User talk:GordyB/Archive 4

Fictional European Countries

Gordy, I think that the Belgium line on the Fictional European Countries pages deserves to stay: the fictitious status of Belgium is a running gag in Get Fuzzy. As such, the reference to Belgium in this (admittedly lightweight) entry seems in place. Furthermore, the descriptive text after the country acknowledged that reputable sources hold that Belgium is an actual country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.151.22.205 (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warrington Wolves

I noticed that you have removed a couple of paragraphs of mine on pre-1879 rugby in Warrington. Was this deliberately done or was it collateral damage? (I see you've also been involved in deleting some particularly nasty vandalism there recently). Although there's no proof that there is any link between this earlier outfit and the later Warrington FC it may be of interest to Wire supporters nonetheless. In any event there are other clubs who ignore such distinctions. Wigan (RL) give their date of formation as 1872 but there was a clear break in the chronology after that first Wigan club went out of business. My information has been gained from a good source by the way - I was looking at that particular 1873 issue of the Widnes Guardian in the British Library at Colindale last week as part of my research into Widnes FC. Steve Fox 00:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hey, I meant to give this to you ages ago after the France national rugby union team article passed FAC but completely forgot. Congrats. - Shudde ^talk 05:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your work on sports related articles, especially those on rugby union. Shudde ^talk 05:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M62 motorway

As an objector to this FAC, you are encouraged to check back and see if your objections have been addressed. Thanks, Will ^(talk) 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the ultimate judge of what should go into a Wikipedia article. I have expanded the section on rugby league somewhat. Everything is referenced and there is nothing that could be called "POV". If you can't live with the addition of a sentence or two then I suggest you take it to dispute resolution or request for comment.GordyB (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Rugby Flag at PUI

Hello. About this edit. The image is no longer a Wikipedia image, it was deleted. The image you see on Wikimedia Commons, Commons:Image:Irelands Rugby Flag.svg. Nothing we can do here, but you can certainly comment on Commons. So, I've removed 27 September from the PUI backlog again. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:CougarPark.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:CougarPark.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highlanders (rugby) peer review

Hey. I've been struggling to get any comments at my requested peer-review of Highlanders (rugby). I was wondering if you would be able to spend a few minutes reading through the article and adding any comments or suggestions here? Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post Office Road

Hi Gordy. It has been agreed that on Wikipedia, stadiums should only be referred to by their non-sponsorship names (except in cases where they have only ever been known by sponsorship names, e.g. Galpharm Stadium), hence the changes to Post Office Road. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home Nations

Can't you see the paragraph needed to be reworded? Read it again, there's nothing wrong with what I wrote.

Reply a.s.a.p —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckford14 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put my paragraph there and you alter whatever bits of it you reckon needs fixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckford14 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Rugby

Hey, Gordy. I moved Rugby League out of Category:Rugby based on the page descriptor which reads: This category is for articles about rugby football prior to the 1895 schism that split the sport into the modern games of rugby union and rugby league and for articles about sports that are related to rugby but are neither rugby union nor rugby league. So really, the Rugby League category doesn't belong there. There's a see also directing folk to Category:Rugby Union and Category:Rugby league. Have you seen the category discussion here? Cheers, •Florrie•leave a note• 22:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a subcat Category:Rugby football before 1895 of Category:Rugby football to hold any pre-schism articles (per Bencherlite, except I think the word 'football' is needed). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federaţia Română de Rugby

Hello,

I have reverted your last edit at the Romanian Rugby Federation article as the correct romanian name is "Federaţia Română de Rugby". Federaţiă is not a correct romanian noun, the unarticulated version is Federaţie and the articulated one is Federaţia. As you can see here you cannot find Federaţiă in the romanian language dictionary. Mihai -^talk 13:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language representation

Google being a new word for 'googling' something is a good idea. Football (for instance) being the new word for hand stand or anything else not meaning a foot and a ball is wrong. It doesnt matter who saw it first or what way you get out of bed. It's just weird. The words should maintain their meaning because that is what words are. It's important to correct the words. Words are meanings. I wont convince you any thing but that's not as important. Google is a variation of the word 'googol' - the number 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 because the search engine is all huge numbers. It makes sense and people love it. MICRO SOFTware. INTELligent. You depend on it and you thrive on it too.ThisMunkey (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordy, the first thing pointed out on the original research page says that classification contrasts may lead to a similar road as mendeleev's periodic table which was produced in such a way that two items might have went in the same space and they didnt accept that. Words have only one box and every time the one of the meaning should be the one. It's the same as the kettle calling the pot black just the kettle is saying 'I'm black I'm black' for ages. No body goes to rugby calls it football without getting that funny feeling. Now you need an interest in rugby to find that feeling and right here on this page !!! I will push daisies before stuff like football refers only to football but you can see right here that some one knows what the word football means and no amount of pushed up daisies by me will affect the words meaning. That is about all the edit warring I can do.

All Best ThisMunkey (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting to know about Liverpool and those teams Gordy but this type of heritage has a page on the page of football or it might die off with these old boys in Lancashire. That is not good enough. Football is the most popular sport in the entire world Gordy. Why is that not made clear on the page? There has to be more money spent on football players than any other skill bar musicians in the public eye. Why is that not on the page? Where is FIFA and IFAB? Why is the history of the Mayans of centuries BC who had a football pitch in every village and their version of the game was to kick the ball. (and always have had the hugest football stadiums dont they?) If you are going to write an article (I am not saying you wrote it) but if you are going to write an artice about space flight and omit Armstrong and the Americans almost completely someone is going to rant about it because the Americans are seen as leaders in the space race. Here I am rant rant. Football is the leader. No one dances for the prince like a footbal players. They are more than worthy, sir. Yield, sir. My foil is like a razor. The advantage is mine.ThisMunkey (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be arguing that American football is a form of rugby.ThisMunkey (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHich it was. THe popularity of soccer doesn't change anything. It's not the sole form of football. Never was and never will be.GordyB (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordy, Rugby_football#Culture Also Gordy, the rules governing movement are very unique and fundamental to even play the game akin to learning chess. I have altered the first paragraph of the footaball article to acknowledge some of the fundamentals different in football, rugby, and gaelic and Australian as well. It should survive an edit in a large part and fairly outlines clarity in name appropriates that I have been raving about.
ThisMunkey (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still think you are only argueing that the origin of rugby and its earliest name was football. My arguement can only be that the game is not actually foot ball. But the history of the two is intwined. It just needs to be clear. Ireland hammered Scotland last night in a rugby match and for the larger part of the game there was less activity on foot than on the ground and the ball only got kicked once or twice. The crowd was wild so obviously this was ok. But maybe rugby has to be good on the football page being that it is the best history of ball game I have seen anywhere. Just the first bit wasnt worked on as hard. The full article obviously is many hours work. FIFA is scarcely mentioned on it but I couldnt see where FIFA should go although it should get a big mention. I didnt see much NFL either(or any of these...) but I guess they are all mentioned in some small way enough. I still think that the sharp rises in player value in football during the last two decades are revolutionary in any sport and requires a mention. In the eighties a player for a couple of thousand was a fortune and in the nineties only 10millions would get a front page. I dont see any reference to player value on rugby or american football.ThisMunkey (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your vandalism of Football (word)

If YOU have a problem with the edit then its down to YOU to bring up whatever your problem is on the talk. There is no policy to say I have to run everything by you before updating an article, in fact that is what WP:BOLD says improving is adviced. You and your best friend's intentional blanking of hours of work, research and over 45 sources cause you appearently dont like what is says is totally unacceptable and against the laws of this website. - S.Azzopardi (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. - S.Azzopardi (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. You won't get anywhere with that attitude.GordyB (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have pushed no agenda at all. My coverage of the article has covered all the bases, including that football means rugby league or rugby union in parts of Oceania (of which I watch and am a great supporter of the team Sydney Roosters). If I was pushing an agenda for one of the sports then why would I work on such a wide range of codes codes within the article, providing many sources?? My workings with the article is fair and on the base of what is vertified.

Wikipedia goes by what can be vertified, you "not liking" something that can be vertified is pretty much tough luck. For example, you and your best friend intentionally vandalised the whole section on the English language in Asia and Africa, after I took hours working on it. Including the sources on its use and what they mean when they say football. You have done this by the look of your designated userpage, to push a rugby agenda. Nothing is been used as a weapon, the article on India clearly even states that is one of their tongues. Again, tough if you don't like it, you don't have a choice. I suggest you can read the List of countries where English is an official language article.

England and America are not the only English language countries on earth, your destruction of my work will be reverted and if you persist I am doing to say how you vandalised the sources I've found for it. Also I was not completed on the work yet and am yet to make parts for Europe and the Americas, which too will have sources. - S.Azzopardi (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four editors reverted your work and you broke the 3-RR rule so let's not make random accusations here.GordyB (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You basically ignored all of the points brought up in my response, to talk about something completely irrelevent to the issue of you removing my work. I am glad that you have put the Africa section back, but the rest also needs to put back too, including the intro and the section on English speaking Asia. And for reasons of tidyness IMO Oceania should have its section back, so the smaller English speaking islands' football using position can be addressed, along with Oz and New Zealand.

I am willing to discuss any issues you have, however I will be reinsterting the blanked information which is heavily sourced some time tomorrow or the day after. So it would be advisable that you voice any genuine concerns with the content before then. Remember we work on what is Wikipedia:Verifiability this is the law of the website, not what we "like" or "don't like". - S.Azzopardi (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The length of time a user has been on the website is not relevent in the slightest, you and he still have to follow exactly the same laws of the site. I do not mean every part... for example, I am fine with the compromise of the sentence about the Scramble for Africa that was taken out, but the rest that was wrongly blanked.

My variation was in no way POV. It didn't feature any sniping comments about any sports of football just put across the vertified facts and figures. As it stands now, the article is very POV, especially against the code of association football.

The entire opening paragraph is a mess... apart from the incredibly bias American centric part, there is this sentence about the use of the term football in Oceania.. using the word football in place of soccer, and to insist on unqualified use of the term football for their code. Incredibly POV to claim its "unqualified" (a personal and derogatory assertion) and is an attack on the New Zealand Football and the Football Federation Australia. Also in the section of the United Kingdom, the image is not represenative of what the sport is known as in that country, also this article is about the word "football" not "soccer" so two reasons why that image is wrong to be there. - S.Azzopardi (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I re-insert a lot of the information tomorrow (including eradication of further desctruction PBS did to the Africa section). I will copy-edit the intro to blend together both information about India's status and the claims about Americans, to give a NPOV. There is no point me approaching to work on the article today, because of the reverts... as the article looks like complete shit (especially the lay out and still the big issue of the blanking of many sources) and without partially reverting then it would be pointless (which I can't do today). I will put a sand pit and so work in there on it for what I'm going to insert tomorrow. - S.Azzopardi (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a universally familiar word used in many languages with a similar sound to a similar meaning should be described as such at the outset of a (word) article. Such as :- The word football is used in many different languages to describe various ball games.. Perhaps I am mistaken but as far as knowledge of football the word I would believe its most signifigant feature to be its most widespread nature and use. At very least the word english should not be required in the first line, the reason being that the ability to speak the language is prerequisite to using the wiki rather than its preoccupation hence in language would be much more appropriate and especially so for the word football. You should not start any articles "The english language understanding is " unless the english language understanding is obscure or requires clearly pointing out. Foot and ball need no introduction in this way. See weasel words for a similar school of thought. Here is a similar debate -> [1]. Sorry Gordy for all this page munching. I am going to paste this to the Football (word):talk page as well.
ThisMunkey (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style

The MOS is not wrong about "lb". And if you think it is (a very subject POV!), you should take it up on the MOS talk pages, not vandalise good articles to impose your point of view. The MOS represents a consensus, which is a Wikipedia policy that you seem not to think worth following. The Economist may sell widely in the US, but its Style Guide is recognised as one of the arbiters of British style. But if you don't accept that, what about the UK National Weights and Measures Laboratory, which also uses "lb", not "lbs". Or are you going to suggest that a UK Government body is also "not British". Jimmy Pitt (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Football (word)

Talk:Football (word)
ThisMunkey (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Gordy, doesnt the same football boot get used by any field ball sport bar Aussie rules (where it's banned)?[reply]
ThisMunkey (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big spoon

It says "... never call xx football "football" " . Wake your self up. Stir shit how you like. There is no reference. It's innacurate. Someone says something that doesnt add up about a political institution, youre just stirring shit that you claim nothing to do with.ThisMunkey (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying you are stirring it on purpose or. I am not saying that whoever wrote the idea is stirring it on purpose, they are probably as orange as anything else, but you can be sure it's wrong. Maybe you are Dr Ian Paisley himself, but if you are, I can point out that when you do refer to Gaelic football (if ever), that "football" is the name you give it, as opposed to "never" refering to it as football, and probably dont care so much that your opinion on Gaelic football is noted in the encyclopedia (or maybe these days Dr Ian would insist that his opinion is relevant and that "football" it is, and why not? He was smuggling guns over the border a few months ago that the Irish prime minister gave him. He could be focal na gaelgie and everything!). I am not saying that whoever wrote it was Unionist or other, had any agenda or not, I certainly dont, but they had a big spoon, they stirred it.
ThisMunkey (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No! The Ulster Unionists are a political party. I dont see any other politics on the page. Plots? See what Im saying? You have a plot in mind but you did not see it here. What do you see as wrong with bringing up Ian Paisley where Ulster Unionists are concerned?
ThisMunkey (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordy, you are lost in space here. The act of union is a common feature of British politics. The term "Ulster Unionist" refers to a supporter of an act of union in Ulster. It's like naming The economist. Unionism has no special affiliation to naming conventions for Gaelic football. It is Gaelic football. You cant explain it.
ThisMunkey (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that you may have a difficulty refering to Northern Ireland without calling up unionism and nationalism. As for unionists and nationalists being the same thing, think of first, the BNP, the conservatives, labour, and liberal. Dont put any stuff about unionists up if you dont really think you know what a unionist is!
ThisMunkey (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite clear as to what a unionist is thank you.GordyB (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. For details see Help:Edit summary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrums in Rugby League

Hi, GordyB. A "heads up". Article section may not be on your watchlist, but I've "edited mercilessly" (as the edit summary thingummy whatsit message says). Take a look, and edit even more mercilessly! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Rugby Peer Review

Hi there, I was wondering if you could take a look at the Edinburgh Rugby article for peer review when you get the chance. I notice you created the article. I've decided to try and improve it, I've added some recent history and referencing but I'm fairly new to the whole editing process and was wondering if you could give me some pointers on what the most important issues are to correct. Cheers! PeemJim86 (talk · contribs)

PeemJim86 (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]