User talk:Daveb

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Indoor football

That is a good disambig. I think that the article has had something like that before in the past and then it got stripped by some Americo-centric type (probably of the same mindset as those who go through Amercianizing the spelling of everything, even in articles on largely-European topics like NATO). This sort of thing is very important to Wikipedia's credibility, so keep up the good work~ Rlquall 10:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football

I noticed you've made a lot of edits to football articles and wondered if you'd like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. It's still new and there isn't a lot happening yet, but we're hoping to get things like a football collaboration of the (week/fortnight/whatever) going soon. - Forbsey 19:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macau philately

You added a cleanup tag to Postage stamps and postal history of Macau, which I considered to be basically a finished article, without any comment whatsoever as to what you thought its problems might be. If you don't come up with any substantive reason for the tag, I'm going to remove it. Stan 07:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article may be finished, but the article requires formatting to bring it into line with the Manual of Style (e.g. bolding the active term in the lead section). Subheadings would also make it more readable. --Daveb 07:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does the ' key on your keyboard not work or something? If that's your objection, it would have been faster to add those than the tag. If you look at the other articles of this type, you'll notice that mindlessly bolding doesn't look that great anyway, which is why it's a style manual rather than a policy manual. Stan 08:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be defensive. Wikipedia is a collaborative work, and marking for clean-up simply serves to bring people together to improve an article. The article could do with some cleaning-up, and I am not an expert in the content area, so I labelled it for clean-up to bring other people in to help. Let your ego take a tiny hit in the interest of improving the article. --Daveb 08:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Save

Hi Dave. I can't agree with you on your use of however, but I will defer to your opinion on the word save. If you don't think it belongs where I put it, can you suggest where it should be explained? It just seemed wrong to me that the word did not appear anywhere in the article. Did you have a specific GK (General Knowledge?) article in mind, or are you suggesting that we need to create one? Best wishes, --Heron 13:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heron,

Thanks for your message. Perhaps the use of "however" relates to different styles of English?

The article is currently very much based on the Laws of the Game and doesn't have much on parts of play (saves, tackles, passes, etc), set plays, strategies, etc. I think it would be great to have some information on these somewhere in the football (soccer) family of articles. At present there is a generic article Goalkeeper; perhaps we should form a sport-specific article (Goalkeeper (football) would be in keeping with the style of a number of football-related articles) in which information on aspects of goalkeeping could be placed. What do you think?

Cheers, --Daveb 11:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that goalies need an article of their own, although perhaps Goalkeeper (soccer) or Goalkeeper (Association football) would be better than Goalkeeper (football). Actually, putting on my Mr Logic hat, it really ought to be Goalkeeper (football (soccer)) to be consistent, but I'm not going to recommend this! You could cut down the 'Goalkeeper' section in the Football (soccer) positions article and replace it with a link to the new article. By the way, I'm not going to be able to help you write this article, as my expertise doesn't go much beyond knowing what "save" means. --Heron 12:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles on the sport are in the format of "Football (soccer) XYZ" or "ZYZ (football)". This seems to work well, especially when there is no need to disambig from another major form of football, as is the case here. Cheers, --Daveb 08:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Football terminology

I noticed you put a REDIRECT on Football Terminology with the reasoning that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. My thoughts on the page were for it to be like the many terminology/glossary pages currently existing in Wikipedia such as Chess_terminology or List_of_blogging_terms. I think the Football terminology warrants its own page (and the terms can easily be translated), although it would obviously need more contributions. Those are my 2 cents. :) Let me know what you think. Gflores ^Talk 17:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gflores,

Almost by definition a glossary is a list of dictionary terms. Elements of the football vocabulary (football terminology) which have associated encyclopaedic knowledge already have their own articles, and these articles are well referenced by the terminology category. Just because Chess has a glossary (which may well have predated the category system) doesn't mean football needs one.

Cheers, --Daveb 09:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Football World Cup move

As a regular contributor to football articles you may wish to vote as talk:Football World Cup Jooler 10:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penalty Shoot out section

Hello Dave, you have edited (or rather removed!) my additions to the penalty shoot out article. Namely the following section

"Of these, aside from the away goals rule the only one that has been previous used was endless replays for example in the English FA Cup and this was eventually abandoned due to time constraints in a season and complaints from local police forces that it did not allow them enough notice to provide sufficient officers to effectively police a replayed game."

your rationale is that this belongs in the English FA page. This I do not agree with. The point here is that for opponents of penalty shoot outs the most widely supported alternative seems to be endless replays and the English example is a classic example of the problem of having endless replays. ie why penalty shoot outs are preferred! Thus it is very relevant to the penalty shoot out article as it highlights exactly why penalties are used instead of replays and is much less relevant at all to the English FA article.

With regards to the following section which was removed

"A second criticism is that some have suggested that it has encoraged weaker teams to play for a draw, preferring to stake their chances on penalty shoot outs than "open play." Critics highlighted games such as the 1986 European Cup final between Steaua Buchurest and Barcelona, where Steaua were perceived to have relied on penalties to win."

This is no more POV than reporting that some have suggested that "it is a lottery" as this is also POV. A very common criticism especially after the World Cup of 1990 and the 1986 and 1991 European cup finals was that some teams played for penalties rather than risk conceding goals from open play and this led to the later golden and silver goal experiments.

Furthermore I think that endless sudden death or maybe ongoing sudden death covers the suggestion better than "ongoing extra time"

I'd be grateful if you could reconsider your edits :) Valenciano 10:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valenciano,

Thanks for your message.

~~You are right about including the FA Cup information; it is relevant to the article. I will reinstate this. However, unless~~ Unless there is a reference available for the reasons for the abandonment of the approach ("due to time constraints in a season and complaints from local police forces") then we can't really include it: WP:Verify.

The section on the "second criticism" is probably OK, but unless you can provide a reference it will be neccessary to leave out the examples of teams you listed. I will leave this up to you to word best.

Regarding "ongoing extra time" over "endless sudden death or maybe ongoing sudden death", I prefer the former as "sudden death" is not a term used in the laws and there is an article on extra time. I will wikilink the term to help readers.

Cheers, --Daveb 11:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Futsal in Australia

Hi Dave,

I just wanted to explain a few things since I was the creator of the original Futsal in Australia page.

I play in a league run by Vikings Futsal (in Tasmania). As it is (or was at the time) the most prominent Futsal association in Australia, I mentioned it on the Futsal in Australia page. On researching I was looking around their site and found that although they were FIFA-sanctioned, they weren't FFA-sanctioned. I also couldn't find any links to the Vikings pages on Soccer Tasmania (now Football Federation Tasmania)'s page.

I had a look at this document (.doc format) on the Vikings page. A curious comment is:

What Is Their Relationship With Football?

Vikings Futsal has applied for affiliation with Football/Soccer bodies in all areas they operate in. Some have embraced us and some haven’t. Our attitude is that we simply want to develop and deliver the sport of Futsal and that we are the ones with the expertise and experience to do so. While Football bodies still decide what relationship they really want with the sport of futsal, we are moving quickly and efficiently carrying out the job. This seems like a roundabout way of saying that they are not sanctioned by FFA.

I also found this news report on the Vikings site mentioning a Qantas Futsalroo player.

I had planned to look into it more and fix things up, but hadn't got around to it. After the edits you made today I had another look. this page says that FIFA declared that national football bodies are responsible for futsal in their country. A link down the bottom, to www.qldfutsal.com.au, goes to the Vikings Futsal page!

It all seems very messy, and I think the only way to get a clear answer is by contacting FFA/Vikings themselves! -- Chuq 02:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chuq,

Thanks for your message.

From what I can gather, Viking are an organisation who run futsal competitions. Whether or not they run them on behalf of one/some State football authorities I am not sure; likewise I can't readily tell whom they have official affiliation with. I don't think the wikipedia article really needs to devote too much attention to them, as it would be better off focussing on the bigger picture.

Cheers, --Daveb 08:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team sports

Have you discussed and reached majority for the removal of this useful template ? If not please stop (Gnevin 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am being bold on this one. This is wikipedia. --Daveb 06:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:Bold mean your not wrong to remove this template i disagree with its removal and would request you discuss this some where before continueing (Gnevin 09:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Barnstar

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For your work in maintaining football (soccer) and other articles related to the Laws of the Game over a number of years, I award you this barnstar. Oldelpaso 09:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]