User talk:Syjytg

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Syjytg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Peanut4 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Per your issue with Peanut4 on the FA Cup page

Hey Syjytg. Always good to see a new user around and helping out, especially one working on the articles such as the FA Cup page which I think are often regarded as "too fiddly" to be touched by many WikiProject Football users. Per your issue with Peanut4, though, I felt duty-bound to let you know that I'm sure Peanut has not actually got a problem with your editing of the articles, but instead questions what you are editing in. I'm not sure how long you've been using Wikipedia but there are some general ideas on how to present information on matches, though as with most of Wikipedia none of it has been codified and so it generally comes down to consensus decision or majority rule. Specifically the problem seems to be with your use of AET and TBD/TBC - there are two different matters here. In the case of TBD/TBC it's generally taken that we shouldn't add information which could be seen as obvious to the reader. With football results it's generally seen as quite obvious that a game with no information hasn't been played, and if there is any doubt then the date of the round of matches is usually listed somewhere, so it's generally seen as something which shouldn't be added. The AET issue is a little more contentious as there are two strong schools of thought - those who think we should add every piece of information about a game and those who think we should omit information which is likely to be useless to readers. I'd say on the AET issue that you probably have a fair amount of support from the inclusionist camp, and that your viewpoint is not wrong but just part of a debate. The problem about Wikipedia, unfortunately, is that with so many regular users the founders and the admins have agreed on a standard rule for Wikipedia where consensus decisions should try to be reached on the bigger issues but in the case of small ones they encourage free-thinking and want us to act as we feel is right. See WP:BOLD. This does have the side-effect of little edit conflicts such as this one, where users take it upon themselves to do what is right even if it directly opposes what another user sees as right. I would suggest that as regards this point you would be best speaking to Peanut privately to reach a settlement. Wikipedians are generally friendly, affable folk but who are sometimes maligned for making an unpopular edit and then castigated for it. I suspect that Peanut would seem far more friendly if you were to discuss the issue with him. Alternatively you could try to resolve it on the FA Cup talk page, though I'd warn you that for pages with a small editor base that you may not get many replies. Whatever you choose, please don't be disheartened, and please do keep being BOLD in your edits. Falastur2 ^Talk 14:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

{{help me}} Yes, you are right. I am new to wikipedia. I only joined when the fourth round of matches was played. I wanted to talk to him privately but I dont know how to. Is there any way on Wikipedia where I can message him privately? I was finding it but I cannot find it, so I had to use the history. Syjytg (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, no there really isn't a private Wikipedia communication system. Some users have email enabled, which means you can email them from their userpages (you'll see a link when you visit their page). Otherwise all communication is done via talkpages. Cheers. //roux   15:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was to "privately" send him a message to his userspace, the same way that I sent you the above message. It's not truly private, as it can be read by anyone, but only if they for some reason go to his userspace to read it...and that doesn't happen much. I'm presuming since you messaged me that you can find his profile too? (I apologise if that sounds patronising but I can't be sure of how accustomed you are to Wiki). You can always find a user's profile quickly also by using the search bar on the top left and typing "User:" before their name. Without the speech marks, of course, but yeah. Then just go to the talk page via the top-tabs, click "new section" as per usual and you're away. Falastur2 ^Talk 15:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To defend myself, I removed TBC / TBD because because it is a current event (as per my edit summary) and had previously removed the draw per WP:NEWS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news service. As for AET, I didn't make any changes there it was another user.

For the record, I don't have anything against you, I'm simply making constructive edits. Some of them happen to have been yours, most not. If you notice, I barely touched the majority of your work. Peanut4 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Peanut4, I think you removed most of my 6th Round draw(about 80 to 90%). Syjytg (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I stated above in my own summary, I removed the draw because of WP:NEWS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news service. Peanut4 (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey man, can you please explain your reasons why the total attendances for each round of the FA Cup are notable on the article's talk page? Personally, I can't see the benefit that they give, and none of the other FA Cup articles have such info. Tbh, I think it's totally irrelevant, but if you'd care to explain, maybe we can get a consensus within the community one way or the other. – PeeJay 12:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is there is conflict wars over trivial matters. For example whether a certain word needs to be capatalized a not which result in your block. As for the attendance, I personally want to know the total attendance and I am sure there are viewers(may or may not be majority) that want to know. So for those that want to know, they do not have to do the hard work of punching the calculator which I have done yesterday which took me between 30 minutes to 1 hour. On why I want the total attendance, so that I can show the viewers that there is a pattern as the round progresses(i.e. the attendance tend to increase as the round progresses as more top-tier teams are in the latter rounds.) I know the number of ties are different, so basically I am talking about the average attendance, but the number is not whole and sometimes recurring thats why total attendace is easier to present. As whether other articles have this info is not important as this is a new season. A new season could have changes. You might think this is not important. Yes, this is a trivial matter, but since I did the hard work by punching the calculator yesterday, I hope you wouldn't let my effort go to waste and keep it there. If you and the others don't want it, it can be excluded next season onwards, but for this season, I hope you can let it stay. As for the time of the draw, it tells the viewer immediately. Some of the viewers must be just freelance(i.e. not really following football but just happened to read) and they might not know the time of the match. So even if it is said that the draw will follow team A vs team B, the viewers might not know the time and might have to check the time somewhere else. Furthermore, even I, a staunch Man Utd supporter like you that follow football very closely forget the time of some matches and I have to check the match schedule sometimes to see the time again. So, the time is placed to save people like me from the hassle. Syjytg (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I will start a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the total attendances for each round. – PeeJay 13:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the time, it will become irrelevant what time the draw is started. Wikipedia is not a news service per WP:NEWS. If people want to find out what time the draw is they can find out elsewhere. If the actual time of the draw is relevant in the future then it is now (as can be the case with actual matches). But I see no relevance in knowing next month what time the draw for the Sixth Round was. Peanut4 (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As I have said, I wanted to save people from saving the hussle from finding out from elsewhere. Syjytg (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Just use the "cite"-button in the bar over the editing window. Move the cursor to the point where the reference should be displayed, then click "cite". Pick one style (for example web or news), then fill in as many fields as possible and hit "Add citation" on the bottom of the form when done. Hth, Soccer-holic (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: As for the ESPN scoring, the match reports use a link structure similar to [1]. All you have to do is to replace the last two chain links (item and matchId) with the correct values. These usually show up if you right-click the "Result" button of the respective match and say "Open in new tab/window". The correct link is then shown in the address bar of the new tab/window. --Soccer-holic (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Be careful not to violate WP:3RR on the article - better to open a discussion on its talk page. Cheers, Beve (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

FA Cup top scorers table

I simply used the cut-and-paste function. Fairly easy :) – PeeJay 10:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes definitely. I forgot to re-add that after the edit conflict. – PeeJay 10:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA

I have Richard0612 has removed your RfA from the main RfA page for the moment. It is not complete, as certain parts that should have been edited (like your username at the top, for example) were not done correctly. However - I would highly encourage you to read up on the RfA process before resubmitting, as you have less than a month of activity and under 200 contributions, which are far below what is normally successful as an admin candidate. You would receive many, many opposes quickly on the basis of "not enough experience". You are free to make your own choice, of course; I'm only making a suggestion. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:List of failed RfAs (Chronological), especially the ones listed with "SNOW" and "NOTNOW" for an idea of what the community looks for in an admin candidate. I know it might seem harsh to point at failed attempts, but I'm trying to show you the responses you'll likely get.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!  Frank  |  talk  13:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you'd like me to delete the page entirely, since nobody has made any entries to it except for you, I can do that, and then you can try again later when you've had more experience. Just let me know here or on my talk page.  Frank  |  talk  13:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I made my reasons quite clear on the RfA page, but here it goes again: I don't think you have enough experience in the Wikipedia: namespace, or on Wikipedia as a whole. You've only been here since the end of January, and most of your (minimal) edits have come in the past four days. I think I can safely say – and this is not intended as an insult, though you will no doubt take it as one – that you would not make a good admin at this present time. In the future, I would like to think that you will become an admin, but not in the near future. – PeeJay 14:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay and I really suggest you withdraw it yourself very soon, otherwise it will be closed in short time anyway. We appreciate your willingness to help Wikipedia as an admin but your nomination is too premature and very unlikely to succeed. Regards SoWhy 14:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your request for adminship

Hi Syjytg, I'm sorry to inform you that I've closed your request for adminship early because it was unlikely to succeed. For users to be granted admin status, they have to show that they are trusted members of the community. Individual editors each have their own standards for adminship candidates, but here are a few tips that may help you pass the next time round:

• Wait a bit longer before your next request. Many Wikipedians think that the length of time that users should be active on the project to get a firm grasp of all the policies and guidelines is roughly 3 months.
• Try to make some more edits. Administrators need to show they have a thorough understanding of policy, so it would be a good idea for you to contribute in wikipedia space, article space and talk space to show you can communicate with others.

You may wish to take a look at the admin coaching program, which would allow you to have your own coach who could personally direct you along the right path, or consider an editor review, allowing other users to comment on your edits and give you ways to improve. The guide to requests for adminship provides further considerations to make before applying again. Let me thank you for your contributions so far, and if you follow the above advice, there is no reason why you can not have a successful RfA in the future. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)