User talk:Jonathan0007

test Jonathan0007 (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 05:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Standards
No problem, I don't feel harassed if I'm asked friendly questions. You are most probably looking for WikiProject Football/Players. This is a subpage of WikiProject Football where you can find other standards (clubs, club seasons, national team, ...). You should also have a look at the related talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football (and its archives), the regulars there are quite helpful. --Jaellee (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What I forgot to say: As you can see, WikiProject Football/Players does not contain all the sections you mentioned. Sometimes it's not even clear if the sections were ever discussed, if they are "approved" (even if they are very common) – e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive_28, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 17 – or if the discussing editors couldn't agree on something or if they just didn't care. Opinions can also change over time. --Jaellee (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You're entirely correct in you assumption that there is no page containing all the consensus for football topic. In fact, User:Kevin McE came with a proposal related to yours about two weeks ago on WT:FOOTY: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 60 As far as I understood the discussion, no consensus could be reached ;-)


 * I would appreciate such a "record of our consensuses" because there is a lot of stuff I don't know either (for example how to sort the categories at the bottom of each article – I'm sure I've come across some standard for this somewhere but I can't remember where). I'm afraid that your idea about a poll for all the unsettled questions would be met with resistance at WT:FOOTY, but I don't want to discourage you in your activism (really, even if what I've written above sounds rather pessimistic!). I think that it would be a good idea to revive this discussion at WT:FOOTY, but I must admit that I lack the nerve (and time) to push it. --Jaellee (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome
No bother: there is a lot to learn. I'm not sure that I did so myself, but I would suggest gentle editing and avoiding the controversial for a while, but I think I see the makings of a very good editor here. It is true that editboxes are limiting (there is a way of making them a bit longer: I'll post it if I can find it later): that is why they are not the main place for presenting justifications and reasons. That is what talk pages are for, and I see you have raised the matter there (finally :@)) I was going to put the following at the beginning of my talk page reply: I'll put it here instead, in the hope that it comes across as less argumentative than it might otherwise have appeared, but I do think it should be said. Firstly, I would point out that when a controversial change is reverted, the proper course of action is to leave the status quo in place, and raise the matter here.  Technically, you are in breach of WP:3RR for restoring your changes twice this morning, but I see no merit in pursuing that avenue in this instance. Good wiki-ing, even though I'm about to go and argue against you elsewhere.  Kevin McE (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Once it is reverted, with a reason given for that reversion, it is evidently controversial. Kevin McE (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's not what I said. I said "The title for the field is "Top scorer(s)", not "positions in scorer's award"".  I am willing to distinguish between top scorers and Golden Boot placings: you seem unwilling to.  Kevin McE (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they are not the same thing. They are closely related, but it is possible to have joint top scorers, it is not possible to have joint golden boot winners (or at least FIFA try not to have them: I don't know what they do if the criteria other than goals scored fail to distinguish between 2 or more players).  The only way to be a top scorer is to score an unsurpassed number of goals; to win the Golden Boot, you may need to do more (or less, by being off the pitch for more time).  The balance of opinions at talk is with my take on this, and I see that the article has been reverted, even though I dislike the edit-note tone of the person who did it.  Kevin McE (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

New club season articles
I've recently created 2011–12 Borussia Mönchengladbach season‎, 2011–12 FC Schalke 04 season‎, 2011–12 Bayer 04 Leverkusen season‎, 2011–12 Borussia Mönchengladbach season‎, 2011–12 Fortuna Düsseldorf season and 2011–12 1. FSV Mainz 05 season articles. I'm wondering if you would be able to help update any of them? Kingjeff (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. I'm still working through my watchlist, since I was absent for a couple weeks, afterwards I will help filling in the results. Jonathan0007 (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Dashes
Hi, that also happens to me that someone corrects one of my edits and I wonder why I haven't seen the mistakes earlier.

About the dashes, you can enter them by typing  (–) and for the longer one   (—) or click on them right of the "Insert" tab under the edit window (the ndash is the leftmost one, the mdash the next). You can also use Alt + some hexcode, but I'm not familiar with that, details are described here.

But I'm often cheating and just using this script. --Jaellee (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)