Jump to content

User talk:JMHamo/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Scott Gallacher

 Done GiantSnowman 08:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Kerim Frei

Not enough recent disruption to justify protection, but I'll add to my watchlist and protect if it continues. GiantSnowman 15:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Alexandra Shipp

Hello, could you please check out the Alexandra shipp page please? Thanks.NHCLS (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Speedy Deletion requested. Thanks JMHamo (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. If you look at the history, you may notice that I had tried twice to nominate it for speedy deletion, but TionneLourena removed the nomination.NHCLS (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gedion Zelalem (Footballer)

Add it to your watchlist, and when it's submitted simply decline it. In the meantime let the creator know it's non-notable. GiantSnowman 15:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Carl Jenkinson

Not sure I'd say it's vandalism but I'd agree that it's unconstructive. References for each season benefits the reader, and are indeed necessary for the Eastbourne spell as Soccerbase don't record FA Trophy stats. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Not resolved

Please read WP:BRD too. I have standardized the table according to the template in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players and stated my reasonings very clearly in the Talk page. Why do you keep reverting my edits without using the Talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miunouta (talk • contribs) 21:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have asked for the page to be locked down while it's being discussed. I will add my comments shortly. In the meantime I suggest you read WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS JMHamo (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Fabregas

A note for future reference, especially as you have been blocked before for this - you should not edit-war to counter edit-warring. If another party continues to edit war then report them, rather than getting yourself into trouble, albeit it for what seems like admirable reasons. GiantSnowman 16:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Point noted. Thanks for the advice. JMHamo (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

League of Ireland

Correct, not a FPL so playing in it does not confer notability per NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi JMHamo, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! GiantSnowman 08:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter for September 19, 2013

Did you know?

You can edit a page's categories in VisualEditor. Click the "Page settings" button (next to Cancel/Save) in the toolbar to open the category tool. It will show you a list of the current categories for that page.

To add a category, type the name of the category you want to add in the search field. To remove an existing category, click on the category in the list and then, in the dialog that opens, click on the "Remove" icon (trash can). "Options" will allow you to set a default sorting key.

For more details, read VisualEditor's user guide.

VisualEditor has been updated twice in the last two weeks. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week.

As announced, the toolbar was redesigned to be simpler, shorter, and to have the ability to have drop-down groups with descriptions. What you see now is the initial configuration and is expected to change in response to feedback from the English Wikipedia and other Wikipedias. The controls to add <u> (underline), <sub> (subscript), and <sup> (superscript), <s> (strikethrough) and <code> (computer code/monospace font) annotations to text are available to all users in the drop-down menu. At the moment, all but the most basic tools have been moved into a single drop-down menu, including the tools for inserting media, references, reference lists, and templates. The current location of all of the items in the toolbar is temporary, and your opinions about the best order are needed! Please offer suggestions at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Toolbar.

In an eagerly anticipated upgrade to the reference dialog, newly added references or reference groups no longer need the page to be saved before they can be re-used (bugs 51689 and 52000). The 'Use existing reference' button is now disabled on pages which don't yet have any references (bug 51848). The template parameter filter in the transclusion dialog now searches both parameter name and label (bug 51670).

In response to several requests, there are some new keyboard shortcuts. You can now set the block/paragraph formatting from the keyboard: Ctrl+0 sets a block as a regular paragraph; Ctrl+1 up to Ctrl+6 sets it as a Heading 1 ("Page title") to Heading 6 ("Sub-heading 4"); Ctrl+7 sets it as pre-formatted (bug 33512). Ctrl+2, which creates level 2 section headings, may be the most useful.

Some improvements were made to capitalization for links, so typing in "iPhone" will offer a link to "iPhone" as well as "IPhone" (bug 50452).

Copying and pasting within the same document should work better as of today's update, as should copying from VisualEditor into a third-party application (bug 53364, bug 52271, bug 52460). Work on copying and pasting between VisualEditor instances (for example, between two articles) and retaining formatting when copying from an external source into VisualEditor is progressing.

Major improvements to editing with input method editors (IMEs; mostly used for Indic and East Asian languages) are being deployed today. This is a complex change, so it may produce unexpected errors. On a related point, the names of languages listed in the "languages" (langlinks) panel in the Page settings dialog now display as RTL when appropriate (bug 53503).

Looking ahead: The help/'beta' menu will soon expose the build number next to the "Leave feedback" link, so users can give more specific reports about issues they encounter (bug 53050). This change will make it easier for developers to identify any cacheing issues, once it starts reporting the build number (currently, it says "Version false"). Also, inserting a link, reference or media file will put the cursor after the new content again (bug 53560). Next week’s update will likely improve how dropdowns and other selection menus behave when they do not fit on the screen, with things scrolling so the selected item is always in view.

If you are active at other Wikipedias, the next group of Wikipedias to have VisualEditor offered to all users is being finalized. About two dozen Wikipedias are on the list for Tuesday, September 24 for logged-in users only, and on Monday, September 30 for unregistered editors. You can help with translating the documentation. In several cases, most of the translation is already done, and it only needs to be copied over to the relevant Wikipedia. If you are interested in finding out whether a particular Wikipedia is currently on the list, you can leave a message for me at my talk page.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Malahide United F.C.

It was kept for meeting GNG, that won't have changed. GiantSnowman 10:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Buomesca Tué Na Bangna

Restored and updated. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Newcastlewest F.C.

Re fully professional club in a fully professional league, that's with reference to player notability. We're talking about a club that played in the second tier of football in the Republic of Ireland, not a pub team. As for what notability criteria does apply to clubs, I suggest you read the essay at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability (and as well as playing in the second tier, the club have also played in national cup competitions such as the Irish League Cup (see here). Number 57 20:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you about notability, and that's why I will bring it to AfD. The club had not received significant coverage and is not listed as playing in a Fully Professional League JMHamo (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Please understand, the fully professional league thing is completely irrelevant to football clubs. It's only relevant for players. Number 57 21:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I know the article will be kept at AfD, but just to stop you wasting everyone's time, have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Sports F.C. (level 10 club that played in the FA Cup) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashayer Noor F.C. (note comments about NOT having played at the national level). Number 57 21:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the result of the AfD, I hope that you now appreciate what I was saying before and won't waste any more of your time on AfDs that are obviously going to result in a keep vote. Player notability and club notability are totally separate concepts. Cheers, Number 57 20:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is 100% better than it was before the AfD, so I don't consider it wasted time at all. JMHamo (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Even without the improvement, it would have still been kept - the only vote the extra sources changed was Clavdia's (and she had probably voted delete out of spite anyway). AfDs aren't used for forcing improvements to articles. Number 57 20:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Still a positive outcome. All good. JMHamo (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013–14 Fulham F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stamford Bridge (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) 11:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

TransferMarkt/Soccer Base reliability?

Hello my friend, was just wondering as to why transfermarkt.com is known to be less reliable than websites like Soccerbase? I've used transfermarkt.com quite alot and seems pretty reliable to me, for example, found this this morning: Soccerbase say Sam Hutchinson is still at Chelsea, while transfermarkt.com say he is at Vitesse on loan from Chelsea. The latter being the truth, so was just wondering is there a specific reason why Soccerbase is more reliable than websites like transfermarkt.com?

By the way, sorry if this message is wrongly created or placed in the wrong area, still new to this :-)

Thanks, RyanSkinnerMU (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion about it is here - Transfermarkt. Let me know if you still have questions after reading. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Pphooper

I've removed some stuff, but it should not be deleted. GiantSnowman 16:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edits! >_<

Thanks for fixing the error on the Chelsea page, but why did you revert my changes in the Everton article? I was making it consistent with the other club pages. Second place finishes aren't achievements, and the MLS All-Star Game was not a competition. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Per consensus on WP:FOOTY, coming second is an honour JMHamo (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Sorry dear. >_< --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL, you're really hunting me down, aren't you? I could have sworn the name of the Liverpool article was originally titled the way I changed it to. Have mercy on me LOL. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you not think the original Liverpool 2013–14 season article was locked down for a reason? Your edits are disruptive, so please give it up. JMHamo (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The protection status was removed after all the complaints, but the title of the article wasn't like that, so I had it changed. I was actually in favor of the protection until November, to be honest. Why are you being like this, JMHamo? :-( --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about... 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season is edit protected because of edit warring. If you want to discuss it, use the Talk page of the article. JMHamo (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
How was a duplicate article even approved in the first place? This clearly isn't my day... I'm so sorry JMHamo. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the duplicate article was deleted. Good riddance. Somebody had it linked to this template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2013%E2%80%9314_in_English_football --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

All seems to be in order now. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Anything else?

Anything else, my dear? :-P --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That will be all for now... JMHamo (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Altman

I would normally restore the article, but the problem is that it was deleted despite the fact that he had already played in the Europa League this season, so another appearance wouldn't remove the original reason for deletion. WP:NFOOTBALL technically requires players to have played in a fully professional league, so cup appearances don't count. I have always interpreted it to mean any competitive appearance for a club in a fully pro league even if the opposition (in a cup game) aren't fully-professional. However, not all WP:FOOTY members agree, hence why the article was deleted. He hasn't made an appearance in the Israeli top flight this season, so unfortunately you'll have to go through a formal DRV if you want it recreated. Number 57 21:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The article was deleted because he played in the Champions League qualifying rounds, which wasn't seen as being notable and I agree, but now that he has played in the group stage proper, I thought this would make him pass NFOOTY. There is no rush in un-deleting the article anyway, I don't mind waiting. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
OK. You can check his Israeli league stats here. The second column from the right in the yellow and gray table is his top flight appearances (the column with a total of 3 is his Champions League stats and the second column from the left is his Europa league stats). Number 57 06:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Gary Madine

I've cleaned up per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP and have added to my watchlist. GiantSnowman 12:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Cauley Woodrow

Hello, did you even read what I had contributed on the Cauley Woodrow article? So you basically want an article with an error within it, over an article with an improvement? Wikipedia logic, eh? Partially understand the whole "three-revert rule" thing, but come on; basically getting warned for improving an article.

RyanSkinnerMU (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:REDLINK.. having a red link is not always a bad thing. JMHamo (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"WP:REDLINK"

OK, I understand that, but if there is an article out there that does exactly the same purpose as the supposed article (in this case 2013–14 Football League Two), what's the need for a "red link"? Besides, that wasn't exactly my point. My point was in your warning you suggested that: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." In that case, why am I the one supposedly in the wrong when he (Struway2) reverted my input? My input was sufficient, and if it wasn't then you and him better get to work, because the amount of articles with his reasoning ("don't think we need go overboard on sections until there's enough content to fill them") is tremendous. Here is just a few for you two to go and revert all other peoples inputs:

All these said articles have the same thing as to what my input had that was supposedly wrong. You may feel I'm overreacting, but I'm not just going to sit here when it's unjustified for him to revert one of my sufficient edits, after all that's why we all have accounts here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanSkinnerMU (talk • contribs) 16:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

U21 Premier League Cup

There looks to be enough out there on it, so I would say yes. GiantSnowman 17:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JMHamo/Archive_3&oldid=1065787935"