User talk:Atconsul

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Atconsul, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to No ball may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave my operator a message on his talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent set in Africa Cup 24/1/2015 Ivory Coast vs Mali Group D[edit]

"It would ... be an infraction if a player was to use a trick to pass the ball to their goalkeeper, such as kicking the ball up and then using their head. If a player were to use such a trick then he must be issued a caution.[3]

The Laws of football as referenced do nearly state this. More precisely they say 'use a deliberate trick to circumvent the Law.' But when should the referee judge a back-pass with the head to be a 'trick?' This is not a question of deceit, I'm sure. Is it the case that any 'skill' by the player that allows him to control the ball in such a fashion, so that he can head it back to the keeper, be adjudged a 'trick' under this provision? The Ivory Coast defender on that occasion, Eric Bailly, touched the ball twice with his legs before heading it to the keeper, Sylvain Gbohouo. I've no idea whether and at what point these skills became a willful act to effect a headed back-pass in deliberate circumvention of the back-pass law, and I dare say neither did the player. I've no idea whether it matters, anyway.

The referee did penalise the Ivory Coast. As I read it, i) the offence is the 'trick,' i.e. against the letter and spirit of Law 12, not the handling that follows, ii) the defender gets booked (mandated in the Law, p123), and iii) the free kick should be from the position of the defender, not the goalkeeper. In fact I think neither ii) nor iii) happened that day. But was the referee right to blow at all? None of the commentators and pundits I heard seemed to think so. I guess that's not unusual. The Laws of Association Football is the most influential book no-one has read. Atconsul (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Atconsul. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Atconsul. 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[edit]

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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

Your edit to Adam Crozier has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks.

Are you using some tool to assess plagiarism or is this a human discovery on your part?

Perhaps you can guide me here. I did attempt to precis the article, in fact I reduced it closer to the words that Crozier actually used in his witness statement to the public inquiry.

For preference I would type (condensed) verbatim what he says to the inquiry, which is a matter of public record (currently only on video stream I think) but I understand this also seems to cause some problems to WP, transcripted or not.

If this were the BBC or another news source it would simply quote the secondary source in quotation marks as a short report of the cited source's content but again this seems a problem for WP in this context. The BBC and the Guardian can also report the inquiry directly of course.

There must be a right way of getting this information into the article. it is important to anyone researching this subject.

Hope you can suggest a direction. Thanks and kind regards, Atconsul (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two edits were listed at CopyPatrol, where I typically spend most of my time on Wikipedia. I decided that only minimal paraphrasing/rewording had taken place, so the content had to come out. Presenting any part of the material as though it were written by a Wikipedia editor is not appropriate; to do so is a violation of our copyright policy. The Guardian published this as his witness statement: "I do not recall any involvement in or knowledge of the oversight of the investigations and prosecutions brought by Post Office Ltd against subpostmasters, either for theft, fraud and false accounting for alleged shortfalls in branch accounts for the recovery of such alleged shortfalls through the use of civil proceedings." The remainder of the overlap was actually parts of the questions asked by Counsel to the inquiry Jason Beer KC. I suggest adding the exact quotation from the witness statement, and either paraphrasing or omitting Beer's questions, or putting them in as quotes as well. — Diannaa (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your prompt reply. I have been trying to figure out the thin ground between the copyright of the secondary sources and an indisputable report of what was said. These are powerful living people in this drama and I don't wish to tweak anyone's tail unnecessarily. Are you saying that I can just avoid the problem by attributing the Guardian as I had and using quotation marks to make clear these words are verbatim from that secondary source, thus avoid presenting the material as though it were written by an WP editor? I didn't think this avoided the copyright question. Great if it's that simple and I'll offer accordingly, hoping it doesn't show up again on your desk.

I've had a good try at reading all the WP advice on offer. I'd have preferred to cite the primary source, but folk have generally shied away from that here. I don't fully understand why: it reads as if editors tend to over-interpret WP:PRIMARY in respect of WP:BLP but I don't read that any of that should be a block to verifying the words of a person that are a matter of public record.

Anyway thanks again and kind regards, Atconsul (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]