Personal information
Full name Koncorde
Date of birth 1980
Place of birth St. Helens, Lancashire, England
Height 6 ft 0 in (1.83 m)
Position(s) Centre back, Left full back, Utility roles
Club information
Current team
Number 3
Youth career
none none
Senior career*
Years Team Apps (Gls)
1995 Apollo 50 (11)
1996 Apollo 47 (8)
1997 Apollo 35 (9)
1997 Green Bank (loan) 5 (0)
1997 St Helens Town F.C. 0 (0)
1998 Apollo 45 (15)
1998 Green Bank (loan) 3 (1)
1999 Apollo 42 (8)
2000 Apollo 39 (13)
2001 Apollo 50 (8)
2002 Apollo 60 (11)
2003 Apollo 64 (5)
2004 Apollo 42 (8)
2005 Apollo 40 (7)
2006 Apollo 30 (3)
2006 Opal Telecom (loan) 15 (5)
2007 Apollo 32 (4)
* Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of 09:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll find my contributions (mostly) in West Ham Utd and its subsidiary pages such as History of West Ham Utd and also in my home town of St. Helens, Merseyside and other local areas. To which I have contributed either all, the majority of, or a great deal of the historical content to (and references thereof).

I can also be found attempting to neutralise news reports, or responding to "Controversies" sections that are little more than mirrors for tabloid information. Alternatively I lurk fixing spelling, page breaks, misrepresented information and attempting to cite or reference topics where they lack evidence.

I am an inclusionist, believing that behind every poorly thought out wiki there's very probably a decent topic. Also given the "scope" of wikipedia, and its original intention as a limitless 'encyclopedia I further believe there is less of an argument for "notability" than you would in say for the Britannica.


I am a believer in "reading between the lines" and attempting to provide that point of view when bringing forward a topic. I feel the simple quotation of already misrepresented information is the greatest disservice any editor can contribute towards an article. Persistent use of misquoted items, and/or the mass import of excessive critical comments from the uninformed press can lend undue weight to items that are little more than a hysterical media reponse backed by a lunatic fringe.

I have a personal dislike for niche political parties, or groups that attempt to represent the moral majority while glossing over their own record. These include, but are not limited to:

  • The Conservative Party - for attempting to profit through the failures of others, and the promise of reform...yet still its representative core are the same 250 people in place when William Hague was in charge. Can you trust individuals willing to compromise on what they believed 5 years ago were the tenets of existence for British Society? And espoused the same right wing rhetoric only a year ago under Michael Howard?
  • The Labour Party - for failing wholesale to live up to their own expectations, and instead delivering all the facts and figures the public cried out for without realising the 'spin' placed on their failures would cause people to question the honesty of those facts and figures.
  • The Democrats - for not representing a true opposing political party.
  • The Republicans - for having too many Yes men, for bowing to religion and pandering to its core.
  • The British National Party - for attempting to dress up their beliefs.
  • Christian Voice - for assuming the position of being "right" due to the Bible. For being notoriously self publicising.
  • Muslim Council of Britain - for not knowing where to put its face.
  • Fox News - what needs explaining?
  • ITV News - for being Fox news in Britain.
  • BBC News - for no longer being neutral and objective. For reprinting wholesale Associated Press articles. For failing to maintain its own high standards in order to grasp 'viewers' by becoming more sensationalised.[1]
  • British Media in general for degenerating into us vs them political arguments, where "Us" is the populace, and "Them" is the politicians and then hand picking the elements that go with their 'mass' point of view, and those that don't.
  • Misattributed Political Correctness. When the media reports only 1 in 5 schools will hold a traditional nativity, which is pounced upon to mean only 1 in 5 schools are holding a nativity of any sort - and the other 4 must be doing something on the basis of Political Correctness in order to pander to a minority/religious pressure group usually with the cry of "Political correctness gone mad!".
  • Misattributed political leanings. Centrist populist political parties (such as New Labour) tabled as "left wing liberal". When people of a particular political belief attribute anything that goes badly to ideas spawned from their diametrically opposed political position.
  • Angry White People. For having no good reason to be angry.[2] and invariably lying through their back teeth on any given subject in order to demonstrate their point. Be it on immigration, asylum seekers, or pre-recorded shows not being "live".
  • The "Opt in" use of particular descriptive words. Notably = Teen vs Youth vs Boy vs Man vs Child vs Adolescent. Notable in such cases where (for instance) two teenagers (13 and 14) kick to death a 13 year old child (or see here for a more recent Uk version[3]). See what I did there? Very clever. Basically appears to be based on case of if you're the victim, perpetrator and whether the crime is perceived as an anomaly for the age range. Murder is always by men, unless it's drunken then you're a Youth, unless it's in a park in which case you're a Teenager or somesuch logic.[4][5][6] Another fine example here of a "boy" and "child" joyriding, despite being a 14 year old that would probably described as a "youth" or "teen" if he was throwing a brick through a window or something.[7]
  • Misleading articles anywhere in the world with their own "agenda". Such as [8] stating "PC games sales have decreased in recent years due to rampant piracy of software and other digital goods over internet sharing sites". Hmmm...yes. World of Warcraft anybody? COD4? HALO? Release it and they will come, make it exclusive to a console and you've just made a rod for your own back. The duplication of titles across the major consoles and PC means there's a level of saturation. There may be 10 million consoles in the UK, and 70 million PC's - but there's only 50 million people and of those only 5 million gamers with multiple formats. They aren't going to buy the same game twice, or likely buy a console for just 1 game. Koncorde (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Koncorde (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

For clarityEdit

I am not, nor have I ever been David Cruickshank or a horse, I'm not a French DJ, have never been to Colombia and I have no idea what Bukkit is, but I am a Bowie fan so I may have made this comment, it reads like me, and I support as many people editing wikipedia as possible (so long as they understand the pitfalls).

It's strange what you can find googling your own username on the web.

My Wiki's of Current Interest:Edit

Appreciate all your help Koncorde! :D