User Talk: 1995hoo

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|-
! align="center" | 50px|Archive ↗<br />Archives ↗
----
|-
|

# October 2006–January 2014
# January 2014–July 2020
# December 2020–mid-September 2023
|}

SPI re: the Utah NHL sockpuppeteer

Tagged you in the evidence itself, but figured I'd let you know here I've opened an SPI ↗ regarding Joseph507357 and the two IPs. <span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span> <span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span> <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(contribs ↗)</sup></small></span> 04:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Spelling out numbers

Sorry about that, I was taught to spell out numbers less than 10, but above numerals are okay. Red Jay (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

olympics comparison

In the olympics in los angeles they called it football on the article and on the us and canada at the olympics pages they use both like football (soccer), why cant we say soccer (football) on the first mention? Mwiqdoh (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Background colors on team tables

I note that in May you removed the background colors from the teams table on the NFL page because they appeared to violate MOS:COLORCODING ↗. Personally, I think that the colors made the table easier to decipher, but I understand the reasoning behind the MOS. I also note that the CFL, MLB, NBA, and WNBA pages use background colors too. In your opinion, should they be changed as well? Also, do you know of a broad sports related discussion group that this question could be posed to for others opinions as well? Assadzadeh (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Message to 1995hoo

Sir, mach 1,7 equals 2099 km/h. If you don’t believe me, you can check it on the internet. I’m sorry to say but you are giving the wrong information about the speed of boom overture. واھید۱۲۳ (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

''Mission: Impossible''

Greetings,

Cool to find another ''M:I'' fan. When ''Dead Reckoning'' was released, I hadn't seen any, so I watched them in order, 1-6, and then proceeded to the theater.

YouTube Premium offered me ''M:I 5'' for free, so I have decided to watch the back catalog over again, except out of order, and starting with only odd-numbered installments. So it will go [roughly] 5 → 1 → 3 → 7 → 6 → 2 → 4 → 8.

The last time I was watching ''M:I'' at home, a neighbor's smoke alarm sounded, and I decided to call 9-1-1, followed their instructions, which included banging on the front window and shouting at 10pm, and lastly I pulled the switch on the all-building fire alarm klaxon. I awakened 100 other families, but I am not Ethan Hunt. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:2E86:C85A:8B38:362D ↗ (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Mistake

Mb about the club world cup. Sorry about that. Hope it didnt cause too much frustration. Thx for letting me know and have a great rest of your week. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by 2.221.72.238 ↗ (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)</small>

Concorde

I understand there is a tradition of referring to "Concorde" rather than "the Concorde" (as we do in the US), but then is it correct to refer to the plural Concordes? As in, tyre failures have been a "problem for Concordes"? Or should that be a "problem for Concorde"? It's a minute detail, I know, but I always want to be careful when editing a GA article. Thanks - Dcs002 (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Edit: The specific example is "57 incidents of tyre failure involving Concordes" as opposed to "57 incidents of tyre failure involving Concorde". Dcs002 (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

:I think either of those is probably right, although I'm also American so I'm not 100% certain. If you search the existing article, you'll see the word "Concordes" appears eight times. It's certainly the correct plural form. My gut feeling as to the sentence you raise is that it probably depends on whether the issue was a problem for ''the aircraft type in general'' (in which case "Concorde" is probably correct) or whether it refers to ''specific ones'' such as the ones mentioned as having suffered blowouts (in which case "Concordes" is probably correct). I defer to others' judgment on that issue. 1995hoo (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

SoFi Stadium

Hi there, I have no real insight into what's been going on at the SoFi Stadium ↗ article, but I did also restore an older version recently, which I believed got rid of the vandalism. I also did a lot of copy editing of various errors, which have now been put back in, with your recent reversion.

I'm totally happy to work with you on this, and restore the page to its best version - what portion of the article did you think was fan vandalism? Was it the "Levi's South" business? Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Jessicapierce}} It was indeed the "Levi's South" stuff that promoted me to look at the article history, although when I was going back through the diffs there was other junk in there that made me revert further back—the usual crap you see on sports-related pages like changing the "Owner" field to "San Francisco 49ers." So i was trying to avoid reverting to a version that had that sort of thing. (Full disclosure: I’m a Redskin fan, which is what promoted me to look at the SoFi article because they're playing the Chargers as I type this.) My diff now shows that some gone perfectly good changes got swept up in the reversion. I can try to go back through later and fix those. Not right now, though, because I need to start getting dinner ready! 1995hoo (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
::Makes sense, thank you! This is not at all my area of expertise, so I'm glad you knew what to look for. I would appreciate it if you'd reinstitute those fixes, but I don't think any of it was super important - just punctuation and style fixes. Thanks for the reply! Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Country

Hi there. Re: your revert at 2026 World Baseball Classic championship ↗, the existing flags signify the team's countries, not necessarily the venue (it just so happens the US is one of the teams). See a bio's infobox like Bill Gates ↗, where Washington and US are added after Seattle. The MOS does not preclude this. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Bagumba}} I admit I mentally confused which article I was looking at. The main 2026 WBC article's infobox lists the three host countries by name and includes their flags and I was thinking of that one when I made my comment. With that said, I still think the MOS provisions dictate not adding the country name in that manner, but I'm not going to fight about it if you want to re-add it. It's ultimately not important enough. What I ''would'' more strenuously object to is the style some other editor used sometime in the last 24 hours of omitting the state names to say, for example, "Miami, United States"—a form clearly deprecated by the MOS that is very non-standard even without that MOS provision. I don't doubt that part of my overall reaction is influenced by the mishmash of styles, with no standardization, that some people try to insert when referring to places in the United States. 1995hoo (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
::Yeah, it's hard to keep track of spinoff articles sometimes. No worries. Re: Miami, U.S.: I think some editors conflate the MOS re: place page titles with references on other pages to that place. The classic example is "New York City, U.S." vs "New York City, New York, U.S." —Bagumba (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
::Actually, I missed that the prose later says "host United States", so the lead is fine. I'll add US back to the infobox. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Short description of 2026 FIFA World Cup ↗

Hi 1995hoo, I noticed you ''indirectly'' reverted my edit. I was just trying to be consistent with the 1994 FIFA World Cup ↗. This has been discussed in the past here ↗ and here ↗, I don't think specifically about the short description. And honestly reading though the archives I can't tell if an agreement has been made. OblongBubbles (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|OblongBubbles}} I didn't have a problem with your using "soccer" there. My edit was a reaction to the person before me who changed it to "football," which I find objectionable for various reasons. But, with that said, I figured changing it back to "soccer" would just start an edit war, and because someone else had used the full name I figured that form should, at least in theory, be the least objectionable one (although I also know from past experience that some of the "football" crowd can get very confrontational about insisting on their preferred terminology). I didn't look back at the 1994 article and I don't know whether the issue has ever been discussed as to the particular aspect of the short description. Honestly, the short description is something I generally ignore because it doesn't display as part of the article, and I noticed it here mainly because when I clicked "prev" I saw someone using just the word "football." 1995hoo (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

usa fifa world cup qualification

paraguay- turkey match wont really change anything, also fifa has already announced usa qualifying to round of 32: https://twitter.com/FIFAWorldCup/status/2068083782683361347, https://twitter.com/FIFAWorldCup/status/2068081314440380722 <small class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by 0Szysza (talk • contribs ↗) 22:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)</small> 

:The US definitely qualified for the round of 32. But they haven’t won the group yet. We won’t know until tonight. Mathematically, Turkey can win the group. If it beats Paraguay and the US, both Turkey and the US would have six points, and Turkey would win the head-to-head tiebreaker. Hopefully this is moot later tonight. BTW, new comments go at the bottom of a talk page. 1995hoo (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

2031 FIFA Women's World Cup

My apologies. I did think of the comma edit but then forgot by the time I clicked the restore. The one anonymous user keeps adding endless rows of venues in to the charts that are already there or in some case, not in the running to be venues. So it is all either duplicate information or incorrect all together. <b style="color:green">Chris<span style="color:orange">1834</span></b> <i style="color:green">Talk</i> 15:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks. I figured you were at least intending to do something like that, but I couldn't really tell. I've certainly noted the constant additions of endless speculation about possible venues. It's insane. 1995hoo (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)