The Mercenary 73
Welcome edit
|
Hi there - I'm afraid I don't entirely understand what you were suggesting in your note. If you meant the article needs to include criticism of him, then there's no problem with that, so long as it's verifiable, well sourced, and meets our [[WP:BLP}biographies of living people guidelines]]. I'm afraid I don't know anything about the topic, I only edited it when I happened to come across some changes that didn't meet our BLP guidelines on the recent changes list. All the best --Saalstin (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia, don't worry about being new around here, all the rules can take a while to understand. Regarding this text that you added, it was all personal commentary on Mike Ashley and was not encyclopedic. Also, generally Wikipedia should not be self-referencing. That some idiots were vandalising his article is not significant for his own history, it is not relevant to a summary of his life and including it in this article would be placing undue weight on it. Finally, articles about living people have to adhere to the policy on biographies of living people which states that every contentious statement needs to have a reliable third party source; an NUFC blog is not reliable in this sense. If you want to suggest some text be added that might be contentious, add it first on the talkpage (add "Talk:" to the article title or click on the "Discussion" tab) where it can be discussed by other interested editors.
I hope I haven't overloaded you with too many policies and guidelines. If you have any questions, please drop by to my talkpage again. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- The trouble with that is, on of the core policies of Wikipedia is no original research or synthesis of sources. If we have an article written in 2006 which seems positive in tone, one in 2007 that is ambivalent and one is 2008 that is negative, we cannot then say, oh his public standing has decreased. We need an article in a reliable source that discusses this implicitly. We need a source that we can quote that says "Ashley's public image has suffered because..." We cannot add our own opinions, only what is discussed in reliable sources and is wholly verifiable, particularly in biographies of living people. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- See our reliable sources guideline, basically broadsheets over tabloids, so The Times or BBC over the Sun or Daily Mail. Also make sure if it is an opinion piece that it is cited as such (from WP:RS: News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text.) Also see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources which explains it in detail. Always remember that with BLPs we have to be extra careful about sourcing and avoiding rumour and opinions. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Middlesbrough F.C. edit
Hi, the additions you made to the Middlesbrough F.C. supporters section were not referenced. One half-sentence included the name of a radio station, but that didn't reference what you added. You're absolutely correct that Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view. If you believe the current wording isn't neutral, I suggest you begin a discussion of the matter on the article's talk page, pointing out where you think the bias lies, and perhaps suggesting additional reliably-sourced facts which you think should be introduced to counter that bias. It isn't really helpful adding things like "Although this reading was not achieved without the stadiums P.A. system adding to the volume by playing their theme tune" or using the word "wannabes": that just reads like your personal bias. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Think you're missing the point about reliable published sources. If you have one that says the PA was needed to boost the decibel reading, then supply it. But your additions have already been reverted twice. If you feel strongly about them, then do as I suggested before, and start a discussion at the talk page.
- As you may have noticed by now, I've reverted your additions to Derek Llambias, because the Wikipedia policy WP:Biographies of living persons says that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." If what you added is accurate, you shouldn't have any trouble finding reliable sources for it. I've also reverted your linking of Leo Wanker in The Paul Hogan Show to Derek Llambias: edits like that don't make it easy to assume good faith in other edits. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- What I removed from Derek Llambias ran counter to the WP:BLP policy by being unsourced and negative/questionable. Some of it was added by you, which is why I mentioned it. And for what it's worth, I agree with most of what you've written on the talk page about the article needing improvement, but it has to be done within the constraints of WP policy, which means finding the reliable published sources before adding the content. I see User:Woody's offered help if you need it; perhaps he can explain this stuff better than me.
- For information, Smackbot is a bot that formats the citation-needed tags, it isn't a human reviewing content. And no, I wasn't planning to review everything you've ever added to Wikipedia: does it need it? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
No, sorry, it would be completely wrong of me to add a book I haven't seen as a source for someone else's edits. I'm surprised the Newcastle United official history has much to say on the subject of Middlesbrough F.C. supporters, but if it does, then I'm sure you can manage the formatting yourself. One thing to remember is that it's best if you put the relevant page number(s) in each reference. Presumably you won't be using it to source the PA volume stuff, seeing as it pre-dates the cited survey. Still think you'd do better discussing it at the talk page first. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Mike Ashley edit
I haven't removed it, I've edited it to make it more neutral in tone - "Ashley once again reduced the clubs image to a laughing stock" is not the sort of NPOV statements we make here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It's fairly common when encountering a new editor to check out their contributions. I saw one of your previous edits was on the Dalton article and since we only tend to avoid rumors removed it. If you can source it, re-add it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
"you just have to read its headline,+ joke = laugh, if you care to read it!" we only report what's in an article, we *never* read between the lines and add our own conclusions. If you are unhappy with the removal, ask woody, he will tell you the same thing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about - it works like this 1) I see your edits to the Newcastle page - a page I have on my watchlist 2) I click on and check your user contributions 3) I see you have made another edit that does not confirm to policy and remove it. 4) the end. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you note my comments above at #Mike Ashley (businessman), "See our reliable sources guideline, basically broadsheets over tabloids, so The Times or BBC over the Sun or Daily Mail. Also make sure if it is an opinion piece that it is cited as such (from WP:RS: News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text.) Also see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources which explains it in detail."
- The Mirror is in no way reliable, so we should not be including opinion pieces from it. Even if we you do manage to find a newspaper that says explicitly "Mike Ashley is a laughing stock" we still wouldn't include it because as it is not our job to be sensationalist. We state the facts: club has declined, profit down, due diligence etc. and let the reader make any judgements they feel neccessary. Regards, Woody (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's fine, really, I understand that it takes a while to fully understand our policies and what is appropriate. In terms of other editors, look to long-term editors for inspiration. Go to WP:FA and look at recent ones or go to WP:FOOTY#Featured content, particularly the Featured articles. One of the FA criteria (though only relatively recently introduced) is that "high quality sources" must be used. That other editors are not living up to the standards is no excuse.
- "Ashley again angered supporters when he left the club a laughing stock" is something that is really not appropriate as it goes against most of our core polices. "Laughing stock" is entirely subjective and can't be measured. Stick to the facts and verifiable statements and you will be fine. Regards, Woody (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification edit
Hi. When you recently edited 1988–89 Newcastle United F.C. season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Cornwell and Paul Stephenson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification edit
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- 1989–90 Newcastle United F.C. season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Danish, John Gallagher, Michael O'Neill and Kevin Brock
- 1988–89 Newcastle United F.C. season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Danish
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
July 2012 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Gael Bigirimana, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hammer1980·talk 14:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Edit was resourced with skysports.com and references given unlike the other rubbish thats sprouting up here.
Gael Birigimana edit
I thought I had removed the warning from your page. As you pointed out I had been spending most of the time removing the rubbish edits on the page. Of course I apologise for not removing the warning (although I thought I had). In your position I would have removed the warning myself and took no notice of it as you had seen the others I had deleted and just realised it was a mistake. Hammer1980·talk 17:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 27 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited No Time to Die, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sean Kelly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
August 2013 edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Joe Kinnear. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Re: August 2013 edit
Considering the reference you posted linked only to the homepage (which doesn't refer to Mr. Kinnear being dubbed the 'Director of Fuckall') and that you have a clear WP:POV agenda, I am absolutely being serious. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 27 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Heroes II: The Return (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Donald Davidson
- The Heroes (miniseries) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Donald Davidson
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
FIFA Tactical Information edit
Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
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) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
Hello, The Mercenary 73. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit
Hello, The Mercenary 73. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message edit
Hello, The Mercenary 73. 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)