User talk:

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

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer)[edit]

Hi, the page you link to in your edits claiming consensus is quite old and was specific to the national team title - can we discuss the changes further on the WikiProject page for football/soccer in Australia here before making more changes please? Camw (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Please read this. Just because consensus may have been reached in the past does not mean it applies forever. Please stop making the changes until it has been discussed. Camw (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Please also note that I am not unwilling to compromise or listen to your point of view. It would help though if you would discuss the issue rather than continue to make the edits according to your opinion. Camw (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • While I still want to discuss the change and get others opinions, what do you think about "association football player" as a compromise? Association football is the name of the main article on the sport. Lets talk about the change rather than getting into an edit war over it. Camw (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • In response to your note, why don't you consider it acceptable? As I've said here and elsewhere, consensus can change over time - so why can't we have another go at working it out after a couple of years? Camw (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, I agree that there is no reason why football/soccer should have sole claim on the word, which is why I'm seeking a compromise. You've asked me to stop undoing edits, but you are continuing with them without waiting to see what happens to the discussion on the project page. Camw (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That's why I'm asking if association football is acceptable, association football is the specific code of football being played. That is where the word soccer is derived from. The act of consensus isn't that a decision is made and then it is set in stone forever, if people disagree with a consensus then it is no longer a consensus and it is perfectly reasonable to start a new discussion. Camw (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Consensus is not a vote, it doesn't actually matter how many numbers support something and again, it isn't permanent. I'm pretty sure we could figure out something mutually acceptable, but you don't seem to be willing to consider any form of compromise and that makes things difficult. It actually only takes the people editing the page to reach a new consensus - see WP:Consensus. It doesn't have to be as difficult as you make it out to be. Why not try and work on this with me? Tell me what is wrong with association football OTHER than a discussion 2 or 3 years ago in which some people didn't like it? Camw (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've asked that a third party administrator have a look at this here since you are unwilling to stop making the changes while an attempt at discussion is made. Camw (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Please do not misunderstand, this is not a threat, it is a notification that I have asked for a neutral third party to have a look at the issue. Camw (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You are right that some users involved are in danger of violating the three revert rule as well. Sorry for focusing the note on you, it is just that the initial mass editing was started by you and continued after attempts to discuss have failed. The reason for the note on the administrator noticeboard was to ask that a third party look into the continued editing, but it should have included others as well as you. Camw (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)