User talk:Mr nice guy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Football 2 Anglo-Celtic 3 Blocked 4 On Snottygobble's block

[edit] Football

I noticed that you and User:JPD are coming close to breaking the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule with revert 1, revert 2 and revert 3. Another revert within the 24 hour period can lead to a block for up to 24 hours for either or both of you. I am not picking sides as to which is the correct version but just letting you know where you stand. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Australian Rules is not a "regional" sport. It is the most popular sport in the country, and is the most popular sport in cities such as Melbourne, Geelong, Adelaide, Perth, etc. Xtra 06:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that Australian Rules is a regional game? Please reply. Xtra 06:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalsing with regards to Australian Rules Football. Xtra 06:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC) I will answer in here in regards to your questions because your talk page is blocked... Please do not make bad faith assumptions. I am not disputing that it is arguably and by most measures the most popular sport in Australia but it is also undeniably a regional sport. It is virtually unknown in the populated parts of NSW... Mr nice guy 07:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr nice guy, AFL is only regional if you define regional as being anywhere in the country outside of Sydney. Please stop changing the article in this respect. --bainer (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is undeniably regional, 14 clubs exist outside of half of the population and the other two were set up as franchises. I cannot believe that you ae honestly trying to assert otherwise. No disrespect to the Victorian game, but it is regional, how many players come from the populated areas of NSW and QLD. Mr nice guy 07:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to block either of you, but request a discussion on a talk page to try to find some middle ground. Nice guy: What do you mean by "franchise"? You make it sound like those two teams are somehow less important by using the word. I agree the teams are not distributed in proportion to population, but whenever I hear NRL crowd numbers, they seem proud of getting only 30000 people to a big match. This clearly shows that AFL is far more popular for people to go and watch overall in Australia, which is what the articles I've noticed you two reverting cover. Part of that would be that Sydney people seem to just not go to sporting events as much as people from other cities. Xtra: read WP:TROLL, but note that Mr nice guy may have a point, even if he's not expressing it well. Don't let experience with other users (Pnatt) distort your view of all editors you encounter. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The "big fuss" (as I see it) is that you appear to insist that the AFL is not a "national competition". It is, and has the most spectators attend of any sport in Australia. [1] (page 35). Australian Rules is also a national sport (and I don't watch or follow it at any level). --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not "sustain" the highest t.v. ratings. Its grand final generally has more viewers, but sometimes RL eclipses it with State of Origin and is somewhat cyclical. In the biggest market Sydney, Rugby League dominates entirely. This is also true of the third biggest market Brisbane, on t.v. this is also true. In Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide AFL dominates entirelt but this is debatedly because RL is not shown there because channel 9 owns the free to air rights to both codes. In Newcastle, RL dominates, In Cairns, Townsville and the rest of regional Qld, RL dominates. In Wollongong and the rest of regional NSW RL dominates. In regional QLD and NSW, RL ratings are often up in the 90's. In regional Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia as well as the small state of Tasmania, the AFL dominates and in the Northern Territory, the two codes are about equal. Mr nice guy 12:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Cumulatively in terms of television viewership, this means that RL dominates half of Australia in terms of t.v. coverage. Mr nice guy 12:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the TV ratings (I didn't find one with Google)? I found an SMH reference for "interest" in each kicking sport, from 2003: [2]. It;s about each sport, not about each league. Australian rules: 52%, Soccer 47%, Rugby League: 39%, Rugby Union 37%, all beaten by swimming, cricket and tennis. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh also, I would not trust the interest one. David Gallop ripped into one of those sort of things last year which tried to say RU had more interest than RL. It was essentially inadequate. Mr nice guy 12:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the NRL statement which clearly defines RL as dominating half of Australia http://skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/t-230521.html, bear with me, I will continue. Mr nice guy 12:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

More http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2004/09/19-0001.html. Mr nice guy 12:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2005/07/08-1141-3371.html This as well http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1542538.htm Mr nice guy 12:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC) http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/19/1026898917598.html another http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2005/08/22-1226-7306.html another http://www.smh.com.au/news/league/freetoair-exposure-vital-if-storm-are-to-survive-in-aflmadmelbourne/2006/04/21/1145344277729.html

I am not attempting to claim that the AFL (or Aussie rules) is more popular or outrates NRL (or RL in general) in any particular place. Primarily 1) it is a national game, and (less important, more as support for 1) 2) Aussie rules has a higher following overall (across the nation). This applies to the articles Australia and Sport in Australia. I don't mind how different the information is in New South Wales or Sydney. Do we have an agreement? --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As I have said, by most measures the AFL is more popular but it is regional popularity. I would not consider it national when it is about the fourth most participated in and watched code of football in half the country. Whilst I understand that the considerable following that Lions and Swans have, they are dwarfed by interest in RL and RU. Mr nice guy 13:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay sorry, I see the point you are making in that it is supported almost everywhere nationally beyond negligible measurements, even though it is a poor third in NSW and QLD. Fair enough, but I think that there needs to be a reference to its relative regionality as well i.e. "...whilst it has a two successful franchises in NSW and QLD its traditional areas of popularity within Australia is in .... and this is where most of the interest in the sport is." or something like that, what do you think? I have to go now so take your time..Mr nice guy 13:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This sort of thing should definitely be pointed out in Sport in Australia, although I don't agree with your exact wording. The Australia article, however is only meant to be a summary, and is not intended to go into great detail. I think you have misunderstood the word "nationallty" in that context - it simply implied that aussie rules, soccer and motor racing are the other sports which are most popular in the nation as a whole (as well as the sports already mentioned in the context of international competition). The fact that RL and aussie rules are mainly supported in different halves of the country is probably too much detail for that context.

Similarly, it is not "factually incorrect" to call Aussie rules and Australian variety of football, as it is Australian, just like it is not factually incorrect to call Sydney an Australian city. It would be unhelpful to call Sydney a New South Welsh city in a general international context. I think it is quite silly to object to calling Aussie rules and Australian variety, although perhaps what you are really objecting to is the fact that it is referred to as Australian and RL isn't. I wouldn't call RL a "Rugby variety", but a "variety of Rugby football". There is an argument for not describing RL as Australian because it was not wholly developed in Australia, and this is what is meant in the context of the article, but even if you don't accept that, surely you can see that using the words "Victorian variety" is not actually an improvement. The "Games descended from Australian and Gaelic Rules" proposed earlier was actually much better than "Victorian variety". JPD (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Celtic

So what you're saying is that the people who get offended by this term define "Anglo" as Protestant and "Celtic" as Catholic. This is patently absurd, in addition to being grossly offensive. Catholicism is today the biggest Christian sect amongst the English, and the Welsh and Lowland Scots are almost exclusively Protestant (not to mention the majority population of Northern Ireland. Please re-write that paragraph completely if you don't want me to remove it again. It has no sources whatsoever, and is blatantly anti-English. TharkunColl 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I find the assertion that Anglo and Celtic can be equated to religion as offensive. I'm going to delete that paragraph unless you provide sources and remove the POV. TharkunColl 07:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is true that historically in Australia there has been a significant divide between the Protestant and Catholic (mainly Irish) communities, but I haven't heard anyone (mistakenly) equate them with Anglo and Celtic before. JPD (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked this account indefinitely, because it is a sock of banned user Licinius, because of its aggressive and disruptive editing pattern, and because of the user's stated refusal to work towards consensus. Snottygobble 00:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Snottygobble's block

I have never stated that I would not work towards consensus, I stated that I disputed the previous consensus, something I note Snottygobble has done previously on a similar basis. In fact on a different topic I did work towards consensus, which is actually detailed on this page. I am not Licinius or a sockpuppet of his, there is absolutely no evidence of this besides the fact I followed the previous argument, waited for the passions of the previous argument to subside and came back with my opinion, that the AFL is a Victorian variety of football, evidenced by its history in Victoria, its centralism to Victoria and its limited spread throughout Australia. This as I understand does not constitute disruption. I have to conclude that if I am banned on the basis of being Licinius's sockpuppet, than I very much dispute the other banning of sockpuppets I have noted from the football talk page. Mr nice guy 01:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

1. "I will continue to change it" clearly states that you do not intend to work towards consensus.
2. I was not involved in the forming of that consensus and I have never expressed any opinion on the validity of that consensus, so I'd like to know what evidence you have that I have disputed it.
3. You are Licinius; that is obvious.

Snottygobble 01:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I will continue to change it does not mean that I will not work towards a consensus, it was in reaction to abusive comments herehttp//:en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=talk:Football&diff=prev&oldid=50705504, here [[3]], here [[4]], here [[5]] to show that irrelevant abuse would not affect my opinion on the matter. In fact I offered to go for a while to let tempers cool [[6]] after this[[7]], this [[8]], this [[9]], this [[10]], this [[11]]. Most of these comments show a much greater disregard of consensus than the comment you are pointing out.
2. It was not said with the intent to disregard consensus in any way, shape or form. It was said with the intent to disregard the bile thrown at me in a passive manner. If this comment had anything to do with my banning than why did you not send me a message first if you thought it had such a meaning? because as far as I can see it amounts to a simple expedient attempt by you to seek a banning. How about this [[
3. I am not Licinius in any way shape or form. The only contact I have ever had with Licinius was over a correction to the Green Point Observatory. The editing style of him/her cracked me up on both that, the Oyster Bay article and the mighty Wests Tigers. I happen to agree with him/her on the issue of the Victorian Rules. I do not know or care if the other 5 were his sockpuppets or not in regards to the issue but I do know for a fact that Grant65 was overzealous in placing the tags and thought that he steered the debate away from reason deliberately. Yes I know the Greenpoint Observatory, it was the closest, decent observatory to Wollongong and I had an interest in astronomy in my youth. I have edited articles on wikipedia anonymously for a while and have no fear I will continue to do so, because as you have stated you want a community ban for Licinius, not me.
4. Finally, why would you create a deliberately manipulative outline of my actions instead of a rational digression? You created that J_IS_ME troll and it is only by seeing that absurdity that I resolve to not bother carrying it on further as I would rather hope that some benevolent administrater would sort it out, not an incompetent one like you. (and do not begin to try to lecture me or call me unwikipedian for name calling, it is something that you have engaged in before). I do not see the point of continuing this unless another administrater investigates it. Mr nice guy 05:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)