User talk:Coopuk

Welcome!

Hello, Coopuk, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

--Chappy84 17:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much the reason Chappy84 has outlined in that extensive paragraph he's written. Plus the user before you had added a load of his personal opinion so I reverted back to chappy84's last revert.--86.29.46.214 18:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coopuk 13:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC) OK, I can see why the history can go on its own page - but there are still grammatical errors and typos that need cleaning up on the original Leeds United AFC page. I don't think those should be rolled back.[reply]

My aim right now it to make this a GA. This has been made a lot harder by Chappy84's persistence to keep the triva section and revert most of my changes. Anyway I've set up a peer review for this article so if you'd like to contribute please do.

I have opened your Mediation Request and I would like you to answer the question at User:Natl1/Mediation Case: 2006-12-17 Leeds United A.F.C.--Natl1 22:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating the

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

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Coopuk. I'm deeply concerned that you totally re-wrote, utterly pruned and vandalized an article that has taken me 5 years to write and do research on. I invested tremendous energy, and especially research in writing 99% of the article I created (Golden Team). All of the source material are listed on the bottom of the article. One day I went to do some minor edits and the entire article was gutted, you completely erased about 70-80% of my writing. This article was an excersize not only in sports journalism and history but a modern investigative exposition into 1950s socialist sport. I'm not sure what the admins will say about this. Expect me to incorporate some ideas from your edits, but also expect the entire article reverted to its original form. Please limit yourself to doing responsible editing and correction not broadsweeping vandalism. Thanks a bundle. :) (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandMariner (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your belated reply Coopuk. The 'Golden Team' does need a little stylistic revision perhaps but you have eliminated 90% of content with your edits. Again, I must stress all the reference material is provided and I will personally see to it that references are included. Wikipedia editors already acknowledged that this article is "original research", some of the reference material are drawn from YouTube.com and other website articles. Please do not revert back the article to your edits till we have an impartial editorial jury audit it; they simply and, in all probability, won't agree with your "pruning methods" and liquidation of 90% content material. I will finish this article as I have set out to in 2005, and am now writing the 1954 World Cup Final. Thank you again for your interest in "Golden Team" and football.

Thank you for your comments. It is not just my opinion, but the opinion of others, that the article needs editing; it contains a great deal of peacock phrasing, as well as material that is simply not relevant to the subject. In addition, you appear to be treating the page as your own personal property - it is NOT. I am referring this to Wikipedia, and will be requesting that the article be protected. Coopuk (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is what primary topic is all about. If there are multiple articles the primary article is the main topic. An extremely minor article that nobody is interested in is not on the same level as a legitimate article, and viewership can be easily compared in most cases. [1] [2][3]. For example imagine that there is a small village called New York. It does not mean that New York is then renamed The American State New York or New York City, the American City of New York to not confuse them with the village of New York or something similar... It's how Wikipedia always worked, the primary topic is at the name of the thing in question and the small or insignificant topics can still have articles in some cases but not at the expense of the legitimate topic. Hobartimus (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment, however I would contend that Magical Magyars is a more relevant and meaningful primary topic title than Golden Team, which I believe to be too generic a term - as I have indicated, the Romanian Gymnastic team is also a Golden Team. Coopuk (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to pop over and say well done for the work you've done on the Golden Team article. I tried editing it to fix the stylistic and other issues last year but, after a few run ins with the article's creator, didn't have the stomach to continue the fight. It reads very clearly and concisely now. I salute you!! ANB (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comments - the article really needed an overhaul! Coopuk (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with the sentiment that the Palace incident was not the "culmination" of Cantona's disciplinary problems, passing off an edit like this with the summary "Typos" is not really accurate. More precise summaries would be appreciated. Britmax (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected and will try harder in future :) Coopuk (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey old buddyroo Coopuk, I'm thoroughly impressed with your fascination of the Golden Team article. Athough I am a little worried that you may have taken out more than you should have in its completely truncated form that you call an 'overhaul'. For beginners, the header was grossly simplified where the majority of important information was about the team. Secondly, 2 charts that explain the team were removed: the World Football Elo Ratings chart, and the Top Goalscorers of the 20th Century was omitted, and I am not sure why you failed to include them in your revision. Most puzzling was your complete revision for the sake of academic style that you refer to basically jettisoned a good 85% of solid and verifiable information. For researchers that want a serious study of this team will have to look elsewhere after your so-called 'overhaul', as I attempted to centralize all real pertinent facts, data, and information on this wikipedia article.

I'm very flattered that you take so much interest in this piece, but your 'overhaul' did more damage than good for serious students of post-war European football; and I'm lead to believe that there may be a certain prejuidice against this team by you in attempting to reduce contents and oversimplification, I'm not sure. As one to call oneself a postwar European football psuedo-historian, you should have left the article as is. A debate is needed to discuss matters, of course.

By the way, I've re-written the Uruguay-Hungary 1954 WC SemiFinal which was a very important game to its full extended, check that out -- its good. I didn't touch your brief sketch of the Scotland-Hungary 1954 game, though some factual error-correction and better style on that is needed. The Scotland v. Hungary at Hampden Park had had 134,000 attendees at the match - perhaps the highest total in European football history, you wrote it had 113,000, small flub there. More important, I closed out the Golden Team article with is last swan song performance against the Soviet Union, that I just posted yesterday.

Enjoy your work in some areas in the article, but too much simplification and reduction, lots of important facts were omitted as were 2 big charts. When you have some time, definately check out the new writing on the Soviet game, I did my best:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Team&oldid=517111021

Lastly, the large piece on the 1954 Miracle of Berne had no flaws, everything was researched by me thoroughly, and I composed it the way it really happened. Share you thoughts and touch base with me. Talk to you later for now. Caio!

User:George1485 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How can a sock type? It has no fingers. Coopuk (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lucas Radebe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Graham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

David Harvey (footballer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Allan Clarke (footballer)

Lucas Radebe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to PFA

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Coopuk! I was the one who began 'Golden Team' (the 1950s Hungarian football wonderteam ). I started it in December 2015, and could say with some confidence that is nearing completion. I read that you have a good interest in post-war football, so I thought I write to you how well my project is going. You showed real genuine interest in helping edit the Golden Team on wikipedia. I'd like to show you my nearly completed final, perfect product on the Golden Team. Check out here: http://www.magicalmagyars.wikispaces.com. All the best. User:Davidhazy (talk

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Coopuk. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]