User talk:SteadyJames

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, SteadyJames! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! BilCat (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page American football, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Soccer is used in American and Canadian English, so please do not change this. BilCat (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this page written in British English, though? As such, mentioning that American English speakers often use the nickname soccer to differentiate between football codes should be sufficient. SteadyJames (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer is not a nickname

I recommend you have a look at WP:Naming conventions (Football in Australia), AND its Talk page. I know from your comments that you are aware of the word's usage in Australia and elsewhere, but it is NOT a nickname. Many Australian clubs use "soccer" in their official names. Pretty much all American clubs do so. Since it's used officially, it's simply wrong to call it a nickname. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer is a nickname as much as Rugger is a nickname for Rugby. Football Australian (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Football_Australia) is the governing body for Association football in Australia. This name was corrected from "Soccer Australia" On 1 January 2005 to align with the internationally recognised name for the sport: Association football, or more commonly just football. Thus, soccer is just a nickname used in Australia used to differentiate the game from multiple other codes of Football played in Australia. New Zealand followed suit, rebranding to New Zealand Football May 2007. It's worth noting, both national organisations--or their predecessors--were originally call 'Football Association', as is standard practice in most other countries. SteadyJames (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not paying attention. A lot of Australian clubs, and presumably all US and Canadian clubs, are OFFICIALLY called soccer clubs. "Soccer" is part of their registered names. That means it's NOT a nickname. And I strongly recommend you read Names for association football#Transition away from soccer. The name "soccer" has varied in popularity over time, and in different places. Becoming less popular in some places DOES NOT make it a nickname. You are misunderstanding the meaning of that word. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is in wide use doesn't mean it isn't a nickname. Importantly, Soccer remains a nickname for the sport in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. The use of soccer in those instances cited by you could mean a number of things—that it is erroneous applied; that the nickname is preferred in order to quickly distinguish the game of Association football from other codes of football, etc. But it remains a nickname. The word soccer is a diminutive contradiction of AsSOCiation with an 'er' added to the end. It was created by school kids in the 19th century as a form of slang. In the same way the nickname rugger is often used to denote rugby and lecker was once used to mean lecture. SteadyJames (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname or not, you're not permitted to change "soccer" to "association football" in articles related to countries where the sport is known predominantly as soccer, per WP:ENGVAR. Also, don't keep making the same changes to articles once you've been reverted, as that is edit warring. It's OK to have a strong opinion on the topic, but realize that others will have strong opinions that may not agree with yours, including an or not these are opinions or "facts", "truth" etc. Please use the article talk pages instead to try to reach a consensus with the other editors about it instead. If you don't stop edit warring, you are at risk of being blocked. BilCat (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough vis a vis andy changes to American football, I guess. Even thought Association football--as the games original name--is not inaccurate in American English, and could be considered as adding clarity to the passage edited. In regards the use of Soccer in British English--which the page is written in--its just a nickname seldom used, normally in a humorous way; it was never use instead of football by the majority. So if it accuracy and clarity in British English is desired then the edits should stand, perhaps with a note on linguistic confusion and adaptation leading to the use and subsequent repeal of the word soccer in modern global English? SteadyJames (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply wrong!! And you don't read the links people provide to you!! I already provided a link above, which I will again provide now hoping that this time you will read it - Names for association football#Transition away from soccer. Here's a quote: "For nearly a hundred years after it was first coined, soccer was used as an uncontroversial alternative in Britain to football, often in colloquial and juvenile contexts, but was also widely used in formal speech and in writing about the game." I'll repeat that for you - "widely used in formal speech and in writing about the game". Got it yet? Now, accept and admit that you were wrong, and stop disrupting football articles!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually edited that passage for accuracy. You can check. I agree with what's written. None of it conflicts the fact that soccer is a nickname for Association football. In British English, nickname means alternative name. SteadyJames (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname means a non-official, informal name. I have now made it 100% clear that, even during my lifetime but perhaps not during yours, "soccer" was a formal, official name for the game in the UK. It still is a formal, official name for the game in North America and Australia, where a majority of the world's speakers of English as a first language reside. This is a reality. You are not the first (presumably) younger fan I have encountered who, for inexplicable reasons, hates the word "soccer", and is willing to ignore evidence, and lie, to stop it being used. I wish I could understand the real reason behind such behaviour. It might make these discussions easier. BTW, did you read WP:Naming conventions (Football in Australia), and at least the concluding parts of its Talk page? HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Widely used” means that something is adopted by the vast majority of the general population. In this instance, general population means the english speaking world, not just some corners of it. vast majority of the general population. SteadyJames (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's what you should say on the article's talk page. For the most part, every definition in a high traffic article like that one has been discussed before, and it's generally written the way it is because of previous discussions. That's why you've been reverted each time, almost always by a different person. Also realize that being written in British English isn't the same as being written from a British perspective. Most people will agree that Soccer started out as a nickname, but where many will disagree is whether or not it should be claimed that it's still only a nickname, especially in Wikipedia's voice. That's also quite different than saying it's still considered a nickname in Britain, which we can't do without reliable sources to back it up. BilCat (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I saw you've posted on the talk page while I was writing this "tome". I replied there briefly, repeating a couple of points from here. BilCat (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Hi SteadyJames! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Association football several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Association football, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you. I have continued this conversation there! SteadyJames (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Association football shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sounder Bruce 20:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the note. I received validation for my argument via the talk page so made the changes. I'm still very new to this and I'm more than happy to collaborate on a solution. I will try to use the methods you have proposed me SteadyJames (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent conduct

Comments like this - accusing another editor of racism, subtly as you have tried/failed to be - are entirely unacceptable. If I see anything like it again then I will block your account. Giant Snowman 17:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you also confirm that you are applying the same levels of scrutiny to the actions of other editors in the discussion? I have been called a liar (repeatedly) and a troll without justification. My requests for citations to be provided have been met with "my opinion" type replies. It seems some editor also want to informally barre me from discussion even though they have failed to reply to the points I have raised. SteadyJames (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs. Giant Snowman 20:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are diffs. ? SteadyJames (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links showing the edits in question, and therefore evidence of conduct. Giant Snowman 18:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do i do that? it's on the Association football talk page, the abuse is pretty consistent from one editor and then casually used by others.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Association_football SteadyJames (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman have i provided what is needed? SteadyJames (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no, I need specific edits please, not just a general page. Giant Snowman 19:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman This is my first time doing this. Hope this is correct. Please let me know if you need more detail.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Association_football&diff=prev&oldid=1138728585

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Association_football&diff=prev&oldid=1138813622

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Association_football&diff=prev&oldid=1138648876 SteadyJames (talk) 09:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to show with those diffs? Two are you editing, the third is an inconsequential edit by a somebody else. Giant Snowman 21:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowmanGiantSnowman The abuse is on the talk page. Read that though, it covers most of the issues I've raised. SteadyJames (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable even when there’s reasonable grounds to suspect bias—racism or other? SteadyJames (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nicole Yeargin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athletics. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sergey Bubka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athletics.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]