User talk:Hig Hertenfleurst

Hi Hig,

Regarding soccer referees "adding time on"...

Strictly speaking, the referee does add on time, rather than merely "stop the clock". Refer to the old wording of Law 5, and also the wording of FIFA documents regarding the annotation of timing for goals scored during this time (ie if scored in 4th minute of the five minutes of time added on, it is written as "scored by nn in 94+ minute", not as "in 89th minute").

This is a very common area of misunderstaning, particularly amongsth North Americans it seems??

Cheers, --DaveB 08:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Dave,

I'm a referee. I do not add time onto anything. The official match clock is my watch. I do not add time onto it. I stop it. FIFA are using the total time that players are on the field, rather than the actual time being played by the watch.

It does *look* like we're adding time on, but we don't, say, use the backup watch to time stoppages and then let the main watch run past 45:00 or 0:00 that far before blowing for time (needlessly complicated). *That* would be adding time on.

The old wording of the LOAF has precisely nothing to do with anything, either. Currently, Law 7 states:

Allowance is made in either period for all time lost through:

   * substitution(s)
   * assessment of injury to players
   * removal of injured players from the field of play for treatment
   * wasting time
   * any other cause

The allowance for time lost is at the discretion of the referee.

Now, as I read it, that doesn't refer to adding time on, it refers to making lost time up. I did put this question to my referees' society (among our members is FIFA assistant referee Phil Sharp) a while ago out of interest (and a lack of things to discuss in the match incidents portion) and we all agreed that we don't add time. Overly pedantic, quite probably, but it does irritate me for no good reason when I see people referring to time added on. And what would Wikipedia be without its share of excessive pedants, anyway? ;-)

Yours in sport,

Hig Hertenfleurst 18:18, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Hig,

Likewise I am a referee, having refereed at numerous levels. This debate often arises, and there is never a shortage of views on the matter, including from FIFA referees/ARs (I have worked with my fair share!!).

My comments were based primarily on the pre-1997 rewording of the Laws stated that the referee "shall ... allow the full or agreed time adding thereto all time lost all time lost through injury or accident" (Law V).

The post-rewrite version of the Laws states that the referee should "make allowance" - allowance neither implies addition nor suspension of timing.

So I think here the pre-rewrite wording does have relevance; IFAB did not list the section as a Law change, and as mentioned already "allowance" goes neither one way nor the other.

This really is a semantic debate :-) To the best of my knowledge IFAB has not made a statement either way to clarify. Whilst the 1997 rewrite certainly made the laws a bit more user friendly, a number of things were lost or poorly explained, and this is one such instance.

Cheers, --DaveB 10:18, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's very bad form to jump into what somebody is editing then start overwriting all thier changes. DamienG 17:38, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't realise you were going through all of them until we clashed edits on series 3. Hig Hertenfleurst 17:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm going to leave it for now so finish off the ones you want to do and I'll mop-up any left on the weekend. DamienG 18:04, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Will do. Hig Hertenfleurst 18:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I find useful

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 00:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

I'd like your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Thanks. Chameleon 12:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

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)

Nice changes to Football (soccer)[edit]

Hi Hig,

Nice bold update for the Football (soccer) intro paragraphs: please see my message on the talk page. I think we need to continue with some bold action to bring this page up to featured-status quality: this may involve less focus on the name issue and more focus on the game itself.

Cheers, --Daveb 05:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Would you like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill Wiki[edit]

Hi there, I noticed you've been adding loads of great information to the entries for "The Bill" on Wikipedia.

Just to let you know, I've set up a dedicated wiki for the show at http://thebill.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page. It's only just started, and I haven't had a lot of time to work on it, but it is a wiki so of course the more the merrier! I've got about 800 episodes on DVD and eventually I'd like the site to be a comprehensive episode guide and encyclopedia of every character, actor, episode, building, street, estate, etc. Plus loads of fun articles, trivia and lists like "Where is Sun Hill?", The Bill Tour of London, and so on.

Hope to see you soon! Regards, Canley 10:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

football[edit]

The Victorian Rules folk are trying to claim that Aussie Rules is an Australian variety of the game when it is very distinctly a Victorian variation of football and was codified in Victoria many years before the beginning of Australia. If you share the same opinion I would love for you to come to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Football and give your opinion.

All the best

04:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ball back for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ball back is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball back until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JMWt (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]