User talk:Hippo43


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hi, this may be a more suitable way to have a discussion. I'm curious what makes you sure that your way of doing things is the best... As mentioned, I am not the only person that understands and follows listing the international period/window in which tries were scored. I have checked and this is the structure for Welsh, English, Irish, French, Italian, Boks, Aussie and All Black players. Multiple different people have contributed in the same way across the world. When everybody is in agreement, yet you enforce your way of doing things, you appear arrogant and out of touch. I don't find removing relevent information as constructive and I fear your stubborness is what is dragging this out. Even in instances of the word competition being removed, and the text no longer claiming they are in a competition, you still have a problem. Whether they're official competitions or simple test series, what is your issue in listing the period in which they were played?

Hi Szceli, and thanks for your message. Please sign your messages with four tildes.
I think everyone probably thinks their way of doing things is the best, or they wouldn't do things that way, no? In this case my way of doing things is consistent with Wikipedia policy and the normal use of English.
I think these international tries tables are trivial and unnecessary. Why not international penalties, or red cards? More and more "facts" does not make a better encyclopedia.
Second, I don't think we should have articles about non-events such as the "2014 Autumn internationals", because these are not a thing - they are not events or competitions, they are a bunch of unconnected games that happen at the same time. Making articles about them is a way for Wikipedia geeks to try to categorise everything. This does not help readers - Wikipedia is not for making stuff up.
So in these tables, I don't think any column is needed for this. If it says "competitions", then it should be restricted to competitions.
In one of your edit summaries, you wrote "these are periods of contest but you can instead interpret it as 'test series' in the same way that every other contributor has." You can interpret it as "test series" if you want, but these are not all series in the normal RU sense. "Periods of contest" is irrelevant and trivial, and making them up does not help readers. We don't know how every other contributor has interpreted these, and I don't really care. Smart contributors know it is wrong like this.
You also wrote in one of your edit summaries that "This is standard across all listed rugby try stats- try viewing any other player's profile, Welsh or otherwise. The alternative of having empty boxes is nonsensical." But it's not standard across all rugby players' articles - numerous high scoring players do not have these tables - see Doug Howlett, Joe Rokocoko, John Kirwan, David Campese, Bryan Habana, for example - so having them for current players is an example of recentism and undue weight. Who cares what "competition" Alun Wyn Jones scored one of his nine tries in? This is important because Wikipedia is never going to be perfectly consistent. That does not mean that we shouldn't correct things when we see them - just because I can't fix every article, doesn't mean that I won't fix problems when I find them. Also, it isn't nonsensical at all to have blank cells here. If a try was not scored in a competition, then it is the correct way of showing it. Not everything happens in a competition.
What do you think? // Hippo43 (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time, I really do appreciate your response. So our discussion remains on point I will attempt to address each point as to not risk unnecessary loops.

I understand your point about try tables. I get that the pages can function without them however for some it allows a fast and direct way of getting information on players and I believe it brings value for that reason. You don't have to agree, I respect your view. Further to your point, I believe there is value in adding points for high point scorers however I would hope sense would draw the line beyond this.

I'm struggling to understand your view that Autumn/Summer Internationals are in your words not a thing. These are protected international windows that occur each and every year. Whether they result in the presentation of a trophy or not, they're capped games and recorded by every union around the world. I'm not sure if you've tried getting the Autumn/Summer Internationals pages removed but I feel the site would be less informative if you were to succeed.

I agree that in many instances, these stats are limited to modern players. *please see edit* I would counter however with high scoring retired players such as Bryan Habana (who does in fact have a page dedicated to listing tries), Jonah Lomu, Shane Williams, Rory Underwood, and Brian O’Driscoll- to hit as many different nations as possible. I would add that these are lists that I have had no involvement in making. Granted, some entries simply say Test Match but they’re listed nonetheless. I agree that sometimes too much information can make for a difficult read- to your point, David Campese does not have a try list but does have almost every test appearance listed (which I would argue was excessive).

Perhaps I am a little obsessive and they idea of your changes impacting 5% of entries is something I need to get over. I just feel that as so many contributors have listed the same information over many years, your efforts will simply be reverted in due course. It is your right to correct issues as you see fit however. Thanks again for your patience and I appreciate your efforts to improve this site for everybody. Szceli (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • My apologies for the edit. Just so the point isn't missed;

"You also wrote in one of your edit summaries that "This is standard across all listed rugby try stats"... But it's not standard across all rugby players' articles". You'll note I said it's standard for listed try stats (to include reason for contest), not that each rugby player's article has one. I think your response diverts at this point. My following points however address both profilic former players having the tables and that said tables include test event information rather than being left blank.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 2A00:23EE:19A8:1ACA:81A9:2B5D:424F:E918 (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be adding unsourced content, which has been challenged. Please stop doing that. // Hippo43 (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Why would you delete an RS ref, and then delete text that the RS ref supported - saying that it lacks a ref? 184.153.21.19 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which RS and what text? // Hippo43 (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarrely -- and disruptively -- here, and here, and here after you deleted a ref as well, and here, and here ... followed by some odd deletions here after I challenged you on why you were deleting refs and then saying there were nor refs supporting the text and therefore deleting the text ... and then again here. User:JBW, User:Swarm, and User:Kuru - I'm linking to a few established admins with whom I have no prior contact (that I can recall), hoping they one of them can put this silly problem to rest with some input, rather than bringing it to a page with the waste of time for everyone that would follow. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see where you mean. Saying "he speaks X languages" is pointless peacockery. Who cares if he can speak Scanian? He's Swedish and Israeli - he obviously speaks English and Swedish, and presumably Hebrew. Saying he speaks Scanian but not mentioning Swedish is obviously wrong.
Regarding sources, the J Post article is a puff piece, and it doesn't explicitly say he speaks English or Arabic. If you feel the need to include what languages he can speak, there should be sources which explicitly say so. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RSs care. We follow the RSs - not what an editor's subjective personal view is. Scanian is not Swedish writ large - which you would know, if you read about it. You call an RS a puff piece - well, I guess that speaks to your subjective IDONTLIKEIT view. But that's all. It's an RS. What you did was devious and underhanded. In the extreme. You deleted an RS ref. And then you deleted the text - saying that the reason was that there as no RS support. That's wildly inappropriate. And not proper editing at the Project. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. I'm fully aware of what Scanian is. It is obvious that Conricus can speak Swedish as well as Scanian. Listing several languages that you think he can speak and leaving out Swedish is ridiculous, and leaving the text like that would be a failure as an encyclopedia.
Following reliable sources is exactly what I have done. I removed a source that does not explicitly state he speaks English or Arabic. What is your problem with that? Are you struggling with reading the source?
Claiming that I am devious and underhanded is also not civil. Please don't be a cunt. // Hippo43 (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

ANZAC XV
added a link pointing to British Lions
Bill Campbell (rugby union)
added a link pointing to British Lions

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hippo43&oldid=1258557584"