User talk:GiantSnowman

Archives

2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

Categories (and related stuff)

Hi there SNOWY, how's it going?

I really wish there was a better way to add categories automatically, yes you have told me there is no harm done with adding them to the bottom of the list, but to me (am i on "over-picky mode"?) it makes little sense to have categories about leagues, clubs, expatriate and manager stuff all lined up and then another club cat.

Speaking of the new one you added, CD Basconia footballers, i see that you have been misled by the page move, yet another undiscussed one by User:ZZ86 who has an history of that and, apparently, not talking to anyone that is not his (Spanish) countryman. The club's current name is still CD Baskonia, but maybe this user has something against the Basque or i don't know.

Kind regards --AL (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No mate, i know you can add cats automatically, just wished you could do that and not have the category in the bottom of the list unless it "belonged" there. --AL (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo, that's a (very nice) option! Now, will find you a source or two about current name of BASKONIA ballclub. --AL (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one, from 2009, refers to the club as BASKONIA (see here http://joinfutbol.com/es/presentacion_del_baskonia_segundo_equipo_filial_del_athletic_de_bilbao_20793.php), whereas this much more recent one (2013) refers to the club as BASCONIA, the puzzling bit being that it's from the Athletic Bilbao official website (here http://www.athletic-club.net/web/main.asp?a=4&b=3&c=6&d=0&idi=2), one would think that the Basque (as the Catalans for example) would be "dangerously" proud of their heritage and language - BASKONIA is most certainly the Basque pronunciation, and BASCONIA the Spanish one - but if the official web as the club named as that, i guess we can leave it as it is.

Sorry for any inconvenience, ciao! --AL (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for some assistance, but i see you keep creating new categories and the cat goes to the last place still. If a player has played for eight clubs and (example) CF Reus Deportiu is the seventh, then it should go in seventh place in Spanish clubs the player represented. I repeat, much less coherent is when you have all categories arranged and then another club cat appears in the end, AFTER all the international, expatriate and manager stuff. But that's OK, i'll do it alone.

But since i want to help, and as it has to do with articles to which you added categories: Francisco Carbià Barrera, Javier Mandaluniz and Aitor Fernández Abarisketa are 200% non-notable. --AL (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another two, Antonio Bello and Antonio Trujillo Díaz have only played in Segunda División B thus far. --AL (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Agyiri

Could you perhaps elaborate on what counts as a verifiable source amongst the various sources cited on that page? Aside from that someone made a fancy little template to turn a Soccerbase profile page into a properly-formatted link, I'm not sure why it counts as any more or less verifiable than, say, transfermarkt, which has a considerably higher profile amongst football fans.

Also, just as a friendly hint, while I understand that admins such as yourself probably have a little JavaScript thingy to warn people with only a click of a button, might I ask that you consider the impact of the message you pasted on my Talk page? I admit that my blood gets up a little quicker than it should do when I feel I've been slighted - even when I in fact haven't, as I suspect [hope?] in this instance - but that big orange exclamation mark icon does feel just a little bit like your teacher taking out their big red "Try harder" stamp and plastering it onto your exercise book. It does feel just a touch unjust, especially when you consider that I have been on Wikipedia longer than yourself, and I do know how to cite references. I simply object to their being used unnecessary on tables when the references exists perfectly visibly - in fact, even more visibly - in the same article. Surely the personal touch elicits better responses from those you are warning? Falastur2 ^Talk 18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, how is one supposed to know that TM is not reputable but SB is? I'm not aware of any list which dictates what websites we are authorised to use. Falastur2 ^Talk 18:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biting an IP

Hi. I have a concern about an editor and I did not know were to turn (WP:ANI maybe?). It is an experienced editor that undid a IP-edit with the edit summary "are you retarded?" here. I gave him a level 1 warning for personal attack (thought it was the best warning) and then he removed it with the edit summary "don't patronise me, the guy was retarded to make that edit" here. This continued for a while he kept saying that he dont care about my warning and that the edit and the IP was stupid and also " I have seen your message and will continue to ignore it." here. I am shocked with this kind of behaviour from an experienced editor. Is there something else I can do, because I dont find this kind of behaviour acceptable? WP:DONTBITE I think is very good for this case. QED237 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - Is the behaviour acceptable? No, not in the slightest. However, I have also got no clue if the IP is being a willful vandal, or is just completely and utterly misinformed (to put it kindly), because their edit summary is 100% backwards. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has edited since january 2013 and has made a lot of edits (according to his contributions history) without a single warning. It was not the best of edits, but most likely just a mistake. Dont seem like a vandal to me. No need for name calling at all. QED237 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I'll have a quick word. @Qed237: - please bear in mind WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS. Giant Snowman 08:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i did not now about that one, I will definately keep it in mind. QED237 (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ignore it next time? It's not your buisness, it was peejay, the IP and maybe the/an admin. They can solve the problem(s), if there is any, themselves. Kante4 (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To take an example from real life, if I see a kid bullying another thing I say something and dont look the other way. This is an experienced editor (a big kid) "bullying" a less experienced editor (smaller kid) and I felt I had to say something. What else, should this go on until the smaller kid leaves school and move? Maybe not the best comparison but It still applies, to me I cant let experienced editors upset other editors making them leave. Wikipedia is for everyone. QED237 (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pfff... but this is NOT real life. Everyone here is/should be a grown-up and handle his own things. Kante4 (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I dont acccept grown-ups acting like this either. Name-calling is not grown-up he was acting like a child. QED237 (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs to be told that "retarded" is not acceptable language. "I noticed that you called another editor 'retarded' in an edit summary. While you may not have liked their edit, could you please use civilized language in the future, because words like 'retarded' can be hurtful and create a bad work environment. Thank you." This is why templated warnings are a bad idea. It is more useful to leave a personalized message if the goal is to correct the bad behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jehochman Yes, I totally agree. I made a mistake using a template just as GiantSnowman mentioned above, I just thought it was an appropriate template to use (and it was only level 1). Next time I will definately use a personalized message instead, but I will not just let it pass like User:Kante4 suggested (unless an other editor has already said something). QED237 (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing birth/deathplaces from opening bracket

Hello. When you do it, please would you replace them somewhere appropriate in the article rather than removing them entirely. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one wasn't unreferenced. Nor was this one. Nor was this one (well, the death place might have been an assumption). Nor was this one, although pretty well everything else in the article is. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're removing material from a one-and-a-half-sentence non-BLP stub, as at Bill Armstrong (footballer), which was entirely and inline sourced to a RS book from the first creation of the page, because you yourself can't see the book?

Please have a fresh look at WP:V, which reads (my highlighting): "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed" and "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable." And lower down the page, at WP:SOURCEACCESS, it says, "Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able do so on your behalf". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And "Clean up using AWB" accurately describes removal of sourced content, does it... As noted above, when removing or challenging content as potentially unverifiable, we're supposed to say what we're doing and why. The explanatory footnote (#3 on WP:V) finishes up by saying "it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Bill Armstrong (footballer), the entire sentence-and-a-half was inline-referenced to a book which I have no reason to suppose unreliable, and had been so ever since the stub was created by a reputable editor, so I have no reason to assume the information to have not come from that source. The same is the case at Bill Cockburn. At Billy McGlen, the birthplace was verifiable from the only reference, an online source, present in the article. You did remove the birthplace at all three of those articles. I'm sorry, and it's a pity it's got so silly, because in general I have a lot of respect for you as an editor, but I can't possibly retract saying you removed sourced content in those cases.

I will remove the unsourced place of death that I restored at Bill Burtenshaw. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beal's conjecture

GiantSnowman,

Thank you for blocking DavidMichaelFabian. However, I'd like to suggest that you look at the situation before sending out form warnings. The one you sent me said

please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

If you had looked at the situation more carefully, you would have seen that I did use the article's talk page, that I did use BRD, and that I did post a request at a noticeboard. I was trying to enforce the no original research rule and the BRD rule. Moreover, for some days I had been simply vetting his original research, a lenient approach, in an effort to avoid having to deal with a person who wants to use Wikipedia as his own place of publication of his research. But when I finally took it to the talk page, he simply ignored it.

Frankly, it is discouraging being a committed editor who tries to enforce the rules only to be bitten. Duoduoduo (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not against the rules for you to use some common sense. This was not a dispute about the accuracy of the content -- it was a dispute about whether material that he himself described as original research can go in a Wikipedia article. The rules say it cannot. I told him that on the talk page, and my doing so was BRD. The only reason I, and two other people, had to keep reverting was that he refused to engage on the talk page.

Please bear in mind the difference between people who want to use Wikipedia for illegitimate means and people who are trying to defend Wikipedia from them. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's commonplace among administrators to give a friendly comment of suggestion to an experienced defender and extender of Wikipedia, rather than to give a canned warning. Why not just tell me in a friendly way that I should have gone to ANEW after the first time he ignored my effort to BRD, rather than give me a canned warning that wrongly implied I did not try BRD and wrongly implied I did not take it to an administrators' page? Is there no value in avoiding stressing out the people who are trying to obey the rules and to enforce them on others? Duoduoduo (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GS :)

Sent you an email. Wishes. Wifione ^Message 14:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Lee

A number of months back you redirected Douglas Lee to The Big Texan Steak Ranch. A new page Douglas Lee (choreographer) has now been published, and I was going to add a link to this new page from the disambiguation page for Douglas Lee, but as the latter isn't a disabiguation page I was trying to see why it redirects where it does, and looking at The Big Texan Steak Ranch I couldn't see the connection. Is there any chance that you could enlighten me please? - David Biddulph (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Irawan

Hi there GS, AL "speaking",

article created for the third (or FOURTH!) time, last time i remember you said something about salting the page to avoid its recreation, well they went around that measure and created piece again.

Player was not notable when we deleted it the last time, he's not notable now as he's not appeared for RCD Espanyol's first team still (speaking of which, here's his BDFUTBOL.com entry as of the end of the 2012-13 season http://www.bdfutbol.com/en/j/j301802.html). Don't know if him being now an Indonesian international alters his WP status, but i leave it to your attention, you'll be the (ever so capable) judge.

Cheers, keep it up --AL (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next matchday scenarios

Hello! I invite you to a new discussion on the matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios. Ivan Volodin (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

President Abdulla Yameen,

Hello Snowy,

May i know why you have removed a lot of writing in the article of Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iguhussain (talk • contribs) 20:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remove the unreferenced and/or promotional material per our WP:BLP policy. Giant Snowman 20:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay good to know. Many thanks for your effort then. Thank you once again.