User talk:Winstonhyypia

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from 2010 European sovereign debt crisis. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Marek.69 ^talk 17:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--John (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2010 (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) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Winstonhyypia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:NFLPlayOff

Template:NFLPlayOff has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Winstonhyypia. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Winstonhyypia. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Hi there - Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. You didn't provide a source for your changes to the Owen Windsor article, and I couldn't find one either. If you have a reliable source please let me know and we can change the article. Please let me know if you have any questions. Giant Snowman 08:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. So what website are you using? Giant Snowman 08:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was decided at WP:RSN that it was not. I will update the article based on the WBA page. Giant Snowman 09:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Goran Pandev, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English Football League discussion

Hi Winston - as you contributed to EFL Championship, you may like to participate in the current discussion on the Talk page, "English Football League – article arrangement and article improvements".

Thanks,
Demokra (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hi there - Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. You didn't provide a source for your changes to the Marlon Fossey article, but I have found one and added it for you. Please try and remember to include sources yourself with future edits. Please let me know if you have any questions. Giant Snowman 10:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Paul Onuachu, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Giant Snowman 09:53, 10 September 2023 (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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Cody Drameh. Giant Snowman 17:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman By definition of a contract Cody Drameh out of contract automatically if there is no contract is signed (in a retained list doesn't mean there is a formation of contract). Thus the source you provided is not a prove of a contract at all. And Cody Drameh is a Leeds United player only if a new contract is formed. Without a contract he is not a Leeds United player at any means.

Based on the contract rules you still can't say my editing is wrong (as there is not proof that Cody Drameh has a contract with Leeds United). And instead you don't have grounds for protecting your edits (as I mentioned above, a retained list doesn't mean there is a formation of contract). Winston (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is such thing as a 'non-contact player, feel free to Google it... Giant Snowman 17:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't understand non-contact player. Could you help me understand?

Also according to Leeds United First Team Player List Cody Drameh is not included in the team. Do you have any evidence showing Cody is registered under Leeds United? Winston (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman I think it is very clear that Cody Drameh's contract is expired on 30 Jun 2024. I am not sure what make you think my edit is unsourced or poorly sourced material it is your job to provide evidence that Cody Drameh is still Leeds player. Please correct me if I am wrong. Winston (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided ZERO sources which say he has left. You are making assumptions (WP:OR). Giant Snowman 17:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by making assumption? There is no new contract and there is no evidence that there is a new contract. I think it is rather common sense that he is out of contract. Even he is still in Leeds United doesn't make him a registered Leeds United player. So are you saying all the free agent need to provide evidence of leaving in order to say he is not a club player? I am really lost.

Could you kindly provide your source of non-contact player that is registered under english FA? That would be very helpful. Winston (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman Based on your argument would you say this edit is invalid as there is ZERO source regarding to Adrien Rabiot leaving Juventus? Are you going to revert his edits? Is the edit making assumptions? Winston (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, that is not a good edit - except this source confirms the edit is valid. I have now added the source to the article. Giant Snowman 18:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman I think it is clear that Template:Leeds United F.C. squad said Update Source. And based on the source Cody Drameh is not in the first team. So I don't understand why the template should be still placed in the article of Cody Drameh. Could you help me understand? Thanks

Also are you going to add source of Mario Hermoso, Guido Rodríguez, Raphaël Varane, Álex Berenguer and other free agents? Winston (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman I think the one who is making an assumption / without a reliable source is the edit that say Cody Drameh is still a Leeds United player. I honestly couldn't assume Cody Drameh is a Leeds United player if there is no valid source regarding to contract agreement between Cody Drameh and Leeds United. Winston (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. We assume somebody is alive until there is a source saying they have died; we assume Drameh is a Leeds player until there is a source saying he has left. Giant Snowman 18:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman Are you sure your analogy applies to contract? So you are saying that I have a 2 year phone contract with phone company and it is valid to assume that the relationship is forever even there are no new contract. Wow you are amazing. I feel it is lucky that you are an administrator. Winston (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just keep repeating the word "contract". Find me a reliable source that says Drameh has left Leeds please. Giant Snowman 19:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of coz there is a need to highlight contract because it is a representation of a player playing officially for the club. Without a contract it is not a player. Based on your argument if a club did not release a player and even the player is out of contract, the player is still with the club. Even he is still in Leeds (even he is still training with Leeds United) does it mean that he is the player of Leeds United? I think the answer is crystal clear. Winston (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead, I don't understand why you say Drameh is still a Leeds United player when he is out of contract. Could you help me understand? Winston (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also based on your argument the edit of Iker Muniain, Álex Berenguer, Raúl García is invalid as there is no reliable source that say these three player leave Athletic Bilbao. And there are more example. Winston (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman Winston (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman And based on your reliable source theory, I think the Michael Cooper to say that the player is 24 years old is wrong because on the offical page his age is never mentioned. Thus there is no reliable source of the player is 24 year old. Assuming the age of 24 based on his date of birth is not reliable, is unsourced (the club info never mention Michael Cooper is 24 year old).

It is very similar to your argument saying Cody Drameh is still belongs to the club (not a free agent) after the contract expiry is unsourced (the club never say Cody Drameh is leaving). Winston (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman There is also ZERO source saying Anthony Gordon leave Liverpool youth team. Could I edit revert all peoples edit saying Anthony Gordon is a Liverpool player because there is ZERO source of him leaving the club? Winston (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman When you mention there is non-contact player (I really don't know what is non-contact). Could you provide a reliable source indicating Cody Drameh is non-contact player? You still need a reliable source to support your statement. Winston (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot follow your recent multiple posts above, please explain more clearly. Giant Snowman 08:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Players often stay with a club for a short period, even if their contract has expired, see this as an example where a player 're-signs' for the club a few days later... Giant Snowman 08:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it doesn't matter, I've done your job for you, and found a source which says he is a "free agent". Next time please don't be so lazy. Giant Snowman 08:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter because

1. Free agent after the contract expiry is automatic (just like age). You are asking for proof of age given the birthday is sourced is logically unreasonable. Asking for proof of leaving when contract expiry is under the same logic. The previous contract is sourced so without the source of a new contract the relationship is expired (unless there is a new source, which you never provide. I already explained the retain list is not a proof because it is one way willingless. Also the player leave the club also shows that the retain list [your better source] is not a proof that the player would stay in the club).

2. You add your source www.leeds-live.co.uk and said you find a source. And you mentioned footballleagueworld.co.uk is not a reliable source. Could you help me understand why, based on wikipedia source rule?

3. Even the player "re-sign" for the club a few days later. How do you know that the player stay within the club for a short period? Could you help me understand?

4. For all the unsourced (without official release statement) free agent edits (e.g. Iker Muniain, Álex Berenguer, Raúl García), are you going to revert the edit?

5. You are the admin of wikipedia and I guess you action (including warning people) is accountable. Your action would not only affect the reputation of yourself but also the administrator of wikipedia. Winston (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman Even you say player often stay in the club, you still need to provide a reliable source to revert my edit. It seems to me that your edit is unsourced of the player staying in the club. Winston (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! NebY (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3O decline

I've declined your filing at WP:3O as there was no evidence of a dispute at the Talk page for the article you linked to. If the above discussion is the dispute you intended to list, then based on my reading of it your best option would be to provide sources that substantiate the information you wish to include, but I didn't read it in depth. Otherwise, if you feel your information is appropriate for inclusion in the absence of a source, you should start a discussion at the article's Talk page, where other editors with an interest in the article can weigh in. DonIago (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]