User talk:Guy0307

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Guy0307, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 19:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cricket project

Hello Guy0307! I noticed that you contribute to cricket related articles. We are a "WikiProject" aiming to expand, improve and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. We would like to invite you to join us. If you would like to help but don't know what to do, please see our project page or inquire on our talk page. You may sign up for the project on our members list. Happy editing!

--THUGCHILDz 01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

how about 1992 Cricket World Cup?--THUGCHILDz 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah whatever you want to do is fine.--THUGCHILDz 20:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re your comment on Timeshift's page

Clarification for later readers - the content we're discussing was not authored by anybody involved in this discussion. Orderinchaos 12:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(Posted it there, but as it's to you as well...) The section Timeshift removed from the federal election talk page was a partisan rant which I'm not even absolutely sure the News Ltd moderators would have published in a "Have Your Say" section on their website, and utterly violated WP:BLP policies (which I might note is all but a mandate from Jimbo himself to shoot on sight). In case there is any doubt, I've placed the standard talk header on it. Orderinchaos 09:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Essentially the situation is we're a top 10 site now and as such have some social and public responsibilities. If we allow people to post defamatory statements and extremist political propaganda on talk pages or in article space, we are not meeting those responsibilities. WP:NOT and WP:BLP are probably the best documents to read. (There must, however, be a careful protection of free speech and questions about alternate points of view on controversial subjects - there are some discussions which, although unsavoury, do not cross any lines and are necessary in order to develop articles and resolve disputes over content and achieve consensus). Orderinchaos 12:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] national sport

Hey Pio's at it again. And I don't want this to be an edit war. Anyways about all of his edits are rather disruptive plus I don't want to break 3rr so, can you do me a favor by reverting his edit, which could be called vandalism actually.--THUGCHILDz 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring at National sport

You are currently involved in an edit war at National sport. Please remember that such behaviour does not benefit Wikipedia in any way, and in fact you may be blocked for it (especially, but not always, if you have made four or more reverts in 24 hours).

Therefore, please remember: if you are having a dispute with somebody over an article, you must follow the dispute resolution process - that is, discuss your differences with the other parties. Sometimes, that is all it takes: leave a message on their talk page, and come to an agreement civilly and peacefully. Once again, bear in mind that revert warring is not acceptable and you may be blocked for it: you should consider this a final warning on the matter. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,
AGK (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy0307, we can stop edit warring in this article but I restore my version because not only Australia has 3 most popular sports. Lay off my user page!!!!--PIO (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User:PIO, you will be blocked from editing. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandal, stop boring me by your absurd comments!!!!--PIO (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

You are confused because in those links, inserted in my talk, are citated various sports and not only soccer. I think so: it's impossible assert a sport certainly most popular because it's impossible verify stats. Popularity of a game has 4 data:

1. amateur players
2. registered players in national federations
3. attendance in venues
4. audience by television

but it's scientifically impossible settle how many are amateur players and audience by television!!!! If we consider sport as pastime we can consider card games and how many are amateur poker players? How many are amateur fishers? How many are amateur cue sports players? How many are participants of footing in parks? Every kind of answer is impossible!!!!--PIO (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block warning

Hi. Your recent contributions have been nothing but chat as of late. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a social networking site. If you are here to contribute to the writing of this encyclopedia, please do so; otherwise, please do not edit at all, or you will be blocked. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to National sport has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] soccer

hey you have been adding a lot of countries to the soccer list and changing the descriptions saying soccer is the most popular in those countries. And there's nothing wrong with that and I am not disputing soccer being the most popular sport in the world. However, before you change info's and the list can you please back them up with sources because being the most popular sport in the world doesn't necessarily mean it's the most popular sport in most of the countries and it doesn't have to be. So before you change it please back them up with sources.--THUGCHILDz 05:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine but see wikipedia articles aren't always reliable. So if those articles have sources please add them to the national sport article otherwise try to find reliable sources to back them up. Thanks.--THUGCHILDz 06:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Closed

After trying at this for over a month, I am of the opinion that we have exhausted all possible options. Every conceivable wording has been put forward, and still there is dissent over which version should be used on the various pages. Therefore, I am declaring this mediation at an impasse and have closed it. Parties should continue to discuss it and may seek out other forms of dispute resolution. I would advise all parties involved to remain civil and to follow proper policies in handling the matter further. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Hi, I got your message. The warning was in response to this edit, which I do consider to be vandalism, because it replaced a user page with nonsense. I also noticed that you have received warnings for vandalism in the past; maybe you should review WP:VAN. How about a compromise: you agree not to edit anyone's user page in this fashion any more, and I'll remove the message. Leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. Peace, delldot talk 09:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the duplicate warning, I should have checked better to make sure I wasn't doing that. Thanks for agreeing not to do it again, duly removed. Sorry about that. Happy editing. Peace, delldot talk 06:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:PIO/Jxy

I have blanked and protected User:Jxy's talk page to prevent further edit warring. Please remember Wikipedia:Deny recognition and that he couldn't edit beyond that talk page, and therefore it really didn't matter what he put on it. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 06:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Raptors captains

I've provided a few sources on the talk page of the template, but not all of them are acceptable. Blackjays1 (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HP template

My reasoning is that Hagrid is way much more important than Ginny because he has direct involvement in the plot of most of the books, which cannot be said about Ginny. Ginny is first trully important in Half-blood Prince. Even Draco is more prominent than Ginny, having involvement in Voldemort and Dumbledore's deaths. Ginny is only important because she is Harry's love interest, and because of her participation in some battles. About Hagrid and Sirius, I am not sure who is more important, the two characters are pivotal in the series, with Sirius having a book for himself (PoA), but Hagrid appears more in the series, he is one of the most developed characters and he appeared in all seven books playing an important role. --Lord Opeth (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that Ginny is mentioned more than Draco and Hagrid in the final two books? Remember all the plot situation about Draco's task (killing Dumbledore), which caught Harry's attention for so long in the sixth book, maybe as much as Ginny. Hagrid also took considerable part at the beginning and the end of the final book. Even Draco had more appearances than Ginny in the final book: at the beginning, in Harry's visions, in Malfoy Manor, and in the Battle of Hogwarts, with the revelation that he was also a master of the Elder Wand. And we cannot forget the first books, in which Ginny had barely a little involvement in the Chamber of Secrets (but also Hagrid and Draco had), and no more until the battle at the department of mysteries. Both Hagrid and Malfoy had more plot involvement and appearances than Ginny during the series. --Lord Opeth (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that kissing Harry in the Burrow was really an important involvement. And you are only talking about one book, in the series as a whole Hagrid has both more importance and appearances than Ginny. --Lord Opeth (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)