User talk:HopalongCasualty/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I agree subsections are bad and not in line with wikipedia policy - so I've reverted the page back to my previous corrections (but without subsections). Hope this is a good compromise. Although I think the article section club career is far far to long. Best wishes. Incrediblehunk (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Subsections are OK as long as we don't go whole hog with them. The standard seems to be early club career, club career, and international career for footballers, so that's what I've done, including one for the CL flare incident, because that was a major story at the time it happened.

^{• speak, I say •}

18:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to see someone doing something about that article: the crappy proseline has been there since before June 2007 .... JACOPLANE • 2008-07-22 23:14

No problem. :) I'm fixing the article section by section because it's too much to do in one sitting. If you've seen my user page, you'll know what happened the last time I tried to tidy it up all at once.

^chitchat

23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I know the feeling. When I've got a few days with nothing to do I intend to work on this article and bring it to GA. I'm usually a wikignome, but I've brought one football article to GA: Klaas-Jan Huntelaar. I'll probably have time to work on the Ronaldinho article mid August... you in? JACOPLANE • 2008-07-24 22:57

Dinho cleanup is still in progress, and I am aiming to have it completed at least by the end of the month, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that it's often bordered on the tedious. Heh.

It would be great if you could clean up the article by the end of this month, then I can make a major push for GA in August. The current state of the article has been bothering me for a long time. It really shows systemic bias in Wikipedia doesn't it? If Ronaldinho had been playing for Manchester United instead of Barcelona for the last four years, I'm sure his article would have been a featured article by now.... btw, I've uploaded a bunch of Ronaldinho images at commons:User:Jacoplane#Football, do you see any that would improve the article? ciao, JACOPLANE • 2008-07-24 23:26

I don't know if adding any more images would be necessary, because what I'm doing involves a considerable amount of space reduction, and I don't want the text squashed around a load of images. If you want to update and replace older ones, that's OK.

Cleanup of club section is complete. No more of that God-awful proseline.

^chitchat

06:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Good job, now hopefully I can find the time soon to fully reference the article and fill in the missing gaps. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-27 21:24

Sorry about the mistaken edit on the Richard Marx article. I had seen an edit done that way on the Keith Urban article, and I didn't know that was incorrect. Again, very sorry. Is the edit on Keith Urban's page incorrect as well? --Candy156sweet (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly; there's no need to apologize. I am just a big spelling/grammar freak. :) If the article subject's name is different from their given name (nickname, pseudonym, etc.), then you'd also include the person's full name as well as their stage name in the introduction.

^chitchat

05:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I never knew that actually.  :) Hope that you have a great rest of your week... --Candy156sweet (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I just wanted to stop by and say what an amazing job you've done cleaning up the Cristiano Ronaldo article. It was filled with POV, coatracking, and all sorts of nonsense, and you cleaned it up and did a spectacular job of it. Thank you and well done! Vickser (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the speedy tag from that page, added some references, cleaned it up and expanded it some. Please be careful when tagging articles for speedy deletion, as there's no rush to delete articles that may have some value to the project. Also, the {{db-notability}} tag you applied is deprecated, and should be used very rarely, if at all. Additionally, it truly had no relation to the content of the article you tagged as well. I hope that you do not take offense to this note, as it's truly made in the spirit of cooperative editing here on the project. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 05:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll cool it down a little. I am just wary of articles that are poorly written/spelled in addition to having no sources.

^chitchat

05:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My only real conerns were that you seem to have used a non-recommended tag (easily fixed), and that the tag was a bit hastily placed (also easily fixed). There's kind of a "race" of sorts sometimes at newpages to place the speedy tags, that isn't necessarily healthy for the project. I know I got caught up in it a bit when I first started tagging speedies a while back. I too "cool(ed) down a little", as you say. In fact, I completely stepped away from speedy-tagging for a bit, until I was more familiar with the CSD policies. That's, of course, completely up to you though, and whatever you choose to do CSD wise is cool by me. Thanks for responding, S. Dean Jameson 05:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit [1] can you tell me where you get the Mretric takes prceedence from, as he's performed the same type edit on other articles, and I want to be sure I'm right before I change them? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 05:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The metric system is at the forefront if the article involves a subject outside of the United States (i.e. English Premier League players), where

^chitchat

05:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your to metric edits on CR7's article. We would like all ManUtd to remain consistent and all the player articles are currently in feet inches. It was done by someone in England. Please make a post at ManUtd task force's talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Manchester_United_task_force. Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

honestly not an advertisement, more than one company makes these. this is not a promo and isn't written promotionally. this is a truly unique notable topic, wet wipe markers are different than chalk or pastels, or markers, or paint. they are used on outdoor restaurant menus and places like starbucks across the world. better sourcing yes, delete, no.^MY♥_INchile 03:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Not only do both outside links go to the same site that sells said items (one an opinionated "press page," no less) while offering nothing encyclopedic about the subject, "Chalk Ink" in this case is a brand name on the page with a trademark symbol attached. It's like introducing a Wiki article on tissues as "Kleenex." The article, especially the "reference" section, constitutes advertising. However, my word isn't law because I added a template.

^chitchat

03:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles routinely use the brand names on articles alongside the generic name and there is an article for Kleenex FYI. I have nothing to do with this company, but why not help me reword it to make it more acceptable. I would insist you take it to AfD and not speedy. oh and i'm sorry i removed the speedy deletion, i thought if i said why it was notable on talk page, i could remove it. also, i used the link to the magazines and such that have featured the product as evidence of multiple non trivial coverage. which you must agree is represented there. i have to go pick something up at a restaurant, would you please not delete the article in my absence? look at my history, i really just like writing all kinds of articles and none of them are promos!, cheers.^MY♥_INchile 03:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not have the power to delete articles outright. Only the Wiki administrators can do so.

^chitchat

03:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

true but you can prod it instead or remove the speedy delete yourself =) as a gesture of good faith and speedy it at a later time or AfD it^MY♥_INchile 03:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the deletion request for the time being, but added advertisement template as the article does need to be revised in an encyclopedic manner.

Do you really think it's good form to tag an article for speedy deletion one minute [2] after it's created, while the creator is still working on it and may well be about to add citations and other requirements? It's very presumptive and aggressive, in my opinion. I know it's a widespread practice, though, to my chagrin. Just a quick look at Myheartinchile's user page, talk page, and contribs, and you can see that they're a well-rounded, experienced editor and you're breaking good faith by assuming that they've created an article for advertisement. --

• Beemer, I've brought up this concern with you in the past. You said you would "cool it" for awhile. Perhaps a week or two break from speedy tagging, in which you became more familiar with the reasons an article should be speedied, as well as the general protocol for allowing the article creator to work on the article in cases other than blatant nonsense, copyvio, or other equally obvious matters. You've been placing some problematic tags for awhile now, and perhaps it would be good to step back for a bit. ^S._D.Jameson 21:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

After a long conversation with the "wet wipe" article creator (see above), I voluntarily withdrew my speedy deletion request. Take a look in the page's history.

• My concern is that you are tagging far too quickly. Research into the topic should be done before the speedy tag is added. I've made the same mistakes (and hopefully learned something from them), so I'm not trying to judge you, just help you get better at it. ^S._D.Jameson 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I for one did see that you'd already withdrew it, and I don't mean to pick on you because so many editors attack an article 1-3 minutes after it's created. I just wanted to see what one of you might say if I talked to you... I picked you, because I felt like saying something now and I thought your action was especially rash since Myheartinchile is obviously a good editor if you just take a glance at him/her. --

AvatarMN (talk

) 05:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I was using twinkle and it failed to create the page on AFD for some reason so I did it again. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Beemer, this [3] is an inappropriate tag for speedy deletion.

• Publishing companies are mentioned
• When a comic is mentioned, it is assumed it is notable.

If you feel that something is not really notable, then please use AFD. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Grr, I had a feeling I'd put the wrong tag. I couldn't figure out the right one to use in this case, so that was the first one that came to mind. Sorry about that.

^chitchat

01:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my apologies. It read like a non-notable gift shop to me, but I didn't check the full article, clearly. It can sometimes happen when doing CSD, but luckily those blunders are rare. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I accept your apologies :) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks, and I really am sorry. Also now for also getting the wrong talkpage! :) PeterSymonds (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, at least four people in twelve days have complained about your rampant misuse of speedy delete tagging. Please, stop it. You're really becoming a problem. --

Beemer, I hate to bring this up again, but would you please consider stepping completely away from speedy-tagging for a couple of weeks? The comic article mentioned above is clearly not a speedy candidate, and should have never been tagged with any tag. (I write that because you responded that you had "picked the wrong tag" or something to that effect.) With the mistakes you have been making, I strongly recommend stepping back from the tagging for awhile. ^S._D.Jameson 21:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please re-evaluate your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cremo? Your deletion criteria isn't grounded in any guideline or policy. I've found entries for Cremo in Contemporary Authors and a specialist encyclopedia, and I've added links to a couple of reviews of his work. There are at least a couple of other newspaper articles out there, but I can't access the full text at the moment. Still, I'm satisfied that the guy meets WP:BIO. Zagalejo^^^ 18:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not singling you out. I also left messages with Stifle and We66er, and I've been debating with Hrafn for several days. I haven't contacted ClovisPt, but xe edited the article while I was working on it, so I presume xe saw what I was doing. If it makes you happy, I'll ping him, too. Zagalejo^^^ 22:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for your work on copyediting this article. You added that Gerrard was replaced as VC by Ferdinand, but I think that he (Gerrard) was one of Capello's friendly captains, possibly even his first. I'm at work atm so I can't actually check this, but if I'm right, then that would need to go in I think. --Ged UK (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I pretty much overhauled the article out of boredom. :) I'm not entirely sure if captaining a friendly is as worthy of inclusion as in an actual tournament match (WC, Euro '08, et al.), but if you want to include it, go ahead; a brief mention would suffice. Peace.

^{• speak, I say •}

07:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not generally sure that it would, but it was a trial by Capello, and he felt that others were better suited, which I think probably is. What I can't remember is whether it actually happened, or my mind is playing tricks on me! --Ged UK (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are people placed firmly on either side of the fence, but, especially with a successful player, an honours section can get overwhelming rather easily. I still think Ronaldo's could be trimmed down, but I'll leave that for other people. -

I didn't intend to convey the impression that I was shooting the messenger. Sorry. :)Derry Boi (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. Derry Boi (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I actually moved that quote from the Ronaldo lead when I rewrote it as I felt it might make the article feel a little too biased. While I'm in no doubt to how talented Ronaldo is, I think the quote is an opinion leaning to hyperbole. Ronaldo is still only at the start of his career so his true full impact can't be compared with Best or Law at this time. If you think I'm chatting crap though just ignore me! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The quote was already there when I initially cleaned up the article; if you want to chuck it altogether, go ahead. I guess I figured a quote like that from no less an authority than Cruyff was worthy enough of inclusion in the header.

^{• speak, I say •}

22:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I know you've been going around, cleaning up many of the footballer articles. I have agreed mostly with your edits even if I haven't said it. But the overhaul of the Fabregas article is inappropriate on many counts.

• be bold by all means, but when you rewrite an article so dramatically, I will have ask where is the consensus. I don't have to justify a reversion beyond that (as will be elaborated below); moreover, you didn't ping me or on Cesc's talk either.
• the preceding point is compounded by the fact that the article is a GA. It has been a GA (reviewer Skully Collins) for more than a year. In fact, it was re-assessed as a GA by another editor (Jackyd101) a couple of months back as part of the GA project. Both of these editors are highly experienced at reviewing GANs and GARAs.
• this article has been in this state for a long time. Of course, status quo is not an argument per se, but when a heavily patrolled page such as this is deemed fit to remain in its GA state, then consensus is all the more necessary. You could at least have raised your concerns at the talk page. Forging ahead with a heavy rewrite of a GA was only going to be counterproductive because many preceding editors have deemed the page to be in a GA condition.
• the rewrite breaches so many fundamentals of a normal article, let alone a GA. One example is the new lead. The other is the scope.
• if you don't believe the preceding point, then I will have to ask by which benchmarks do you adhere to when writing an article? I can cite you many GAs and FAs that this article is modelled after. See Gilberto Silva and Thierry Henry for footballers. See Tim Duncan, Michael Jordan and Chris Bosh for examples of other professional sportsmen. The suggestion of hagiography (or irrelevant material) is then demolished (as is your suggestion of wp:own, if you know my edit history -- in fact your own reversion reflects wp:own more patently). Sure, I had a major role in writing most of those articles but it only means I am experienced in writing GAs and FAs and by virtue of their successful elevations to GAs and FAs, I have sought the consensus. You have not.
• the better way forward is to discuss your proposed changes on Cesc's talk. If, however, you think the article is not GA-standard and prefer to have it delisted, by all means go ahead with that nomination and we can take it from there. Good day. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if I sounded aggressive or was unclear in the edit summary. I'm sure you only intend to improve the articles. As mentioned feel free to air your views on Cesc's talkpage and I'll be happy to discuss them. Cheers. (By the way, if you are aiming to take any of the pages you edit regularly to the next level of GA or FA, I'll be happy to help.) Chensiyuan (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Beemer69. You should join our

Hi, ib = infobox... Chensiyuan (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Beemer, just a note to tell you I fixed Gerrard birth place back in to the main body. I did this as it is the way the