Jump to content

User talk:Ilikeeatingwaffles/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Goodison Park

Thanks, I'll give it ago ;)

Is Goodison Park on your "watch" list?

Yes, it is! Dancarney (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is starting to look good now. I think it is near "Good Article" status. What do you think? TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It's certainly been improved dramatically. I think it's still a bit of a way from GA status yet. The lead doesn't summarise the contents, and some sections like Further Information are a bit of a collection of unrelated sentences. If we both keep chipping away then I'm sure GA status is achievable. Dancarney (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, they should be! ;) TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
There's now a Good Article review on the talk page. Please see if you can help with anything. TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the Notable former players’ section from the Sheffield United F.C. article

I noticed you removed the ‘Notable former players’ from the Sheffield United article, citing original research - no criteria established for inclusion/exclusion as the reason for removal on Dec 23, 2009. I need to inform you that there was an inclusion/exclusion criteria established. If you had taken the time to check the discussion section of the Sheffield United article and the ‘Editing the Notable former players section’ you would have seen that the criteria was 150+ matches or scored 100+ goals scored. I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to better the Sheffield United article (as a lifelong supporter of over 40+ years) and debating about the inclusion of this section and other sections with members of the WikiProject Sheffield United of which I am a member. While I have no intension of overturning your decision to remove the section, I found your decision to remove the section without any form of discussion, heavy-handed and disrespectable to your fellow Wikipedians. For my part I am no longer going to spend any more of my time trying to better the Sheffield United article when people like you go around chopping whole sections without first debating. hawksworthm (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Editors deciding on an arbitrary number of goals scored or games played makes it original research! Dancarney (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Dancarney! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 11 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Vikter Duplaix - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop this!

You firstly deleted Reuters link and Dos Santos' radio talk. Then say "it' s not reliable". Now you deleted the official Galatasaray Sports Club link, and posted Daily Mail link? What is it;? Is it a joke or something? Not funny!Sultaniman (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mail link was more informative, and it's more detached from the subject, improving reliability. Online reports of someone saying something about football transfers is always going to be unreliable. Dancarney (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Tottenham Hotspur history

Hi. When adding a template such as {{split2}} to an article, as you did to Tottenham Hotspur F.C., it's good practice to start a discussion on the talk page explaining why. I'd be happy to contribute to such a discussion, but it would be good to understand your rationale first. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Bugger, I forgot to do that! Ta for the reminder. Dancarney (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion tag to The Queensland Derby

A week ago or so, someone also put up a tag, but i cleaned it up and updated it. I'm assuming your not living here in Australia, or follow the A-League that closely, but the rivalry is actually quite large. Theres a lot of passion amongst Queenslander football fans, especially Brisbane and Townsville fans. The games are very fierce and closely contested with plenty of 'controversy'. It's as notable as the South East Queensland Derby beetween Brisbane and Gold Coast.

However if your issue is with the geographical location of the two teams, i can understand. However instead of deleating it, perhaps we could come to an agreement where we could redirect it, to say the "Queensland A-League Rivalry" or somthing along those lines. Nath1991 (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

These teams have contested 3 competitive matches, so the idea of there being a notable rivalry seems, to me, ridiculous - particularly as North Queensland have only very recently formed. But, if you can find reliable sources to assert notability then it can stay. Dancarney (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, it's just not the football that there is a massive rivalry, the rivalry beetween Brisbane and the North of Queensland can be seen in other sports, especially in Rugby League, which is quite big over here. And it's not just sports either. I'll find some more sources, hopefully that'll help? Nath1991 (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The article, as it stands, is written about a rivalry between two (association) football teams. Perhaps if it was a more generalised article about sporting (or other) rivalries between Brisbane and Northern Queensland it could be something more substantial and noteworthy. Dancarney (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, so if i generalise it a bit more, it'll be OK???. Can you give me a week? Nath1991 (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not up to me. See the AfD discussion and put your points across there. Dancarney (talk)

WP:EMDASH

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I have reverted your recent edit[1] to the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway article as it did not follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The WP:EMDASH policy specifically notes that "Em dashes should not be spaced.". For an overview of the differences between emdashes (—), endashes (–), minus signs (−) and hyphens (-) see WP:DASH and WP:HYPHEN. Once again, thank you for your good faith contributions to Wikipedia. —Sladen (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

When you do this, in order to preserve ability to trace the edit history for attribution purposes, could you please enter a link to the old article in the edit summary with a note saying the edit is a copy and paste? Not doing this is actually copyvio according to our licenses. What I do or suggest in cases where it's happened already is a null edit with a note in the edit summary saying where the text came from. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks! Dancarney (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
You're very welcome. I made the same mistake when I began. I've also seen editors blocked for (among other things), refusing to do this, so I always remind people when I see it. Anyway, I wouldn't want any hard work I did getting 'lost'. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Aris Thessaloniki F.C.

"background colour already indicates a win or loss. Extra symbol is just clutter" says exactly who, apart from you? a few other top-tier greek teams use the same table and symbols, not to mention the sponsors' list and stuff... not to mention that your talk page is full of angry fans' comments... i'll undo your edit, but, we could like talk it over on the article's talk page? or, like, you can "improve" some other greek team's page by removing those symbols and then remove them from the Aris FC page, too? Heracletus (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the relevant talk page. Dancarney (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Compulsion

Hello! What's wrong with those Hill's quotes? I think it's more accurate. Let me know. --Dan8700 (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with Hill's quotes per se. I felt that as the article was, the section read like a bunch of copy & paste's from liner notes. My intention was to concisely cover the background theme to Hill's work, and I think the edit I made conveys the same information as before, but more succinctly.Dancarney (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'd include somewhere "I hope this kind of awareness spreads among Negroes, because otherwise, as the American Negro advances, he will lose sight of his own traditions and blend into the middle class, forgetting the distinct values of his own culture". I'd like to show to the readers how much Hill was concerned about the rediscovery of Negroes values and culture. I'm OK with the rest. Bye!--Dan8700 (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

MORTON FC

Don't delete my work without asking me, especially when your reasoning is unqualified.

There were specific criteria given above the list, so it has been returned to it's original manner. The other alterations you made were fine, please remember this is my team so I know what I am talking about.

Salty1984 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you, nor anyone else, owns the article, and as such I do not need to ask you about deleting anything. Please note that having "Done something extremely notable like scoring the winning goal in a national Cup competition" is not actually very specific. You really need to have a third-party definition of what constitutes as notable, else your list counts as original research, something not permitted by Wikipedia. Dancarney (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Newport County

Please stop mass deleting valuable data. If you think the list needs trimming then at least spin it out into a separate article like List of Newport County A.F.C. players. Owain (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The value of this list is questionable, particularly when there is criteria as vague as "notable for a specific reason.". There is already Category:Newport County A.F.C. players in lieu of a 'list' article. note that the manual of style for football club articles states that:

Per consensus on WT:WPF players who have played international games should not be bolded. This is for several reasons.

1. For teams such as FC Barcelona almost every player will be bolded.
2. Playing at an international level means different things for different countries. To play at an international :level for France/Brazil is on a different scale to say the Faroe Islands or Samoa.
3. Bolding makes no distinction between the number of caps.
4. If the fact that they have played for the national team is notable, then it will be listed on their individual :and national team articles.
5. The current squad lists are discussing what they have done for their club and not what they have done for their country.

Dancarney (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The value of the list is that it shows the relative standard of players that have played for the club. The Category itself doesn't discriminate between players who played one game, or 500+ game internationals. The inclusion criteria are clearly given above the table. Owain (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
"Inclusion criteria: Attained international caps or is notable for a specific reason.", you must agree that is pretty vague. Anyway, surely a player is notable for their contribution to the club in their time there. George Best played a handful of games for A.F.C. Bournemouth, but that doesn't make him a notable ex-Bournemouth player. Dancarney (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes it does. He may not have done anything notable at Bournemouth, but he is a notable player, and he is an ex-Bournemouth player. That, according to the rules of logic, makes him a notable ex-Bournemouth player. Most on the County list are internationals. The few that aren't are notable for other reasons - i.e. Dean Holdsworth himself. The only vagueness comes from the 'specific reason' part. They could be explained away with footnotes if this suits you? Owain (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Best is notable, Bournemouth are notable, but Best's period at Bournemouth is not a notable part of the general entity that is AFC Bournemouth. I would argue in the case of Newport County that it is only notable if a player gains in international cap whilst on the books of the club. Using "specific reasons" is most likely to take you into the territory of original research, something not allowed in Wikipedia. Really, there should be a third-party definition as to what is deemed notable in order to avoid any possibility of OR. A lot of club articles use things like "Halls of Fame", or polls on the Greatest Ever XI. Featured articles Aston Villa and Gillingham show good examples of a Notable player section. Dancarney (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess it's arguable that it's not-notable. It's always notable when an already-famous player plays for a different team. Anyway, the Villa article links to a separate List of Aston Villa F.C. players article (which itself is a FA) as I was suggesting. The List of Newport County A.F.C. players article itself needs creating though before any trimming of the main article takes place. Owain (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Clubs that have played in the UEFA Champions League group stage

Just so you know, it is considered good Wikimanners to notify the creator of articles or categories when you nominate their articles/categories for deletion. Not only is it polite, but it also helps the discussion so the creator can give his reasons for why he created the article/category in the first place, which helps balance the discussion against the nominator's rationale. --Tocino 22:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sheffield Wednesday squad list

Can you please stop changing the squad list back to the old version. The new version shows much more information and is being adapted by many teams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.91.132 (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The version you are reverting to shows irrelevant information and does not comply with the Manual of Style for football clubs. Please see the related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:FOOTY#National_squad_list_layout. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi there WAFFLES, VASCO from Portugal here,

I sincerely apologize for my antics in João Pedro Pereira Silva. I have been dealing for quite some time with anger management problems, not easy to cope with those (and i being TOTALLY sincere with you, no irony intended).

However, even with this explanation it would not be enough (why did i do it and why there?), so i'll add: you removed, in my view, a suitable sentence (no POV/WEASEL - and even if there was any, it would be in direct speech, as it was a quote from the player), and the fact that it is a foreign reference is not less accurate (i have asked around, and have been told that foreign refs are OK). But OK, never mind, you removed it, i won't reinstate it.

Another justification: the facts that i use caps on occasion is not shouting in "my book" (i know it is common internet knowledge, but i use my own head), at least all at times. Sometimes i use caps to mostly stress a word.

Hope you again accept my apologies, may we work well in the future if the opportunity arises, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vasco. Thanks for the apology. I do, however, think that it is wise to avoid using all capitals, as other people will interpret this as aggression, even if that is not what you mean by it. I removed the quote because it was classic transfer gossip, regardless of the language of the source material. Note that despite the 'announcement' referred to being on the 28th of April, on the 26th of May there is still nothing about this player on the Everton website, strongly suggesting that no transfer has taken place. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

perhaps

If you knew anything about rugby.

Did you see the 1999 semi-final between France and New Zealand? You know what happened? You know why the BBC described it as "the best world cup match ever"? But no let's ignore the wealth of evidence. The facts apparently don't matter - all that matters is your opinion. According to you.

Did you see any matches played by England between 1997 and 2003? That's six years' they had the same first choice back row which were a key part of the 2003 World Cup winning side. A unit which received its own nickname. A unit which was greater than the sum of its parts.

But you clearly don't understand rugby. This is just a bizarre personal vendetta. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a rugby union fan site. Therefore you have to cite third party sources, else the article in question (Hill, Back, Dallaglio) is in fact your opinion. As you are convinced of the notability of this combination of players it should be very easy for you to be able to find sources. Remember that the majority of the readers of Wikipedia no absolutely nothing about rugby union, and as such this must be something to bear in mind. Additionally, I do not appreciate your accusation of me having a "personal vendetta" against you, and suggest you withdraw this baseless claim. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I cannot withdraw any claims that are plainly true. Please keep going and pile the untruths on top of each other. You wouldn't know what an opinion was if it bit you on the arse. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that you read Wikipedia's policy on civility and then reconsider. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

1999 RWC

I see Francis Drake is targeting you too... Could you take a look at this edit [2] and tell me what you think. Does the word "stunning" have anyplace in this article? In my opinion it fails WP:NPOV and WP:PEA, but whenever I remove it I am reverted, I have raised this at Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard, but don't expect a response any time soon... Nouse4aname (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That does read as being POV. If the win referred has, for instance, been described as 'stunning' in the press or whatever, then you could have something like "...victory, described as "stunning",..." - provided of course that it is properly cited. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Gonzalo Higuain page

Why did you delete most of the article? Can his career at Real Madrid be summarized in one paragraph? There must have been some useless information, I agree, but to delete it all is a little extreme. I'll go over the deleted content and restore some back. You can come back and see if you like it. Let's not enter in an edit war, this is a collaboration. Thanks.


Alright, then get the last long version up again and put a [citation needed] tag everywhere you'd like to see a source. I can find them very easily. I disagree with your decision to delete most of the 'Real Madrid' part of the career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.193.17 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It was full of POV - stuff like "Higuaín came on to devastating effect", "a lovely volley to the far post.", "a sublime performance in the 2009-2010 season", etc. - and included lots of detail about some of his goals, with no real reasoning for why they were included ahead of other goals scored. I don't see what the point is in breaking his Madrid career down into seasons with sub-headings, considering that each section was only a paragraph, sometimes only a couple of sentences. Not very many player articles have made it to FA status, but here's one, Steve Bruce, and you'll see that it is written in prose, rather than the quasi-list that the Higuain article previously was in. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Football kits

Hello. Since you removed these BATE templates from their page, why won't you go ahead and remove all the templates from, say, 2010 FIFA World Cup pages? Those are pretty detailed to me. Or anything else created by this user. I'm not saying these pictures should definetely stay, but why deleting picture that's already there for a long time if you not replacing them by according transparent template? --NineInchRuiner (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The BATE kit, as was, included the manufacturer's logo, the club badge, and the advertising slogan. These things are too much detail, and where I see this I try and fix it. On top of this, the images looked very messy. Unfortunately, there are so many football team related articles that I can't go through them all. I am not aware of a better transparent template for the BATE kit, so I thought the the plain version I changed to was a good compromise. If you can find a good template then go for it. The World cup pages you linked to do indeed have reasonably detailed kits in them, but they are not cluttered or messy images and hence the detail ends up not being excessive. Note that football club articles that have reached featured article status (such as Arsenal F.C., Aston Villa F.C., Everton F.C., etc.) don't have a load of clutter on the kits in their infoboxes.Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

About Panthrakikos FC

Thank's for your contribution. Your offer - in my greeklish - is acceptable with pleasure.Nickgleris (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

...

Hellooo! Is anybody in there?
Let's say that you are dead right. Let's say your edits are absolutely correct. Let's say, it is imperative you act without delay.
What is the dominant constitutive element of the common effort a million of people?
Contribution, cooperation, dialogue, discussion (talk page), and understanding each other?
Keep the law at all costs?
Through the very effective system "bull in a china shop"?Nickgleris (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne Heart FC

I propose to move this article back to its original name. The club website consistently refers to Melbourne Heart FC, not Melbourne Heart F.C. Imposing a name on the club that it does not use itself amounts to WP:OR. Regards, Mattinbgn\talk 04:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Red Star Belgrade don't use that name themselves, that's not the important criteria. "F.C." is an abbreviation of "Football Club", and so the full stops are entirely appropriate for a club in an English-speaking nation, in my opinion. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nottingham Forest FC

Hey! Thanks for helping me update Nottingham Forest's honours section. I had stepped out to get some lunch, noon here on the east coast of the United States, and had not finished with the links. The club deserves a much better honours section that links to other Wikipedia pages and I'm glad you finished it! Rupert1904 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, you're welcome! Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ilikeeatingwaffles. You have new messages at Talk:Philadelphia Union.
Message added 12:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Longstanton

I wonder if you'd be able to respond to a query I raised at talk:Longstanton, as I see you've made a few changes to that article. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

IP editor

If you think something is 'waffle' - which, let's face it, is subjective anyway - you should at least re-word it so it is not waffle, instead of simply deleting it. It's rude. And arrogant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.152.159 (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to? If it's waffle then perhaps it doesn't even belong in an encyclopaedia? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Some people have relevant information to provide, but can't always express themselves concisely. Often, what you consider to be 'waffle' is nevertheless relevant and does belong in an encyclopaedia. So, in my opinion, before removing something outright, you should consider whether to re-word it instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.152.159 (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to do just that. I don't know if it's applicable to your grumble, but note that Wikipedia policy is that unreferenced statements should not be present on Biographies of living people. It would be lovely if you could actually tell me what you're so upset about. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not talking about unreferenced statements. It doesn't matter specifically what I am talking about, I am speaking generally. I have just noticed a few of your deletions are made simply because they are 'waffle'. I think this is wrong, although I am glad you generally do re-word them; a few must have slipped through the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.152.159 (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Waffle doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Concise, relevant and factual information is what's required. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Your last comment assumes that 'waffle' is neither relevant nor factual. This is, of course, totally wrong. It is simply a lack of conciseness. In which case, you should change the 'waffle' to something more concise, instead of just deleting it. I can't say it in any more different ways —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.152.159 (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a pointless discussion. I'm out. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Gimnastic de Tarragona

Hey, the 3rd kit the "V" is light blue, and my kits are perfect ¬¬' Mr M.--Nastictarragona (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Barcelona Kit

See this article for more Ahmed Boss edits; 2010–11 FC Barcelona season. Koncorde (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Real Madrid Kit

But let me just say this, Real Madrid isnt the only ones that have excesive detail in the kits if your gonna change it might as well change the Barcelona one too —Preceding unsigned comment added by FGaribay (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I am fully aware, and have been trying to sort out the problem at Barcelona (see this edit) and several other club articles.Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Cant you just remove the logo and the sponsorship without changing the design? I wont revert it but I still like to see the actual jersey designs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FGaribay (talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what I did before. I edited the images used so that they had a transparency and no logos, but you undid the edits! Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well now the jerseys look plain with nothing on them, I would try to edit it but I dont know how —Preceding unsigned comment added by FGaribay (talk • contribs) 18:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you think is wrong with the images? At home, Real Madrid play in all-white, with a little bit of blue trim. The image in the infobox displays this clearly, without no distracing clutter of minor, unimportant details. Look at the kits in articles that have reached featured article status - like Everton F.C., Arsenal F.C. or Ipswich Town F.C. - and you'll see how infobox kits look in articles that have met Wikipedia's highest standards. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ely, Cambridgeshire

Hi. I was wondering if you removed the navbox {{East Cambridgeshire}} by accident during your external links tidy-up of Ely, Cambridgeshire in this diff? If the removal was not an accident, would you explain please --Senra (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an accident! Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I thought it might have been. I will put it back --Senra (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done here --Senra (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Mikel Arteta

The quote text explained the situation, why remove it. I don't think the 100+page document can explain. Matthew_hk tc 10:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Because the article is not about FIFA rules. You just need to state briefly that Arteta is not eligible to play for England because he only had one nationality when playing at U21. The ref at the end is where you would go to find proof that this is a correct statement. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Dhofar S.C.S.C.

I would appreciate it if you would stop making silly edits on this page with absolutely no explanation! You add and remove citations which you have no idea about, and take-out and shift-around various portions of the page! Explanation is needed... --Ittihadawi (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I removed citations which were not reliable sources, i.e. internet forums. Note that I explained that in the edit summary. I also tried to make the club's history one section, rather than broken up and divided by a section on the club's colours. Additionally, I corrected several instances of poor English. Other things that need to be addressed in this article are recentism (the history is weighted towards recent events and there is now a highly recentist "Season Transfers" (sic) section) and bias (phrases such as "performed horribly" and "a thrilling 2-2 match" shouldn't be included). I struggle to see how a friendly against F.C. Zurich is a notable match. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for removing those unbalanced portions of the article, but by removing citations, the citation from forum.kooora.com in particular was unneeded, as the Kooora forum is the leading site for Arab football statistics (Kooora.com [Goalzz.com for the English site])...The forum is very tightly based on statistics from the Koooora site so the site is reliable for citations.
Regarding the season transfer portion...The Omani League has not yet begun, meaning the transfer market is still open, also meaning that the section must stay! --Ittihadawi (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You've missed my point about the transfer section - regardless of whether the season has started or not, it is still recentism and shouldn't be included. If you wanted to create a season article (something like Dhofar S.C.S.C. 2010–11 season) then that information could be put there instead. Note that any football club article that has reached FA status (and is well monitored by editors who've got it to that standard) will not have a transfer section. As you say, forum.kooora.com is a forum, and therefore is not a suitable reliable source. I don't know how good a source goalzz.com is, but that should definitely be used in place of a forum, particularly since it is in English, and this is the English language Wikipedia. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have left your neutrality dispute of the history article open, but it should be removed immediatley, as for the recentism, it is entitled to stay.--Ittihadawi (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Grimsby Town

I'm not being funny but as always with you its a conflict of differences. This article has been monitored and slowly improved by myself and a few others over the past 3 or so years and every so often you come along and delete large chunks of work from the article based upon your own personal preferences, I have seen as well that this kind of thing seems to be your main trait while editing on Wikipedia and that in the past you have had countless editing conflicts such as this. Maybe in the future you should try improve or at least help your fellow editors by improving articles for the better instead of unneccesarily deleteing peoples work. I do agree that the article had a fair bit of POV, to which I have now removed and will keep more of an eye out for in the future. This page has been improved over a long period of time and has been expanded just perfectly fine. By dumbing down I meant that you don't ever come and improve an article, or talk with any of the monitoring editors who look after certain articles you seem to blast in to it like a bull in a china shop chop, change and reduce the size of the article to which then you encounter editing conflicts such as this. I completley agree with the history section but there are no detailed sources to work from on the internet and until I can find a good day or so to open a couple of Grimsby Town history books I have then the past history section is going to feel a little neglected. Even so the recentism you accused the article of is hardly that bad, it's not as if there are several paragraphs on 1899 to 2002 for example and 50 on 2002-2010. Like I said the article is improving but it dosen't happen over night. I'm not being funny but don't expect me to sit around and watch you alter / change or delete massive chunks of work that I feel are perfectly fine and that have been on the page perfectly for a long while. Please either improve the article or don't edit at all. Footballgy (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just following the principle WP:BEBOLD. Anyway, there's still tons of unreferenced POV left in there ("the division was now dominated by a host of sides with greater resources", "Despite flowing goals from Clive Mendonca, notably good performances from John Oster and newcomer Kingsley Black", " the clubs main strike partnership of Rankin and Michael Reddy never got going due to injury woes and Reddy harbouring the desire to play at a higher level", etc.). The recentism is amazing - there's almost as much on the current season as there is on the entire interwar years, supposedly Grimsby's most successful period according to the article! I appreciate that it can be difficult to reference older material, but stuff going back to the late 90s should be easy to find on, say, the BBC website. I looked at Gillingham F.C., as this is an article on a lower-division team that has reached featured article status, and wanted to try and get the history section for the GTFC article to a similar kind of standard. The history section as it is would not even pass the standards of a good article. If you feel that removing unref'd POV, colloquialisms and trivial information is dumbing down then that's a shame. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong I agree with you in the most and If you could make any constructive edits to better the article then thats great but and my gripe isn't with altering the article for the best its simply the unneccesary deletion of sections by yourself especially when them sections have been up for months and in some cases over a year and over time numerous editors have come in and added to or improved bits in them sections and then you come in and delete them. Going back to the history section, I'm fully aware of the BBC news section but I see no need to mass deleted recent season sections when in the coming weeks and months the earlier history section is going to be added to and updated and expanded a great deal. I can see what you are trying to do is shave down the sections and remove others so they match up to the other history sections, but like I say I am and have been slowly altering the face of this page for a while now and when I've got a chance I can make a start on improving the neglected sections and possibly go through the article as a whole and improve it up to Wikipedia standards. Footballgy (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
But the only section I removed was that of the youth team squad! I removed some sub-headings from the more recent years of the history in order to have a few paragraphs on 2000-present, or something like that. If you want to bring the article up to standard why do you object to me attempting to by removing unsuitable material? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Because there are lots of different articles which have youth team squad listings, and they remain. Even so I don't think there is any harm in having these listings, they were on last season, and were updated and re-instated this season. Footballgy (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but have any articles featuring youth team squads passed as good articles? I would be surprised. It's non-notable info cluttering up the article. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think its cluttered up the article as all, infact in my opinion the more information you can put on thats relevant the better. It dosen't look out of place nor does it do any harm. Footballgy (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Blyth Spartans Squad

Thought the other one looked more graphically interesting but ok. Btw I got it off the Kidderminster Harriers page. Scode83 (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jim Steel (footballer)

Hi there,

Is it possible you could help me with something please? I have looked unsuccessfully in the help pages for info on how to add a template to a page to request editors direct their attention to a comment I propose to add on the talk page. Is it possible you could point me at such a template or command please?

Any help is much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.65.183.52 (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you mean. Where would this template be for? I'm concerned that you may want to put up something saying "don't change this page without consulting me". Why not just write whatever comment you have to make on the article's talk page? See where it goes from there. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hiya,

I think you are misinterpreting what I am looking to achieve.

I would like to use such a template as listed above to replace the 'reconstruction' template that is currently in place. I have added the reason why to the talk page of the article concerned. Hopefully that helps clarify things? Basically I am looking for some agreement / standardisation on what format to use in structuring an article (something that is beneficial to all of us). When trying to put that article together I was happy to take steer but it was difficult when there is instruction to do one thing being contradicted with instruction from someone else.

Does that help clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.65.183.52 (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so it's about the titling of the sub-headings in the playing career section. There is no standard format. If you compare two articles that have been made featured articles, Steve Bruce and Thierry Henry, you'll see that different styles are used. I guess it comes down to personal preference. If you want to create a fuller discussion, then one thing you could do is to add a hidden comment at the top of the playing career section by using <!---your text here--->, which will only be visible when editing. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Dixon

The source mentions Arsenal by name, and the Dixon article therefore also mentions Arsenal by name. I have not included the "some clubs" bit as I agree that it is not relevant or useful; however, I feel that being targeted by such a big club as Arsenal is worth mentioning on his article. Regards, GiantSnowman 17:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I would question whether Liberian Soccer is a reliable source, but anyway hundreds (maybe thousands) of players are 'linked' with other clubs in the press all the time. Fills out copy cheaply, with little fact-checking required. There's no proof that anything actually happened, not even that someone at Arsenal said they think he's a good player. Here's yesterday's transfer rumours in the Guardian [3]. If we an included that info on Jimmy Dixon, then I guess from this source we have to update the articles for Stephen Ireland, Kevin Gameiro, Eden Hazard, Jean Christophe Bahebeck, etc. Of course, we can't even tell from the single line of the headline (which isn't expanded upon in the article) which 'Arsenal' is being mentioned - could be Arsenal de Sarandí, Arsenal Kyiv, etc. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirects to Round Maple

I created the redirects to Round Maple as they are features in Round Maple and appear at http://www.old-maps.co.uk/maps.html (When you search for Round Maple). I have also included them in the article Round Maple.

List of redirects;

Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 13:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


You might want to look at how many dozens of redirects now exist for Round Maple... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Round_Maple&hidelinks=1&limit=500

65.93.15.73 (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
What's the point in nominating them for deletion. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 22:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Because they set a terrible precedent. If every single settlement, no matter how tiny or obscure, had around 50 redirects to it, imagine what a ridiculous amount of server space would be taken up. I can see that your intentions are in good faith, but I think that you are severely overestimating the relevance and importance of some highly non-notable places. I know the Sudbury area fairly well, and yet have little awareness of Round Maple, that's how obscure the place is. The same goes for many of the other places you've started articles for. Perhaps your efforts would be better spent on improving articles on more significant settlements first? As you are interested in Babergh, Sudbury, Suffolk needs a bit of help to get to WP:GA status and Hadleigh, Suffolk isn't that great at the moment. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I have been working on some other hamlets like Rose Green, Lindsey (which has a grade 1 listed building, called St James Chapel which could probably have a separate article) I will be working on that a bit, you may wish to help. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 08:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Fine, just please stop using maps as references and stop causing consternation with your multiple, potentially chaos-inducing precedent-setting, implausible redirects and your misdirected idea about what is notable. Remember that there needs to be multiple third-party refs to show notability. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodbridge

Dear Waff,

I think it's shaping up very well. It was a bit limp and sad before. Perhaps the beginning is still a bit weak. What I think usually works best is one short, sharp sentence, then a sub, then something about where the place is, roads, buses and trains, bypasses etc. The original editor did have a point in trying to say that Woodbridge is more than the town itself. The two villages at either end (NE and SW) actually have a higher population between them than the town itself. There's a "Woodbridge metropolitan area", so to speak.

History/heritage is most interesting. Perhaps a little more about earlier states of development, population trends, landowners of yore, might be good. Is there a local history group that has a site worth seeing. If you follow the links in Bottesford, Leicestershire, their history group site proved to be a gold mine.

With the Notable Residents, I'd suggest keeping an alphabetical list, because it is easy for people to add to, and that's the more general format on other pages. Getting more local people to contribute would do the page a lot of good. If the notables list begins to look too long or untidy it can be given a page to itself. If you want to keep your prose version, I'd say that it should begin with Seckford, who really left his mark on the place, then continue chronologically, not trade by trade.

I hope you're a Woodbridge person. Living in Budapest and not having been to Woodbridge since 1955, I feel at a bit at a disadvantage! Blessings. Bmcln1 (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know Woodbridge very well, but I was of the suspiscion that the surrounding villages to Woodbridge do sort-of expand the town. As the sentence read, however, it was merely an editor's opinion. Most info is best in prose rather than lists; if you see the notable residents section of the featured article Altrincham this is the method used, and I use FAs as something to aim edits towards. I have no feeling for any kind of relative importance over the people in this list, other than Brian Eno, so if you want to rearrange then be my guest. If you've got further historical interest then please go ahead and stick it in there! Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Altrincham is a very remarkable page. Thanks for pointing me to it. Bmcln1 (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Vain repetition

You are almost as bad as Crouch, Swale for vain repetition. Look at this neat deletion nomination for multiple, similar pages. Why could you have not done similarly for Crouch, Swale's bad jokes? You created them all - you ought to be made to close them one by one! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I scan-read the instructions for listings and missed the method for multiple ones. You think I deliberately took what was probably a more time-consuming method? Perhaps you should've assumed good faith on my behalf? I find the manner of your comment needlessly rude. Perhaps in a future scenario a better thing for you to write would be along the lines of "did you know that by doing ... you can list multiple redirects for deletion in one go?" rather than antagonistic accusations of vanity? FFS Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if you think me rude. But surely the possibility of one discussion for multiple redirects could have occurred to you without the needing to see precedents or read instructions? You are after all an experienced Wikipedia editor. Incidentally "vain repetition" is from Matthew 6:7 - how on earth could you interpret it as an "accusation of vanity"? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not a biblical quote that I recognise so I took the comment on its face value, misinterpreting the definition of "vain" as being full of vanity, rather than useless/pointless. I've had problems in the past with the machinations deletion processes for non-article spaces, and then got a bit carried away through narkedness. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Crouch Swale

You might want to look at http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Crouch%2C+Swale&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=none&getall=1

And, I just nominated three more of his redirects for deletion. See the Clattford End nominations for January 2. WP:RFD

65.94.45.209 (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Agard

Hi, I'm going by Findmypast.co.uk, which lists his name as according to his birth details and displays him as "Keiran". Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. All the other sources list him as "Kieran", including the Everton F.C. website, so shouldn't the title go according to WP:COMMONNAME? I seem to remember something about Emile Heskey being listed as Emily on findmypast. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup Qualifiying

What about just doing the ones where the countries HAVE qualified? Mr Hall of England (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Empire Supporters Club deletion

I'm working on the page for the Empire Supporters Club to correct the issues you raised in the proposed deletion. Could you have a look at the page and let me know if I'm moving in the right direction? Thanks! Adiamas (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see two good third-party reliable sources are now included, so that's very promising. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hyde FC

Can I just ask about your recent edits on Hyde F.C., why the removing of the tables and why the removing of the new coloured shirt starting this season.

Thanks, LiamTaylor 18:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. One table was moved so that one section contained both records and acheivements, the conventional way that this kind of info is presented in football club articles. The other table was retained, but the ugly borders were removed, leaving a much cleaner layout. I removed the picture of the shirt because it doesn't add anything to the article - it's not of particular significance in the history of an old club. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
And now, i can see the deletion of most of that info as valid but the info about the start of the year 2011 was not needed to be deleted it is significant, Hyde beat thier most intense rivals Stalybridge in their first game of 2011 so why delete that. LiamTaylor 16:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Because in the history of a 125 year old club beating your rivals in a league game is not of major significance. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I know your trying to help but i would like it if you didn't remove any info because there is someone viewing the article for it to be a Good Article and he said its fine as it is. And as you said in your edit summary about doing that to the Dixie Dean article, that is different that was a big career at Everton and Whalley was only at hyde for 22 games so its eisier to sum up. So please for my sake please could you leave the article until you or I hear otherwise of the person who is reviewing the article before it goes up for GA status. cheers, LiamTaylor 16:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I assume you are now talking about the Shaun Whalley article. The reviewer noted that there was not info on his pre-Hyde career, didn't really go into that section. Like you said, it's easy to 'sum up', which is what an encyclopaedic article should do, rather than include details of every goal scored (but only at one club). The article has failed GA, and is at peer review. I suggest that you look at some articles on footballers that have reached featured article status to get a feel for what should be included - may I suggest John Wark, Duncan Edwards or Thierry Henry? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I know what your getting at but iv improved the article a lot since that review and you will find i have added a lot of info pre Hyde with refs and the person i have asked to look at it who has helped make an awfull lot of articles GA has said that it should'nt be too far off now and if you reed the Peer Review i have covered evrey point on their aswell, but at any stage if it is neccesary to remove the info about evrey goal I will. Also you removed most of the info on the Hyde section but it would have been best to leave more key bits in like when he scored his first goal of 2011 in Hyde's fiercest derby, which you removed. Thank you and i do apprieciate what you are trying to do but not now eyy. LiamTaylor 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, the career section is still massively skewed towards his time at Hyde, which is something that should be corrected. Again, if you look at the footaballer articles which have made FA status, they don't feature a player's first goal of every new year, even if it is in a derby game. Thierry Henry is a great example - an article on one of the greatest strikers playing in England this century and it doesn't bother with trivial details. The 2003-04 season when Arsenal went unbeaten in the league, Henry was PFA Players' Player of the Year, Football Writers' Player of the Year, European Golden Boot winner and runner-up for 2004 FIFA World Player of the Year is captured in 7 lines. The Hyde section of the Shaun Whalley article discusses four routine goals, in what are very low notability games, in 6 lines. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Featherstone RUFC

Hi, I notice that you have made contributions to the Featherstone article. The current rugby league club, Featherstone Rovers, wasn't founded until 1902, and appears to have no links to the earlier rugby union (RU) club. However, I have contributed to an article about James "Jimmy" Metcalfe, and I have found details of him playing for Yorkshire (RU) in 1896/7 while playing at Featherstone (RU), would you have any information about the RU club of the 1800s in Featherstone. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt response. Would you be interested in helping me extract a cache of gold from a military dictatorship in the third world? =;o). Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Joe Jordan

You're right - the section is rather overblown, but unfortunately your edit left several incomplete reference with error messages. As I didn't have time to fix them, I simply reverted you. I'm happy for you to revert back, as long as you check and fix the references this time. Cheers. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Now I see what the problem was, so I've reverted it back for you. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Revolver(Warehouse Republic Single)

Any song by an artist who doesn't have an article can be speedy deleted via WP:CSD#A9. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of St Peter's Church, Sudbury

The article St Peter's Church, Sudbury you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:St Peter's Church, Sudbury for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating this article for GAN. When I wrote it, I was not intending to submit it myself; rather it was written to make a red link blue in List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the East of England. I am of course very pleased that it has been accepted, but at the same time surprised that it was. This is partly because of my rather difficult experience with this GAN. And IMO the Astbury article was/is vastly superior to the Sudbury article. But I guess that's the GA for you! Cheers, and thanks again. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I thought that you'd created a really good quality article, so it was nice to see it pass GAN with minimal difficulty. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Galatasaray S.K. (football team)

The name of this page can not be this way not that way any other team's name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonade16 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ilikeeatingwaffles/Archive_5&oldid=1143060231"