ. Όλα τα ρεκόρ πριν το 1959 της Γαλατά είναι σε ξεχωριστή ενότητα. Δε γράφει ας πούμε ότι η μεγαλύτερη νίκη στο Πρωτάθλημα είναι το 12-0 το 1930κατι. Τα διαχωρίζει. Ακριβώς το ίδιο ισχύει και στην Ελλάδα. Παράδειγμα, η μεγαλύτερη ήττα του ΠΑΟΚ στο Πρωτάθλημα είναι ένα 6-0 στο Καραϊσκάκη το 1962. Του Ολυμπιακού ένα 6-1 το 1987 στις Σέρρες. Θυμάμαι άπειρα λευκώματα-αφιερωματα σε εφημερίδες που τα έγραφαν αυτά πριν την έναρξη ενός πρωταθλήματος. Δεν έγραφαν ποτέ το 8-2 από τον ΠΑΟ παρόλο που το ήξεραν όλοι. Άλλη ενότητα. Άλλη μορφή πρωταθλήματος. Θα μου πεις πως γίνεται αφού ο τίτλος είναι ο ίδιος? Πρωτάθλημα. Στα Πρωταθλήματα στα λευκώματα τα έβαζαν όλα. Κι όμως, λόγω του συστήματος διεξαγωγής διαχωρίζονται οι αγώνες σε league και προ-league. Και οι Τούρκοι το ιδιο κάνουν που είναι πανομοιότυπο. Αυτά Abudabanas (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Λοιπόν, έψαξα αυτά που μου είπες. Εκεί κανουν διαχωρισμό και στους τίτλους δεν τους βάζουν μαζί με τα πρωταθλήματα. (Εξάλλου αμφιβάλλω αν έχουν ρίξει την ίδια δουλεία που έχουμε ρίξει εγώ κι εσύ) Ο διαχωρισμός που λες εσύ όντως ισχυεί προαιρετικά σε καταγραφή διάφορων πληροφοριακών στοιχείων όπως κάποια συγκεκριμένα ρεκόρ όπως ρεκόρ ευρέων αποτελεσμάτων, ρεκόρ συγκομιδής βαθμών, ρεκόρ επίτευξης τερμάτων, σερί αποτελεσμάτων. Αυτό όμως μπορεί να συμβεί και κάθε φορά που αλλάζει και ο αριθμός των ομάδων στο πρωτάθλημα. Πληροφοριακά είμαστε καλυμμένοι με τις επικεφαλίδες. Ευχαριστώ για τις ενδιαφέρουσες πληροφορίες πάντως, BEN917 11:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Κάποιες απαντήσεις εδώ ίσως σου φανούν χρήσιμες για να καταλάβεις το δικό μου 'σκαλωμα' με την ορολογία. Συμφωνώ 100% με μια απάντηση που λέει ότι league είναι διοργάνωση που παίζεις εντός - εκτός (round-robin) με όλους 2 (ή και περισσότερες) φορές, ενώ championship είναι διοργάνωση που έχει και νοκ-αουτ αναμετρήσεις ή πλει-οφς μέχρι να βγει champion (όπως είχε η Τελική Φάση στο Πανελλήνιο). Καλό μήνα Abudabanas (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC) Ευχαριστώ και πάλι για τις ενδιαφέρουσες πληροφορίες. Απλά να βάλω έναν μικρό αστερίσκο ότι η τελική φάση των μεταπολεμικών πρωταθλημάτων (1946–1959), καθώς και αυτά των περιόδων 1930–31, 1931–32 και 1935–36 δεν διέφεραν ιδιαίτερα από την Άλφα Εθνική, καθώς διεξήχθησαν και αυτά υπό μορφήν round-robin που θα έλεγες κι εσύ. Καλό μήνα. BEN917 15:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Έχει εντός - εκτός στην Τελική Φάση. Δεν υπάρχει όμως σταθερή φόρμα διεξαγωγής. Άλλες χρονιές είναι Τελική Φάση με 3 ομάδες, άλλες με 6, άλλες με 10. Άλλες χρονιές προσθέτουμε ομάδες από Περιφέρεια, άλλες δε συμμετέχουν καν. Όλα σταματάνε το 1959. Ενιαίο Πρωτάθλημα με τη συνδρομή της UEFA. League. Από εκεί και μετά η μορφή του πρωταθλήματος είναι έως σήμερα η ίδια (μόνο αν ακολουθούν αγώνες κατάταξης έχει μικρή διαφορά). Εγώ εκτιμώ ότι αν πάει σε Wiki Football σε συζήτηση, θα δεις ότι οι περισσότεροι (αν όχι όλοι) θα συμφωνήσουν ότι σε στατιστική head to head μεταξύ δύο συλλόγων, πρέπει να υπάρχει διαχωρισμός των αποτελεσμάτων πριν το 1959, με μετά το 1959, και ακολούθως να βγαίνει μια ολική σούμα μαζί με Κύπελλα και λοιπούς επίσημους αγώνες σε άλλες διοργανώσεις (Λιγκ Καπ κτλ). Όχι το 1927-present που εφαρμόζεις εσύ στα αποτελέσματα του Πρωταθλήματος. Όπως σου έδειξα και με Τουρκία όπου έγιναν σχεδόν τα ίδια (άσχετα με το αν διαχωρίζουν εκεί τίτλους ή όχι). Τεσπα. Σέβομαι τη δουλειά που έχεις ρίξει (που είναι μεγάλη) και ειλικρινά, δεν είναι και κάτι τόσο σημαντικό. Επειδή έχουμε την ίδια λόξα, διαφωνήσαμε εδώ, δε τρέχει κάτι. Συνεχίζουμε. Να είσαι καλά Abudabanas (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Κοίτα, όσο ζούμε μαθαίνουμε. Και όσο προχωράω με την έρευνά, ανακαλύπτω νέα πράγματα. Αν με το καλό φτάσω κάποια στιγμή μέχρι εκεί μπορεί να προκύψουν νέα στοιχεία και να αναθεωρήσω σε κάποια πράγματα όπως έχω κάνει επανειλημένως και να τα δω και με τη δική σου οπτική. Μέχρι τότε οψόμεθα! :D Καλή συνέχεια. BEN917 17:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi BEN917. Thank you for your work on 1974 Greek Football Cup final. Another editor, Bastun, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work on your new article. It would benefit from being added to appropriate Wikiprojects, such as Greece and Football, which will attract more editors to help improve the article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BEN917. Thank you for your work on Stavros Giafaloglou. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! May you and your family have a blessed day!

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Mimis Seltsikas. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Frost 23:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from el:Μίμης Σέλτσικας to Mimis Seltsikas. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. Sample wording for this is given here. If you forgot, or were not aware of this requirement, attribution must be given retroactively, for example:

NOTE: Content in the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023 was translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.

Retroactive attribution may be added using a dummy edit; see Repairing insufficient attribution. It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, you must add attribution retrospectively, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. JTtheOG (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Cloudz679. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2025–26 AEK Athens F.C. season, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. C679 11:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You definately made the mistake, by thinking that the source only contains 4 members. Learn to read the whole source before you undo edits that research was spent to be made and are properly sourced. All the members that I added of changed were from that exact source. Despite not being obligated to do the job for you and read the source properly I provide all the sections from the same source since you didn't bother to click them.

• COACHING STAFF
• EXECUTIVES
• MEDICAL STAFF

All these are considered the same source since they are from the official website of the club. Please let me do my work because I have other projects to work on. Thank you! BEN917 11:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The people mentioned at those sources do not match the content you added to the page. I've asked the Football WikiProject for input as I do not care to continually revert you. Request you re-read WP:V, and do not add content which is not supported by a reliable source. Thank you, C679 13:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So should I put the sources I stated plus those:

• Academy
• Ilias Kyriakidis
• Gennaios Karachalios
• Athanasios Zavvos

all from the same (official) source just for one table?!? BEN917 13:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what was wrong with my edits? The country "Serbia and Montenegro" did not exist in the 90s under that name. All I did was preserve historical accuracy. --BlameRuiner (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BlameRuiner I use the flag icons according to the ones that UEFA has on the corresponding seasons. Nevertheless I believe your edits were of good faith. Kind regards! BEN917 22:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then I hope you won't mind if I reinstate the right flags because using the Serbia and Montenegro name before 2003 is just factually incorrect. Also, there are no links to any UEFA sources on those pages so I'm just curious what you meant exactly. --BlameRuiner (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are correct and if you didn't face any objections when you changed the UEFA competitions (btw that's what I meant when I mentioned UEFA seasons), it's fine by me. Initially I was going to keep your changes, but I saw that you erased the double nationalities and you messed with the Georgia icon on the stats table, that was a mistake by you, so I started reverting just to be sure that you didn't cause further issues. So do your thing but only SCG to FRY and nothing else. Greetings! BEN917 17:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Panagiotis Tsalouchidis, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 19:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman Please do not revert without checking the content that you are reverting as a whole. You might enidng up canceling other people's research. You probably do not know anything about Greek football and you definitely do not conduct any research as other users do. Even with the wikipedia guidelines not every word in the article needs to have a source added. Respect other users' work and please try to do better. You're welcome. BEN917 19:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not repeatedly add unsourced content to a BLP. GiantSnowman 19:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman I will answer if you explain what is a BLP. BEN917 19:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP. GiantSnowman 19:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman I don't know specifically what case are you referring, but from past experience I've seen that the word "unsourced" is frequently misused. For example, if I add 3 paragraphs of content to an article and add the source of all that content in the end, qualifies as properly sourcing the addiction as a whole and not just the last sentence. Furthermore if any information exist within a source of the external links stills qualifies as properly sourced content, you just didn't checked properly. Even if I sometimes do make mistakes, that doesn't mean than you shouldn't do your reaserch before you act. Nevertheless, you could make better usage of the existing sources, since I belive we have the same purpose - to make the best article we can get. Regards. BEN917 19:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You added height to Panagiotis Tsalouchidis, twice, without adding or citing a source. GiantSnowman 20:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman Yes, but as I said, it was at the external links. You should have checked that out. Not to mention that by reverted my edits, you restored a link issue that I fixed. BEN917 20:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does not matter. You have an obligation to properly and directly cite the information. Saying 'go look' is not good enough. Also there was no link issue, see WP:CHEAP regarding redirects. GiantSnowman 20:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good day BEN917, I am new to this user talk page thing so apologies in advance, if this is not the best way to reach out. As the heading suggests, I'd had a wholesale revert on July 28 because they are considered "unnecessary edits". I would argue that the edits almost each instance were not just to make a sentence read better, but also edit text that read just plain clumsy. But where I object the most and what feels strange is that missing prepositions have not been considered necessary edits. Here are example:

Previous version: "met each other in a Cup final one time in the 1951 final" My editing: "met each other in a Cup final once previously, in the 1951 Greek Football Cup final"

Previous version: "The last time that had played in a final was in " My editing: "The last time that they had played in a final was in "

Previous version: "Greek Football Cup final|1957]], where they won Iraklis by 2–0." My editing: "Greek Football Cup final|1957]], where they won against Iraklis by 2–0."

I could go on regarding the 23 reverts but I think I have made my point. I will be the first one to admit mistakes, but I think it is fair to say that there are "necessary edits" in almost all 23 reverts from July 28. I value my time and would rather not try my humble attempts at adding my two cents if my contribution is consistently unnecessary. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by My pet muskrat (talk • contribs) 19:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@My pet muskrat Good day to you too! You don't have to apologize, because this is indeed the best way to reach out. Let's proceed to the main point now.

• Firstly, all of your edits to the articles of the Greek Football Cup finals, which I created and oversaw myself, were alterations of the already correct syntax. So nothing essentially changed. So the edits can be characterized as unnecessary. But don't get me wrong, I wouldn't revert a different version of the syntax if it weren't for:

• The creation of those articles were specific to follow the exact format of the finals of the big tournaments. Thus, the sentences of the introduction, the texts that follow and the tables were made to the same manner as this format. So all the edits that make the article differ from the exact format will be reverted.

• I value your time, but that doesn't change the fact that I also spent a serious amount of time fixing all these edits, as well as creating these articles. And at the same time I have big projects to deal with.

Best regards! BEN917 21:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of WP:OWN, BEN917. In this revert you reinstated broken English. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on I do not own any of the articles that I created. My point was that I oversaw the creation of these articles and neither the syntax, neither the reverts were at random. BEN917 22:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of My pet muskrat's changes are a clear improvements, many actually fix wrong grammar. I find your reverts puzzling, to say the least. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on Both syntax are correct. And the syntax was taken from articles of the corresponding articles so you have to do the same with these as well. BEN917 22:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both syntax are correct. I don't know which instances you are referring to but a phrase I have seen a few times, "Team A won Team B by 1–0", is broken syntax. you have to do the same with these as well No, I don't, we're all volunteers here. See WP:VOLUNTEER. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. In my humble opinion, the person creating the article or being too closely affiliated should not be the sole judge of quality of efforts to improve it. Jealously guarding against all change, where clearly broken syntax and other text formulation issues are apparent will, IMO constitute a systematic attempt to prevent improvement of articles. If the creator's word is to be the final one in these issues, mine or others efforts to point out and fix errors are rather pointless.

Have a good day. My pet muskrat (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be located by clicking here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Femke. I wanted to let you know that your signature does not meet the requirements for signature appearances. Your signature may have too little contrast. You can use a tool to check the contrast to determine if your signature meets the minimum contrast ratio of 4.5. If you have any questions, feel free to reply or ask for help at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hellow there! As far I as see, the problem is with the golden part of the signature? BEN917 07:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's right, even though the black might not work in all dark mode versions either (not sure if it automatically reverses). There's only a small set of colours that work in both light and dark mode unfortunately. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is that better? ~BEN917~ 12:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BEN917. Thank you for your work on Georgios Theodoridis (footballer, born 1973). Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BEN917. Thank you for your work on Rizos Lellis. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work! Please just provide a source for the sentence "Lellis operated an PRO-PO agency in Larissa, since his playing days." Since this is WP:BLP, we need to make sure that everything is properly sourced. Have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you believed that Michalis Kalamiotis and Stamatis Kalamiotis were duplicates. That being the case I have redirected the newer page to the older one, if you believe the title should be swapped make a listing at WP:RM/TR. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought to redirect in the begining but it's not like the first name are similar. The correct name is Stamatis and Michalis should be deleted. Correct me if I'm wrong. BEN917 (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source: AEK database BEN917 (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name is not relevant to which history is the redirect and which is the target, that is a function only of age. Please put in a pageswap request at WP:RM/TR, thanks. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BEN917. There are several Greek football articles that have duplicate parameter errors because you put the "name_XXX=" parameter at the top of the "sports table" and also before each group of matches.

An example is 1999–2000 Alpha Ethniki. You can see a list of the articles at Category:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls.

An obvious solution to avoid the errors is to make one of the names a comment, such as:

<!-- PGSS=[[Panionios F.C.|Panionios]] -->
|match_PGSS_ARIS=—
|match_PGSS_IRA=—

I could be snarky and say "Thank you for your attention to this matter." (Don't know if you follow the idiocy in the US government right now :-) Davemck (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed!! Thank you for the notice! :) BEN917 (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.volleyleague.gr/index.php/news/league-cup/item/13139-o-olympiakos-s-f-p-onex-katektise-ton-8o-titlo-ligk-kap-nikos-samaras-nikise-3-1-ton-paok-me-mvp-atanasigievits

I gave you a reference from the Volleyball League Cup so that you can see that it is not the time when something happened that counts, but the purpose of the organization. So the Volleyball League Cup was completed on 5/12/25, but the federation counts it as the 2026 League Cup, because it took place in the 2025-26 season. On the contrary, in football, the Super Cup, which is a single match, is held to determine the super champion of the season that ended, in this case 2024-25. That is why it belongs in 2025. This is the right thing to do and is supported by official sources. I hope you understand that this is the right thing to do. Πούμα (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you before, I'll tell you again. Wikipedia names the articles accoarding to their own regulations and policies, not by sources, neither by how other authorities count it. That's why the admin that wrote in your talk page saw what I wrote to him and moved it in the 2026 Greek Super Cup and not in the 2025 Greek Super Cup despite your insist on sources. And that's why probably the article will be moved to the 2026 Greek Super Cup eventually. The dispute is not about sections of an article but how an article should be named in wikipedia. Thus sources do not really count here. BEN917 (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're not saying it right. He transferred it then because 2026 was more up-to-date. Now 2025 is just as up-to-date and has the correct title according to the sources. So let's wait and see what happens. However, it's unbelievable that you claim that the sources of the federations that organize the games don't count and that the opinions of some, not all, Wikipedia users do. Πούμα (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It don't thnik that's not what the admin meant. When someone refers to WP:CRITERIA as an opinion is just admiting his own lack of knowledge in wikipedia and in these kind of matters. BEN917 (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform you that I have moved our discussion to the talk page of the Greek Super Cup 2025 article. Πούμα (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It does not add up anything. It's just us saying the same things all over again. BEN917 (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No! You are simply intransigent and insist on your point of view, which was never stable. You did not know from the beginning which excuse you would find and you jumped from one to the other. But they all fell flat. Your egoism has been hurt. That is all. You have made a mistake and you know it. But there is no such thing. We must write correct information and it is not bad to recognize our mistakes. All people do. Πούμα (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My point of view was always that the article should be named by the year it took place by WP:PRECISE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:CRITERIA and the example of 2026 Supercopa de España. When I mentioned that "the winner of the 2024-25 league qualifies in the following season's Super Cup", "the 2025-26 season starts on 1/7/2025 and ends on 30/6/2026", "the match was played with the rosters of the 2025-26 season" and "2025 UEFA Super Cup is credited in 2025-26 PSG season" was to show you that the Super Cup either is named 2025 or 2026, in wikipedia belongs in the 2025-26 season and not 2024-25 which you claimed. And wikipedia confirms it. Therefore not only your statement is wrong, but the claim that the tournament belongs in the 2024-25 is wrong as well (As far as wikipedia goes). But even if the tournament belonged in the 2024-25 season it wouldn't be necessarily named with the 2025 on its title.

Also about your statment referring to wikipedia policies as personal opinions, I noticed that and I comment:

1. When the admin wrote "Wikipedia policy is that we treat one another civilly...", did he express his opinion?
2. Why didn't you answer him "That's just your opinion..."' as you do with me?

You don't have to answer me it's just food for thought. BEN917 (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But the European Super Cups are named the way I say. Necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Super_Cup#History

But again you repeat once a year, once a season and say my opinion. Understand one thing. The super cups do not have a duration (season). It is a match for the proclamation of the super champion of the previous season. They are usually held in August but sometimes for various reasons it is postponed. However, the name-goal that has been given to it is not postponed.

As for my behavior, it is strict, but polite. I come and write to you. You never do. You always act behind my back. For example, you did not inform me that you asked for the help of another administrator. It does not matter. Πούμα (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The UEFA Super Cup matches titles take their titles from the year they took place. The 2025 UEFA Super Cup has the 2025 in it's name because it was played in 2025. Same as I propose for the Greek Super Cup which was played in 2026.

I did mentioned the section of your talk page not to deal with your behaviour, but to show you that the admin talked about policies, which you consider them opinions and in that instance you did not answered to him the same manner as you do with me despite we talking you in the same manner: By policies and not opinions.

As for "You always act behind my back." "you did not inform me". Who are you to inform you? My boss? The most it could be done in those matters is a tag out of courtesy, when are you someone's name. I don't have to appologize to anyone for writting to admins to resolve into matters. Next time please put a little more thought before you finish a statement. BEN917 (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now you leave the seasons and return to the year it happened! Amazing stability.

Aristotle said: The truth is told in one way, a lie in many.

The conversation between us is over. If I have been rude somewhere, I apologize. Πούμα (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't leave the seasons and I return to the year it happened. If you are unable to separate one to another it's not my matter. I'll write it down one more time.

1. Wikipedia confirms that the tournament belogns in the 2025-26 season. (season catigorisation)
2. Greek Super Cup was played in 2026 so it should be named 2026 Greek Super Cup. (name giving)

Both are true, I never left one behind and change the subject. Either that's the way you think either you read in a rush. BEN917 (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And of course appolgies accepted. I mean no harm to anyone just trying to preserve continuity here. :) BEN917 (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]