Davefelmer (talk | contribs) |
Jmorrison230582 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
[[User:Davefelmer|Davefelmer]] ([[User talk:Davefelmer#top|talk]]) 14:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)fair point. Remove the Manchester Cup wins. |
[[User:Davefelmer|Davefelmer]] ([[User talk:Davefelmer#top|talk]]) 14:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)fair point. Remove the Manchester Cup wins. |
||
{{uw-3rr|Manchester United F.C.}} [[User:Jmorrison230582|Jmorrison230582]] ([[User talk:Jmorrison230582|talk]]) 16:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:47, 29 August 2015
Welcome!
Hello, Davefelmer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.
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 to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!
![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please assume good faith in other users. Please also read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're doing at Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry, but where the hell were you when all the discussions were going on? You're just being disruptive now. I don't like it any more than you do, since United are clearly more successful, but you're not helping anyone's cause by engaging in an edit war. Also, the "table" you introduced in your last edits was absolute dogshit. – PeeJay 22:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi mate, this is Dave. Sorry I wasnt there when the discussions were taking place; I am also still new to wiki so dont quite know how to talk directly to other users beyond when editing. The fact of the matter is that the lad wrote a ridiculous edit that clearly favored Liverpool. 80% of his facts were false and he in any case used the subjective "major honour" system that is not used on any other subsequent wiki rivalry page. Not to mention his principle source of FIFA.com counts other countries' versions of the Charity Shield as major titles but not ours. He lied about our website not listing the intercontinental cup and listing 40 major honours when it just lists 62 honours, he lied about the telegraph listing liverpool 65 honours and giving us 62, he doesnt mention that we have more honours and he ignores that UEFA leave out the CWC because it isnt their competition. He has lied and spun all his facts and wont be allowed to get away with it. I have now made a very fair and even page describing all accounts and every perspective that should be stuck with. The trophy comparison was from BBC but I just dont know how to make it look polished and more official like the the copy and previous posted hauls.
@Davefelmer:, I think you've missed the point about what Wikipedia is about. It is no place for original research or for making unfounded accusations about other editors. I see that you are a Manchester United fan and want to portray the article as showing your team ahead. The fact is, there is no definitive source of this data. In that situation, we have to cite the most prominent source and then give other differing sources an in-text attribution in the approximate order of prominence. The page you changed was a result of a long discussion about this on the talk page and then it went to dispute resolution where a couple of admins got involved to mediate. There were no lies by any of the participants, it was all very civil and the language of the resulting article doesn't show any bias. If you have some problems with the content, you should go to the talk page for the article and state what your objections are, how you'd like to change it and the references you think back up your position better than the sources in the current article. Note that this article went through this process for weeks.
Give it a season or two and all sources will probably have your team ahead. Chrisuae (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae
- @Davefelmer:, please don't keep reverting - it's not the way to settle a dispute. Read over the talk page for the article and the Dispute Resolution. To sum it up: editors can only cite external sources. When there are multiple sources, the most prominent one is used and other high quality sources are given in-text attribution. Your objection to FIFA not recognising the Community Shield, Second division, youth cups, etc doesn't invalidate FIFA as the world governing body of football. UEFA is 99% the same as FIFA. FIFA and UEFA are authoritative for this subject. Personally, I would only include the 5 main trophies and not bother with the super cups, but there is no source that does this and outweighs FIFA's prominence. Our own opinions should not affect the article. Also, when citing a source, you cannot editorialise. Both club websites make a distinction in their honours tables. These are very similar to FIFA and UEFA and the difference is noted in the article. The BBC includes the Community Shield and that is noted. Other media sites include all honours and that is also noted in the article.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fma12 (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Davefelmer:, Wikipedia is not the right place to express fandom - please see WP:PROMOTION. Please also see WP:DE to avoid inadvertently being disruptive. Chrisuae (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chrisuae (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae
Please follow WP:STICKTOSOURCE and avoid WP:PEACOCK. You have added nothing to the discussion between many experienced users that took place in Dispute Resolution. You haven't read the FIFA and UEFA sites well, they state that they do not include minor honours. That means no charity matches, pre-season fiendlies, lower tier trophies, youth trophies, individual honours, etc. UEFA doesn't include the FIFA trophy and that is noted under the table in the article. The ManU and Liverpool sites list their honours very clearly and that is noted under the table in the article. They also list the "Other honours" below and that is where they note their charity matches, pre-season fiendlies, lower tier trophies, youth trophies, etc. That is also noted in the article. The article follows WP:NPOV. Please read WP:NPOVT and WP:V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisuae (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Uruguayan club league
Hi, I noted your supression of titles (pre-1932) on Peñarol and Nacional articles. I must tell you that your edits are completely disrupting so the First Division (or Primera División Uruguaya) started to play in 1900, not in 1932 as you state. You can check out some sources , p.e. here, or this. I don´t know which country you come from, but in South American countries like this case in particular, "amateur" does not mean "unofficial", "friendly" or "it was another league". So please, stop erasing all references about the 1900-31 era in Uruguayan football articles. Thanks, Fma12 (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
August 2015
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Liverpool F.C., without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- AGAIN - other editors do not appreciate being called a "liar" with no basis whatsoever (WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL). You really need to reflect on why you are here - are you just warring to try and put your favourite football team and players in a good light, or are you genuinely trying to improve articles and the wider project? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Sources
Tabloids are not a reliable sources and cant be used in persons article without a more, well reliable one." Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." A sports almanac maybe a better choice. Murry1975 (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Please follow WP:STICKTOSOURCE and avoid WP:PEACOCK. Read the sources carefully before citing them and ensure that you understand them. On the Roy Keane page you have added the word "major" which is not what it says on the source you cited. That changes the meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisuae (talk • contribs) 19:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Davefelmer (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)the source very clearly says major.
August 2015
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Murry1975 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Jonny Evans. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Murry1975 (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Davefelmer (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)it has long since been sourced.
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Problematic editor. Thank you. (This is a procedural notice, but I have to say that I don't agree with your behavior either.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Manchester Cup
Why would you add the Manchester Cup to Manchester United's list of honours and then remove the London Challenge Cup from Arsenal's list? You're being remarkably inconsistent with your arguments here... – PeeJay 14:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Davefelmer (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)fair point. Remove the Manchester Cup wins.
![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history at Manchester United F.C. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)