User talk:CPMcE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Deputy Leader Vs. Deputy PM

I Actually thought these were the same thing o.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordy Why Have You Foresaken Me (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic

If my edit was "overboard" it merely reflects the poor state of the article. It states a great number of very specific facts, yet only cites a tiny fraction of them. Are we to assume the rest are original research? The statement "which is one of the most famous and most fierce rivalries in sport" is also clearly POV and, unless there's a notable and cited person saying it, it shouldn't be in the lead for the article.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just want to explain that my intention of adding the tags was not to question the veracity of (most) of the content, just that the article lacked supporting cites required to improve the article.

To respond to some of your points;

"Subject-specific common knowledge – Material that anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true."

I agree with this completely, which is why I didn't tag practically every second line. But there are a great number of facts given that simply aren't common knowledge. And whether they can be "simply looked up" isn't the point. For instance; is it really common knowledge that Celtic won every competition they entered in 1967? I think not. Whether it would be challenged isn't the point, Wikipedia is suppose to be a verified source of information. The reader expects to see some evidence that it speaks the truth and isn't made up.

: - I would say that knowing when not to cite is as important as when to cite, otherwise we get into a rather silly situation where ever single statement has to be cited.

For example, although it is undoubtedly a "POV" that the rivalry between Celtic and Rangers is one of the fiercest in world football, this "POV" is unlikely ever to be challenged

I didn't suggest it should be challenged, just that it appears to be the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. A cite from someone more significant would be nice. I didn't tag it with a fact simply because it can't be established as 'fact'. It's an opinion, and a debatable one (everyone thinks their own local rivalry is something remarkable). But how is the reader to know whose opinion it is?

A fact tag on "Celtic has traditionally been linked with its founding roots which originate from the Irish immigrant community in Glasgow.". Like asking for a fact tag on "The earth is the third planet from the sun".

If it is so obvious a statement then it wouldn't be worth mentioning. I think you're getting hung up on the fact it's called a "fact" tag. Think more of its appearance on the page; "citation needed". A cite helps establishes it as fact, and also leads the interested reader in the right direction should they wish to know more.

A fact tag on whether Celtic have their own channel, Channel67 - what is in contention here?

No contention, just I have no idea if it's true and the article gives no indication where any of the information in the paragraph has been obtained.

A fact tag on whether Martin O'Neill left Celtic to care for his wife who had cancer - I went ahead and found a BBC news citation for that, but when was it ever in question?

Again, no question. But who's to say it's true? How does the reader know it's not some guy's vague guess?

A fact tag that Celtic beat Rangers seven times in a row a couple of seasons ago - so easy to prove by reading the relevant seasons report, with links to BBC reports of the games in question, and never, until now, been at all questioned...

Do the links mention 7 wins in a row, or has someone added up the relevant seasons reports? If so, then it's original synthesis, isn't it? And even if it's not, you are again asking the reader to verify what's being said themselves. A cite is helpful.

In summary, please add fact tags if, after some attempt at verification

The usual procedure is for the editor providing the fact, provides the cite. It shouldn't be anyone else's responsibility to chase up cites for facts that may, or may not, be true. I could have spent an hour trying to obtain cites, but I'm sure there's others who know more on the subject who can do it better. That's what makes WP the collaborative project it is. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you trying to give the impression that UN's day for non violence is something very much related to gandhi??? ofcourse it is good that he adopted the policy of non violence but this fact doens,t make sende here. it is kind of chaeating by giving wrong impression, so please it from the article. it is cheating because it has nothing to directly with gandhi.got it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koekani (talk • contribs) 18:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

A quick thank you for reverting the recent vandalism to my user page. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larry and Grog

Why did you mark Larry and Grog as nonsense? -User:Rock Collar

[edit] Guyana

The page was tagged for a non-controversial move, etc., and I did not see a problem with it. Feel free to make your case on the talk page, or make other changes. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sectarianism

You have swiftly removed the possibilities that I wished to share with others. Why is this so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strife911 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your paradigm. However, I do not consider stating a possibility as such, as an impression. Do you understand this? or do you simply object it? I just seems to me like the easiest way to help people think. Please feel free to discuss this with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strife911 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie walker

Sorry, I thought it was a legitimate article which got vandalised and you tagged the vandalised version for deletion by mistake (that happens quite a lot). Deleted now. Hut 8.5 17:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Please refrain from POV-pushing and slandering, as you did to the FC Zenit Saint Petersburg page. It is considered non-constructive. Thank you very much.  Jhony   08:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • "Zenit are noted for having a large racist element amongst their support." - POV.
  • "hundreds of Zenit fans racially abused Marseilles' black players by throwing bananas and chanting derogatory slogans." - slander.
  • article in Telegraph full of lies - libel.
  • Never heard about such an interview. Even if presuppose it's existence (which is unlikely), it's opinion, not fact.
  • Zubar is likely lying. These allegations will be heard by UEFA's Control and Disciplinary Body on 8 May. [1]
  • "Zenit are the only Russian premier team never to have signed a black player" - actually true, but in what way this is related to racism? Zenit have signed their first expatriate footballer not from ex-Soviet countries only in 2002, and their first and only expatriate footballer from South America, Argentine player Dominguez, only in 2007! Zenit are the only Russian team never to have signed Brazilian, because they are racist team you'll say?
  • Two Koreans, how racist fans permitted them?
  • FC Zenit policy against racism, please read.  Jhony   00:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Note

It's wrong to ascribe the opinions stated in the cited article to me. I merely added a citation for an interview which was widely reported. I have no opinion on whether Zenit fans are racist or anti-black. Camillus

  • It seems that you are responsible for content that you have recreated as well. There is a huge difference between "elements of the support are being accused of anti-black sentiments" on the one hand and "Racism" section in the club's article or lies such as "the first question Zenit fans asked when a signing was imminent was: "Is he black?"" on the other.  Jhony   01:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I added the message to the talk page of the article, as you adviced.  Jhony   04:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

...for this revert to my user page. Initially, I was a little confused by your summary and later realized that you had reverted my page to the clean version. Thanks again! Prashanthns (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned message

So you worked all those years so you could troll Wikipedia and delete information pertaining to Rangers FC?

very mature of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightyellow (talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this refers to entry on Quadrangle, mention of a Rangers fan on Youtube using the word "Quadrangle" to refer to Rangers' going for 4 trophies in 2008. Camillus 23:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, re: Jens Stoltenberg

Are you the guy who keep removing the trivia about MY prime minister, that he enjoys online gaming etc? If so, please don't. It's a trivia that really puts him apart from just about any other normal Prime Minister in the world today and belongs on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjolb (talk • contribs) 08:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)