User talk:HasperHunter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, HasperHunter and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Rosiestep (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Teahouse Invitation[edit]

Hello! HasperHunter, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WP teahouse logo 2.png

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Lists of Nobel laureates[edit]

Thank you for your comment on Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates. I just wanted to let you know that there is a wider debate going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Nobel Laureates - feel free to join in there too. Green Giant (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Football records in England[edit]

Just as well I did revert it then as the final given has now been replaced with the 2001 final. Feel free to ask if you need any help in future.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, just quit it now. Your additions are clearly against consensus, and you've provided no justification to support counting a penalty shootout in the match goals total - it is universal practice that the shootout is considered separate (this is also why matches decided by one are officially recorded as draws). And now you're using dishonest edit summaries when reverting, which doesn't give a good impression. If you keep this up you risk being blocked. Surely there is something more productive and fulfilling you could be doing around here? Or at the very least you could take the time to provide a clear and reasoned justification for these edits, on the talk page? AJCham 18:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry? to what consensus are you referring to. And you are saying yourself, penalty shootouts are separate, this is why this section had to be noted separately.HasperHunter (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I am also actually surprised you are writing on my talk instead of noticing the edit reverts are being done by unregistered users without explaining anything in the talk in the first place.HasperHunter (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The article is semi-protected, so it is no longer unregistered editors that are reverting you. That's irrelevant anyway, as the IPs were perfectly justified in reverting when you initially added the 'record', as it was plainly false. In more recent edits you've used different wording, but originally it said 'record scoreline: 2-2', which was pure misinformation. As for not using the talk page, you've not made any effort to do so either, and as you made the addition which was contested the onus is on you to justify it on the talk page and establish a consensus. Specifically, I think you ought to establish that the combined total of match goals and spot kicks is a notable record - does any outside source indicate that this is a statistic of interest? If not then I don't see why we ought to include it in the article.
As to why I came here, rather than create a discussion on the talk page, I genuinely didn't believe this was worth any more of your time, or the risk of sanctions. The fact that numerous editors have objected to the inclusion, and as far as I could tell not one had shown support, it seemed consensus was against it.
Ultimately my posting here was intended as sincere advice to move onto other things that you may find more satisfying. Take it how you will. AJCham 20:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Would totally echo everything AJCham has said.Most people make responsible edits on this article.Please respect the opinions of everyone else on here that does not believe this to be a serious record.Not one other person has supported this "record" to date.I have placed this record at the bottom but I suspect it will be deleted again soon.Please ask yourself why that would be and respect the opinion of the majority of users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhw99 (talkcontribs) 20:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC) As I have been saying again No of goals in a match, and no of total goals including penalty shootout are different things and as notable as number of goals. To directly say it is not notable is just putting your own point of view.HasperHunter (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC) It is clearly not just my point of view but the view of the vast majority of people who have had an opinion on this.You are the only person supporting this.In this case the majority should be respected if there is a disagreement.That is how this works.Almost always the majority have their opinion for a reason.Please respect the majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhw99 (talkcontribs) 22:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really, everything has to be consensus.HasperHunter (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is defined as consent within a group making process without necessarily full agreement.Within a group not the single minority making the decision.However I have put forward a compromise so let's leave it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhw99 (talkcontribs) 04:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey![edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Message sent with Global message delivery.

Disambiguation link notification for April 4[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Bruna Abdullah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brazilian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Cristiano does not hold the record for fastest 100 goals[edit]

It has been established that the record belong to Langara, he reached 100 goals in only 82 games, Ronaldo needed 92 games. This has ben reported by the media, as for example in MARCA, Cristiano Ronaldo es el segundo futbolista en la historia de la Liga que menos partidos ha necesitado para llegar al centenar de goles. El legendario Isidro Lángara, delantero del Oviedo y de la selección, entre otros equipos, lo hizo en 82. http://www.marca.com/2012/03/22/futbol/equipos/real_madrid/1332411413.html

You are simply breaking WP:POV and are about break WP:3RR. This will not help you and your case. There are enough reliable sources for who was fastest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17502825 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/soccer/wires/03/24/2080.ap.soc.madrid.ronaldo.0316/index.html http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/soccer/story/Ronaldo-fastest-to-100-league-goals-in-Spain-43974933 http://www.ekantipur.com/2012/03/25/sports/ronaldo-fastest-player-to-100-la-liga-goals/351196/ Langara did not play regularly and the record you mention is wrong as he played alternatively for over 10 years which proves he could not have been fastest as he had way more appearances than CR.HasperHunter (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

All these sources are secondary, they report from a sigle source which is worng. If you can not read spanish they I can translate for you, Cristiano Ronaldo es el segundo futbolista en la historia de la Liga que menos partidos ha necesitado para llegar al centenar de goles Cristiano Ronaldo is the second fastest footballer in the history of la liga to reach 100 goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.248.61 (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Your sources is an unreliable one. The sources i presented are highly reliable.HasperHunter (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. jpgordon::==( o ) 16:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)