User talk:Macosal

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

Vista-Ym.png Welcome

Hi Macosal! welcome to Wikipedia!

Be bold in editing pages and don't let others scare you off! To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp.

Here are some links that you might find useful:

Isimple system icons app edit.png   Tutorial and cheatsheet
Crystal Clear action info.png   Wikipedia:Community portal
Crystal Clear app karbon.png   Sandbox, the place where you can experiment
Nuvola apps filetypes.png   Confused or need help? Ask a question!
Crystal Clear app linneighborhood.png   Wikipedia:Five pillars
Nuvola apps kdict.png   Wikipedia:Manual of Style

You can contribute in many ways

Vista-klipper.png   Write an article
Battle for Wesnoth server.png   Fight vandalism
Vista-Login Manager.png   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome
Crystal Clear app gimp.png   Improve illustrations and upload new images
Vista-advancedsettings.png   Help with the maintenance tasks
Vista-messenger.png   Become member of a project that interests you

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. If you need help, you can drop a note on my talk page or use Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. You can also type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia! utcursch | talk 08:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of New South Wales derby (A-League) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New South Wales derby (A-League) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New South Wales derby (A-League) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fenix down (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

About your page List of A-League hat-tricks[edit]

Hi! i was just wondering if you could explain what a "hat trick" was so i can pass it as patrolled. Thanks Dudel250 (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A hat-trick is when a player scores three (or more) goals in a single game. (Hat-trick#association fooball) Macosal (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Ahh! i see now Thanks i'll pass it Dudel250 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you + invitation[edit]

Stephanie-Cox-480.jpg

Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the women's football task force, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

Hmlarson (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Mathew Ryan[edit]

No, honours do require directly referencing per WP:BLP and WP:V. GiantSnowman 11:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If true do you plan to remove these similarly unreferenced honours sections from every article? Paul Scholes? Cristiano Ronaldo? Wayne Rooney? Macosal (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Fernandão[edit]

A short discussion at a WikiProject, with no real consensus either way, does NOT trump WP:BLP. The items have been challenged and removed (by me), they should NOT be re-added unless explicitly sourced to a reliable source. GiantSnowman 11:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Macosal/BLP[edit]

User:Macosal/BLP has been started... GiantSnowman 15:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. For the record though, are/aren't we doing the same with international goals sections? I can't see why not and are if anything easier to reference. Macosal (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
To be honest not really, I am fully within my right to remove this information, I have started tagging honours section as a favour/compromise, this could just end up with you requesting that I don't remove anything and would just make a mockery of BLP policy. I'm more than happy to continue tagging honours sections for the forseeable future. GiantSnowman 08:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope we do not have an issue here but unfortunately I do not believe you are fully within your right to do that... I did mention that international goals should be likewise included. I would be open to reducing the relevant time period in return for international goals also being included. Macosal (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Sigh, are we going to go through this again? Yes, I am allowed to remove any unreferenced information about living people as per WP:BLP policy, did you learn nothing from the BLPN discussion? GiantSnowman 09:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to avoid reopening this again (no conclusion was reached). If you look back I actually said that international goals should be included. I would be happy to accept a reduced time period if international goals were to be included? Macosal (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Well there was a conclusion - just ask the expert editors @Nomoskedasticity: and @FreeRangeFrog: - WP:BLP fully allows for my edits. The issue that you and Walter/AV kicked off about was honours, so I allowed that sole concession as an act of good faith. I never agreed about international goals or anything else - just honours. As I've already stated if you want/expect me to start listing all other items as well then it just makes a mockery of BLP and means there is zero point to editing. If you continue to insist on it, I'll just stop tagging honours and start removing them again in line with BLP. GiantSnowman 09:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
2 editors in support of your case with one against in addition to several others against the deletion would hardly seem to me a conclusion, nor did you react to my suggestion of international goals (it appears I mistook acquiescence for acceptance). Where would the next highest level of resolution be? Macosal (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Nonononono, this did not require a 'consensus' in the traditional sense. We went to a noticeboard to seek advice from the experts, the experts advised that my edits were fine. Just because you and your mates did/could not accept that is irrelevant. GiantSnowman 09:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The "experts" did not agree in this case, nor should authority hold weight in assessing outcomes. Don't condescend to call them my mates - they were other editors with legitimate opinions and concerns and included administrators. What would be the next step? Macosal (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Walter and AV are not administrators, although that it is irrelevant. I'd advise you to wait for Nomoskedasticity and/or FRF (who is an admin) to add further comments, although if you don't want to, feel free to raise the matter at WP:ANI. GiantSnowman 10:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure. For the record, the admin I was referring to was @Djsasso:. Macosal (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I also don't want to reopen this whole debate here (there will be a time and a place if necessary), but why is it desirable that the information should be removed? Macosal (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Without re-hasing the entire debate(s) we had at both FOOTY and BLPN, because I'm sure neither of us want that, the short answer is per WP:BLP and WP:V. GiantSnowman 13:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

To rehash what I said at BLPN, any editor is free to remove any unsourced information (positive, negative or neutral) from any article. More to the point, it is at the editor's discretion to remove the unsourced information, or leave a {{cn}} or "additional citations needed" tag or whatever. Any editor who wants the information to remain on the article should simply source it. If it cannot be sourced then it does not belong in the article, period. There is no need for consensus or discussion in these cases. Verifiability is a cornerstone of what we do here, which is all the more important when a biography of a living person is involved. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (2014–15 in Australian soccer) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating 2014–15 in Australian soccer, Macosal!

Wikipedia editor Moonchïld9 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great job! : )

To reply, leave a comment on Moonchïld9's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Soccer = football again[edit]

I have begun a thread at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Full names of soccer clubs to discuss how we should use the "fullname" parameter in the Infobox template. Unfortunately it seems to be being used by some to continue to now sneakily press the claim that their game is called football. Please join the fray. HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly is unfortunate if that is the case. You should remember not to make generalisations / statements about people's intent, however (play the ball not the man). Macosal (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

FLC[edit]

I'm not sure if you remember but a while back you created List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Mitchell Johnson. In one edit I completely reworded the lead, added photos and added refs. I then looked at the article and decided it was featured list status worthy so I nominated it. As you did a lot of the work I added you as a co-nomination which means you can claim the FL as your own (if it passes). If you want you can help me with answering the comments at FLC of you can leave it. Cheers NickGibson3900 Talk 07:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, will keep an eye on it. Here's hoping it succeeds. Macosal (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It passed!! Face-smile.svg Thanks for your work getting all the facts for the list and referencing each match. - NickGibson3900 Talk 05:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP[edit]

Hey Macosal, just wanted to let you know that I have been helping complete the BLP list and add references to the honours sections that GiantSnowman and other editors have flagged or deleted. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Cheers. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI-notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Assists[edit]

assists are unsourcable. There have been numerous discussions about this already at WP:FOOTBALL. There is no clear consensus of what an assist even is and different people count them differently. Furthermore most stats websites don't list them. --SuperJew (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Naming conventions (Football in Australia)[edit]

FYI, it appears your latest comment has an incomplete sentence: "...(which in turn speaks to the idea that"― sroc 💬 10:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep fixed (probably as you were writing this) Macosal (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Yep, just saw that. sroc 💬 11:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Reorder of Brad Smith international apps.[edit]

Shouldn't it be in descending order with regards to the date/year? Same as club sides. Should be consistent rather than all mixed up. Simione001 (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

For mine order of seniority works better - I think this is how it's conventionally done - e.g. see Harry Kewell, Romelu Lukaku, Robert Green etc. Not sure if there has been any discussion on this point but didn't see any that had a different order in a brief search around. Macosal (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen it done both ways eg Kyi Lin. It just seems wrong to me when the dates are not in order given that this is the case for both youth and senior football elements of the infobox. Simione001 (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe worth raising at WP:FOOTY or at Template talk:Infobox football biography to get some clarity. For mine the highest level of international honours should be the last listed - seems a bit jumbled to potentially list all the youth teams in an order that isn't youngest to oldest. Macosal (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Bingham[edit]

Is he on a youth or senior contact with CCM? If it's youth i don't think he is on loan at CC FC. He will likely play for CC FC during the NYL off season before returning to CCM. I believe youth contract or offered on a season to season basis and do not extended beyond one season. So I believe that effectively he has left CCM but may well return for the new season of the NYL. Simione001 (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah he signed a senior contract for next season in February (source). I feel like a loan is the best way of characterising that (and considerably neater). Macosal (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2008–09 Central Coast Mariners FC season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brady Smith (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) 09:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Re:Casey Dellacqua career statistics[edit]

No, you haven't missed anything I've said. It's always been the norm to have the Tier I events as a separate section and to be honest, its more visually appealing too. Maybe bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines and see what others have to say. JayJ47 (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The performance timeline on this page is a good example. As for Indian Wells and Miami, we don't make the "Tier I" distinction because we go by the modern day classifications i.e. they're both categorised as "Premier Mandatory" events. It's the same for the men. The 9 events formerly known as the "ATP Masters Series" are now listed under their current name: "ATP Masters 1000". JayJ47 (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

forthright views by a SuperJew[edit]

i have been part of some edit reverts over the past few days(e.g. on 2015–16 in Australian soccer) from a user who i feel is belittling my opinion in discussions where if the formatting that has been agreed upon by consensus on Talk Pages (e.g. here: Talk:2015 FFA Cup) and here: Talk:2014 FFA Cup#Bracket Table) doesnt match this users view they are dismissed as irrelevent, and this editor appears to be fairly senior. There appears to be his correct format, and a wrong format produced by 'beauraucrats' whatever that means. How do i get this user to 'play nice' in these situations and reach an objective view? Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have had a few disagreements with the same editor recently too. I think disputes relating to the A-League/football in Australia can be difficult, in particular because the small number of editors involved can give disputes an "I'm right/you're wrong" feel which are in nobody's best interest. As such, I think the best way to deal with these sorts of disputes are to look at how similar issues have been resolved on analogous articles overseas with higher editor numbers (I'm afraid I can't think of an equivalent here for this particular dispute unfortunately - the seasons in English soccer pages don't list the full bracket, presumably because of the size such a bracket would be); or if the issue is significant enough/has application for other equivalent articles, raise it on WT:FOOTY, where the significantly higher editor numbers will give a more accurate representation of what should/shouldn't be done (of course this needs to be done relatively sparingly). Searching WT:FOOTY's archives is also often a good way to find existing consensuses on contentious topics (again unfortunately I don't think anyone has had this discussion before). If it's not on that scale, the Aussie football project where we've interacted in the past will always get more eyes (marginally) than individual article talk pages if you want more opinions on something. You may well already be aware of these avenues, in which case I'm sorry to have over-explained, but if not they could be helpful.
I think if there is an "objective view" (I have seen several disputes where there has been myself); you should normally be able to get there simply by using the above/getting more editors involved through those two talkpages enough to constitute a consensus.
Re your current dispute, I know it's technically not a solution but maybe the answer is "time". The quarterfinals were drawn today, meaning that after 1 more round the whole draw will become clear (in 3 weeks). I agree with you that the current system may be misleading - adding a bracket to these articles was task force: Difference between revisions originally my idea, but as you can see there, I never intended to add them before the full draw was known. I also added the asterisks with the footnote to attempt to clarify what was otherwise a highly misleading bracket. Maybe worth trying to resolve this at some point before next season, but for now maybe more pertinent to let sleeping dogs lie.
I agree that SJ's conduct has been, in my view, inappropriate on a few occasions in recent days (reverting other's edits to preserve his own regardless of order/WP:BRD/consensuses, WP:SOCK violations etc). The best thing to do is probably a clear, calmly worded statement on his talk page, but I don't think now is the best time to do that (given the recent disputes between me/him and you/him). Hopefully the above can provide some solution in resolving the issues you have had and everybody will be able to move onwards from these repetitive debates.
I hope that kind of helps, Macosal (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Immensely. thank you ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)