Talk:Luciana (footballer)

Latest revert

@User:Målfarlig!: Please now explain why the previous edit by me on this article is considered not an improvement, and please have proper links to their respective rules here in Wikipedia not just another "that does not look good","no it looks bad" or "it is not an improvement" reasons. If we cannot discuss and agree here on a solution, I will bring this to WT:FOOTY to get third opinions regarding your attitude about references in infobox. MbahGondrong (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It comes back to WP:COMPETENCE again. There's consensus not to have birthplace in the lede. And we don't have sentences like "Her height is 173cm" in the lede, because it defeats the whole point of having an infobox. Also "She currently wears shirt number one in Ferroviária." is just bad English. I don't know why you are still following me all over these articles making such stupid edits. I almost wish now you would go back to making your terrible stubs! Målfarlig! (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Link to the consensus? Which part WP:COMPETENCE that you think applies to me? Your issue is that you clearly ignore a simple WP:INFOBOXREF. Since you are more competent than me, I thought you would follow the wiki standards, but actually no, you just do as you wish, how you see fit (specifically about refs in infobox). Regarding the following thingy, you were the one that started all the false accusations to me, and explicity mentioned that you will follow my edits. I'm just doing the same as you said you would do, and it seems you cannot accept that your edits did not align with wiki rules. MbahGondrong (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Look at this article (before you defaced it). It was a decent start class article: not one of my better ones, but it was okay, it was improving. Now look at one of your stubs. See the difference? That is the WP:COMPETENCE gap I am talking about. Taking it to FOOTY might be a good idea, if you want your novel interpretation of INFOBOX to get consensus. The fact you only started doing it to "get back at" me isn't a very good rationale though! Oh, and the birthplace thing is covered by WP:BIRTHPLACE ("should not be mentioned in the opening brackets of the lead sentence alongside the birth and death dates"). Målfarlig! (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not deface anything. I just simply moved the references to the body of the article following WP:INFOBOXREF. I did NOT delete any content or any references. It is just you personally that does not like me changing your edits. Even for other articles you just blindly revert the whole edit I made, despite there were layout corrections. Maybe it is you who are obsessed with having references all over the infobox and that definitely does not align with the mentioned rules. I tried to explain politely about your wrong doings but you never see it as WP:AGF, and always dismiss the facts I provided with your own personal opinions.
The other thing, it does not state anywhere here that this is a start class article, and there are no wrong doing in creating stub articles also as long as they FOLLOW the notabality rule. Hey actually since you are really competent, you can also improve those stub articles, right? But instead you always called me as incompetent since I only make stub articles that have little information and added info base on my imagination. Does not sound constructive to me.
Next time also try to cite the rules COMPLETELY and PROPERLY. WP:BIRTHPLACE clearly states "Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and in the lead if relevant to the person's notability,...". This applies also for WP:INFOBOXREF. I am more than happy to bring this to WT:FOOTY. See you over there, cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luciana Maria Dionizio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150710094831/http://www.rsssfbrasil.com/sel/brazil200214u20w.htm to http://www.rsssfbrasil.com/sel/brazil200214u20w.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)