User talk:Anaxagoras13: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:38, 17 January 2015

Welcome!

Hello, Anaxagoras13, 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:

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! LGF1992UK (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rot-Weiss Frankfurt

Hello Anaxagoras, I don't know whether you are aware of it but when moving pages like Rot-Weiss Frankfurt, you will also have to fix the double redirects you are creating. Otherwise you end up with a couple of links that don't work. An example is Helvetia Frankfurt, which redirects to Rot-Weiß Frankfurt which in turn redirects to Rot-Weiss Frankfurt. Double redirects don't work on wikipedia. Have fun, take care, EA210269 (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EHF templates

Can you explain the reversions in Template:EHF teams [1] and Template:EHF women's teams [2]? Needless to say that the European Handball Federation and the International Handball Federation are using the appellation "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". --157.228.x.x (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It came to my attention that you are following me around with a somewhat edit-warring mood, thus making it extremely hard for me to assume good faith. An early, but telling, indication was your editing pattern in Template:EHF teams, specifically this one, followed by this one and finally that one the next few days or weeks. In all of the above you were blindly reverting, claiming that we are supposed to alphabetise FYR Macedonia under 'M'. All of your reversions though were restoring a version, which as of the time of this post, it still stands [3], listing the country in question as "Macedonia" plain. We both know that this is not correct. --157.228.x.x (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo my edit

See [4] Gnevin (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 2007–08 Cuban National Series

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on 2007–08 Cuban National Series requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2007–08 Cuban National Series

The article 2007–08 Cuban National Series has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page doesn't have any citations or references, and does not seem to be notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea, what you are doing, do you?--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl Champions

Do you want to share how I'm wrong, or do you just want to spout that I'm wrong without explaining yourself? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's that easy: the 1972 Dolphins are the only perfect team in NFL history, that's it. No other team has won all their matches.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you never read perfect season. Like I said in my edit summary, prior to 1932, four teams completed their seasons with no loses and ties were simply discarded in regards to the win percentage and did not count as half a win and half a loss like it is today. Their records stand as 1.000 in the history books. So indeed the 1920 Akron Pros, the 1922 Canton Bulldogs, the 1923 Canton Bulldogs and the 1929 Green Bay Packers do have perfect seasons. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article you cite states that "A perfect season is a sports season including any requisite playoff portion, in which a team remains undefeated and untied." Further, it says, "only one team has played a complete perfect season," the Dolphins. It goes on to say that there were "four teams who completed seasons undefeated, but with one or more tied games," which is not a perfect season, as defined by the article itself, no matter how they dealt with winning percentages then. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So because "it's how the article defines perfect" as compared to how history actually happened, teams that went undefeated and had no losses and a perfect winning percentage are now not perfect. Okay, I see I'm dealing with history revisionists, I'll stop trying to add the word "modern" to NFL history when it's clearly true that back in the 1920s a perfect season included ties. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who cited the article on perfect season as support, not me. And you in turn are defining the term by the winning percentage rather than common usage of the term. If you want to say those teams were undefeated, fine. But the common use of the term does not disregard ties. Lastly, it isn't the 1920s any more. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes ties because in most, if not all, of modern sports a tie counts for something (usually a half win/half loss). In today's world, yes, a perfect season can't be accomplished with a tie because it affects the outcome. "This isn't the 1920s anymore" is the most piss-poor response you could come up with. Yeah, it's not, but that doesn't retroactively change the past. You can't just write an article on Wikipedia in 2013 and say "Well it was 1920, they didn't know better" and call it a day. It doesn't work like that; that is history revisionism. In 1920s and 30s in the NFL, a perfect season could be accomplished by winning every game and having a tie in the standings, period. No amount of "the article says different" changes that. Trying to compare "common use" of a term that has changed over time (particularly in the NFL) to something from 90 years ago doesn't work. You have to apply how it was defined then to how it was, and back then those teams had a perfect season. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikpedia, we use the most common current usage of terms, not those in use at some point in the past. The Vikings never called themselves Vikings, and citizens of the Byzantine Empire called themselves Romans, yet we have pages using those terms. At any rate, your argument should be raised on the page for perfect season, not in regard to the Super Bowl champions list. And even there, find a current, reliable source that refers to these pre-1932 seasons as perfect, and then you'll have an argument. Otherwise, what you are proposing is WP:OR. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Literally laughing out loud. Did you even see my edit? I'm guessing you didn't considering you didn't since you're shouting WP:OR. Don't worry, if I actually care enough about defending my point, I could do it pretty damn easily and have an unreferenced "common usage" term on Wikipedia altered for accuracy. However, nincompoops are one reason why I'm no longer a frequent contributor anymore, because I have to debate them on a point on a website where a nincompoop with the same opinion will go back and change it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without a supporting source, your interpretation of the term perfect season is OR, and the modification "modern" is unnecessary. And personal attacks on other editors are always inappropriate. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy.. first I'll just say you can't personally attack other editors as a whole. That's missing the element of "personal" and becomes an oxymoron on your part. Second, the burden of proof is on you right now, not me. The article as it stands says:

A perfect season is a sports season including any requisite playoff portion, in which a team remains undefeated and untied. The feat is extremely rare at the professional level of any team sport, and has occurred more commonly at the collegiate level in the United States. A perfect regular season (known by other names outside the United States) is a season excluding any playoffs, where a team remains undefeated and untied; it is less rare than a complete perfect season but still exceptional.

Now that is fine and all, but where is your supporting source for this interpretation of the term? Because a reference doesn't exist at the beginning of this article. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lead does not have to include citations for material that is not likely to be challenged and is discussed in the body, WP:LEADCITE. Again, it seems your argument is with the page on the term perfect season. I invite you to raise the issue at the talk page there. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You act like I haven't read the article, which you're mistaken. Since you're pointing the LEADCITE where you don't have to have a reference in the lead, because the body of the article discusses a perfect season, with references, please cite the passages. I really must have missed it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{sigh} You were the one who cited that page as support for your position. When I pointed out that the opening sentence of that article directly contradicts your position, you began attacking that page. I have never edited that page. If you have a problem with that page, please discuss it at the talk page there. Beyond that, if it is common usage to refer to those early seasons as perfect, then it should be no trouble finding a reliable source supporting the addition of the modifier "modern." So why are you still arguing about this here? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did, because Anamagoras13 incorrectly said that the Dolphins were the only one to win every game, and in the 1920s ties didn't count, resulting in four teams that also had seasons with nothing but wins. I cited the page since it actually referred to what I was talking about. However, the article is also incorrect and I have already proven that considering your lack of response to where the citations for what the actual "common usage" is. I really have nothing left to debate now honestly, I think I've proven my point. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1972 Rugby League World Cup

Hello. I was just curious about what this edit means.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I think I just figured it out. Extra Time right?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Asian Cup Group D

Please explain why my edit on Template:2015 AFC Asian Cup Group D table is wrong. The first tiebreaker is clearly "Greater number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned". // Mattias321 (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a 3-way-tie between Japan, Iraq and Jordan, Japan can end up 3rd in the group, e.g. Jordan beat Japan 2-0 and Iraq win by any score. Palestine can win a 3-way-tie with Iraq and Jordan, e.g. Palestine beat Iraq 8-0 and Jordan lose by any score.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 AFC Asian Cup Group D table template

I think you're posting incorrect information about his table. Please refer to the Official AFC Asian Cup Group D standings at: http://www.afcasiancup.com/standings/en/ It clearly states that Iraq is 3rd and Jordan 2nd at the current date (17/1/15). Just to make the information accurate and correct. Please explain if you think I'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noidberg (talk • contribs) 13:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the tie-breaking-criteria. Head-to-head is the first tie-breaker.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a link to the tie-breaking criteria? Because the tie-breaking criteria as listed on the Wikipedia page says something completely different.

Read the Official AFC Rankings from the source, which supports my claim. If you still think I'm incorrect, please find a reliable source to support your claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noidberg (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source are the rules of the tournament, read it.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then can you clarify why the Official website of the AFC Asian Cup Australia 2015 has Jordan 2nd and Iraq 3rd?--Noidberg (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the issue on the talk page of the tournament, discuss there.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 It clearly states that Iraq is 3rd and Jordan 2nd at the current date (17/1/15). Just to make the information accurate and correct. Please explain if you think I'm wrong. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Noidberg|Noidberg]] ([[User talk:Noidberg|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Noidberg|contribs]]) 13:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :Read the tie-breaking-criteria. Head-to-head is the first tie-breaker.--[[User:Anaxagoras13|Anaxagoras13]] ([[User talk:Anaxagoras13#top|talk]]) 14:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
+::Can you give me a link to the tie-breaking criteria? Because the tie-breaking criteria as listed on the Wikipedia page says something completely different.
 :Read the Official AFC Rankings from the source, which supports my claim. If you still think I'm incorrect, please find a reliable source to support your claims.  <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Noidberg|Noidberg]] ([[User talk:Noidberg|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Noidberg|contribs]]) 14:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 ::The reliable source are the rules of the tournament, read it.--[[User:Anaxagoras13|Anaxagoras13]] ([[User talk:Anaxagoras13#top|talk]]) 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)