User talk:Axios512

Welcome!

Hi Axios512! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

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

Learn more about editing

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

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

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Bluing red links

Please stop creating redirects like Siege of Damietta (1799). It is not ambiguous and should not point to a disambiguation page. Or like Hugh II Embriaco. That link should remain red so long as Hugh is notable enough for an article. Srnec (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Srnec: Nothing bad happened! You can still remove the redirect by writing about those topics, start a stub then others can expand! Axios512 (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

But now I do not even know there is no article unless I actually click the link! There is nothing wrong with red links. Srnec (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated the Mazyadid redirects for deletion. Srnec (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, something bad happened. Before, there was a red link so a reader who was interested in the topic knew that we needed an article on it. Now there is a blue link that deceptively points to a disambiguation page. On top of that, there are now two links on the disambiguation page that point back to the same disambiguation page, taking readers in an infinite loop. Please delete both the 1732 and 1799 redirects! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

Hello, I'm Kvinnen. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2025 Homs bombing without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Alec Penstone when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi! I'm really appreciating your contributions to the newly made Vulkangruppe article, but please make sure to include edit summaries with your edits. It only needs to be a few words explaining what you just did. It helps other editors know what you're doing and why, and can help avoid any misunderstandings. Kvinnen mentioned this a week or so ago, and other editors will continue to bring it up. Beyond this, thank you again for your very helpful contributions!! Boredintheevening (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

LLM use question

Hi @Axios512, are you using LLMs as a part of your editing process? NicheSports (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

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

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

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

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

Generalrelative (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

Hello, I'm GiantSnowman. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Riyad Mahrez seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GiantSnowman 21:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Copying/moving content within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from FC Masar into FC Masar (women). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s).

When copying within Wikipedia, at a minimum, give attribution in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.

Please add attribution if no one has done so yet. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Bild reference at Marie-Louise Eta

Hi Axios512. Please do not use the Bild as you did at Marie-Louise Eta. It is not a reliable source. See WP:BILD. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Axios512. Thank you for your work on Louis Andrieux. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice start!

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 ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of A Plague Tale for redirecting to A Plague Tale: Innocence

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Plague Tale is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be redirected to A Plague Tale: Innocence.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Plague Tale 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 address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

~ A412 ^talk! 18:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of A Plague Tale for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Plague Tale, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Plague Tale until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Want to join Wiki Loves Fútbol?

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Fútbol! We're running it during the 2026 World Cup, starting now until July 19. Help us edit pages on everything futbol: think national teams from across Latin America, players, host cities, and the stuff around the cup that usually gets short shrift, like the immigration and culture angles. We're working in both English and Spanish.

Here's the fun part: it's set up like a Panini sticker album. You collect stamps for different kinds of contributions: editing an article, adding a photo over on Wikimedia Commons, doing a translation, or starting a Wikidata item. Fill the album first to win $200. That’s not all: we are also giving out $25 prizes to the “Player of the Match” every week the contest runs. You don't have to be a power editor to play. Everyone is welcome!

If you're a little curious, come take a look at our target articles. Do you think we are missing some good articles? We are open to suggestions! The best place to actually get going is our WikiLatinos Discord, that's where the article missions will live, where the leaderboard is, and where someone can point you to a good first edit if you want one.

Hope you'll jump in. Oscar_. (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Naming convention for two Mexican clubs

Hello. I'd like to invite you to contribute to a discussion around the naming conventions of "Pumas UNAM" and "Tigres UANL" in WP:FOOTBALL, see discussion here. Feel free to provide your thoughts if you'd like. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 23:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Otto Rehhagel

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Otto Rehhagel, 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. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This is for all your contributions to the English Wikipedia since 2025, especially controversies related to Iran's participation in the 2026 FIFA World Cup in the US during the 2026 Iran war. Pachu Kannan (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Messi

Hey there! Since we have a disagreement at Career of Lionel Messi, I wanted to reach out and start a conversation. There are a few reasons I made the changes I did:

1. Secondary sources are almost always preferable to primary sources. Therefore, while official FIFA updates are not poor sources, it's preferable to use independent news publications for facts. If you like, we can include both types of sources.
2. The record "oldest South American player to score in the knockout phase" is not notable enough for inclusion. It's a very niche statistic that is only interesting to die-hard fans of football and/or Messi. That's what I meant by "excessive detail". We have to write Wikipedia articles for a general readership, not just fans. If you disagree, and feel strongly that this record is notable enough for the average reader, let's discuss this particular point on the talk page with other editors.
3. I feel we should mention that Messi extended the records for most World Cup goals and match wins. Please let me know if there's a reason those should not be included.
4. "Round of 32" doesn't communicate that this round is a knockout round. People who are unfamiliar with the World Cup and/or tournaments in general will glean less information from "Round of 32". We can try to incorporate both terms if you like.

I propose this new version:

In the first knockout round against Cape Verde, Messi scored in his eighth consecutive match in a 3–2 victory, bringing his career tallies of both World Cup match wins and World Cup goals to 20. He was named Man of the Match.

Please remember to assume good faith towards your fellow editors. I know your intention is to make Wikipedia better, and that is my intention as well. The edit summary for your revert was disrespectful, and I hope you will approach a revert discussion differently next time. We are on the same team. 😊

Please let me know your thoughts, and I hope you have a great day. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@OrdinaryOtter: Thanks for reaching out and for taking the time to explain your reasoning. I appreciate it.

I don't see primary and secondary sources as being in conflict here—they both verify the same factual statements, and official FIFA statistics are valuable for records and match data.

Regarding the statistics, I generally prefer to include explicitly sourced milestones where they're supported by FIFA. Beyond their encyclopedic value, Wikipedia is widely used by search engines as a reference, so omitting well-sourced factual records isn't always beneficial. That said, I don't have a strong objection to your wording overall, and I thought your proposed version read well.

The only part I wasn't comfortable with was adding "now". That wording is problematic because Wikipedia generally avoids time-dependent language unless it's necessary, as it quickly becomes outdated. There is also a well-established style that's used consistently across thousands of athlete articles, especially high-traffic pages like Messi's, where achievements are presented without temporal qualifiers such as "now."

I also think the "Man of the Match" sentence reads more naturally when it's tied to his statistical achievements rather than standing alone.

Perhaps we could merge the two versions like this:

In the Round of 32 against Cape Verde, Messi scored in his eighth consecutive match in a 3–2 after-extra-time victory, bringing his World Cup tallies to 20 goals and 20 wins in 30 appearances. He also became the oldest South American player, at 39 years and 9 days, to score in the knockout phase, surpassing Obdulio Varela's 1954 record, and was named Man of the Match.

Thanks again for opening the discussion, and I hope we can find wording that we're both happy with. Axios512 (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and for offering another version. I feel that the adjective "after-extra-time" is a bit long and clunky. It also feels unnecessary to mention if a victory was achieved after regulation time unless there is a specific reason to do so. I think we should add the word "career" for clarity regarding his all-time records. The "oldest player" record feels like an outlier to me—I did a thorough copyedit of the entire page recently and this record feels much more niche than the other records mentioned. That said, I'm okay with letting it remain if you feel it's important. Can we shorten it slightly by omitting Obdulio Varela? I would propose the following version:

In the Round of 32 against Cape Verde, Messi scored in his eighth consecutive match in a 3–2 victory, bringing his career World Cup tallies to 20 goals and 20 wins in 30 appearances. He became the oldest South American player, at 39 years and 9 days, to score in the knockout phase, and was also named Man of the Match.

Thanks for collaborating. 😊 OrdinaryOtter (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@OrdinaryOtter: On the "after extra time" point, that detail is typically included in match reporting because it's part of the official result context—especially in knockout-stage matches where regulation time ending level is a meaningful distinction. It helps standardize the phrasing across similar athlete and tournament articles.

On the "oldest South American player" record, I would prefer to keep the reference to Obdulio Varela. In record-based statements like this, naming the previous record holder is generally considered important for context, since it clarifies what exactly was surpassed and when the benchmark was originally set. It's the same reason we usually say someone "surpassed X's record from [year]" rather than just stating the new record in isolation.

So overall, I'd suggest sticking with the current fuller version rather than shortening it further, since it aligns better with how similar records are typically documented across football articles. Appreciate the collaboration as well. Axios512 (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I will edit the page with the version you suggested, adding the word "career".

I'm curious to hear what other editors think about a few of the points we disagree on, so I'll make a post on the talk page. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey, just letting you know that I did a copyedit of your most recent additions to Career of Lionel Messi. Please take a look and let me know if you have any feedback. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2026 FIFA World Cup knockout stage

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2026 FIFA World Cup knockout stage, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use placeholder names, or the name of the newspaper or organisation, instead of the source's actual author or editor name. If no human author is given, the fields should be removed. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • News, N. B. C. (July 7, 2026). "World Cup 2026 live updates: Switzerland beats Colombia on penalties; Argentina storms back to defeat Egypt 3-2". NBC News. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2026 Los Gallardos wildfire

On 12 July 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2026 Los Gallardos wildfire, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Left guide (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Article length, undue weight and agreements om the talk page are not "bla bla" reasons

Hi. You seem to be editing the page List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies in good faith but you have multiple times reverted attempts to fix the two issues the page is marked while undermining the users who are trying to make them. While it is true occasionally, please refrain from blindly thinking any edits you disagree with are done in bad faith. Talking down to do me because I have not bothered to make my username link to a de facto blank page like yourself is not constructive. I heavily suggest you see the sections in page's talk page about trimming the article and start contributing there instead of just blindly reverting anything back.

As for the edits in question. The first match cites a match report of the first time a new rule was used and does not even call it a controversy. Another one only links to lusophone media which is exactly the kind of minority view that has made the page marked for undue weight, and it also explains that the decisive goal was an own goal, which is also not a controversy. The section even noting that the losing team did not think anything was off should make it obvious there is no case. The last two are incidents of players not understanding a call and the articles then explain the call, with the two in question being offside and handball rules respectively. These sparked no actual controversy despite the articles using thst word for clicks.

I hope we can have a civil discission about it here or on the article talk page. Best, TheCtes (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@TheCtes: My view is that a controversy doesn't necessarily require an official complaint or for one of the teams to dispute the decision. If an incident generates significant discussion after the match and receives independent coverage from multiple reliable sources, I think it can reasonably be considered a controversy for the purposes of this list.

That said, I do agree the page currently has issues. Personally, I would be fine with trimming it down substantially and keeping only the major controversies—things like ticket pricing, training camps, and the higher-profile officiating controversies (such as the Messi and Egypt incidents).

My intention in keeping some of the match incidents was simply that they generated enough discussion that readers might want a brief summary of what happened, rather than because I considered them all equally significant.

To be honest, I'm also getting tired of constantly watching the page and going back and forth over every addition or removal. If you think some of the less obvious match incidents should be removed, I'm not going to fight over them. Feel free to remove those cases if you believe they don't meet the threshold. I'd rather focus on improving the overall quality and balance of the article than continue reverting each other. Axios512 (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for a quick and constructive reply! It seems like it will not be an issue to find a common ground. I understand your line of thinking about what defines a controversy but the World Cup is such a big event that any match seem to generate lots of discussion and I think including every case dilludes the article from the bigger incidents.

It was suggested making a small section about the use of VAR and including some of the minor cases as examples and I think that's a good suggestion, though I have thought at this point we might as well wait for the tournament to finish. It may also give a better picture of what will be remembered and what was more "heat of the moment" kind of incidents. I think trimming down overly large sections is part of balancing the overall quality. TheCtes (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@TheCtes: I agree. Perhaps, once the tournament concludes, you could highlight the main refereeing incidents, such as the first use of a false identity case and other notable situations like the Embolo red card.

The recent removals by another editor regarding the Iran–Egypt match and the identity of the goalscorer in the Argentina–Cape Verde match have also generated discussion. Many people are interested in understanding what happened and reading more about these topics. However, as I mentioned, I do not want to get involved in an edit war.

Overall, another option could be to summarize the main issues by category, which would provide a clearer overview of the controversies and key events. Axios512 (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Hellblade

 Template:Hellblade has been nominated for merging with Template:Ninja Theory. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. OceanHok (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Assassin's Creed (TV series). This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

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

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2026 Morocco–Spain border incident

On 1 August 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2026 Morocco–Spain border incident, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 02:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)