| Revision as of 13:24, 25 January 2014 editGibson Flying V (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers92,854 edits →Removal of reliable source: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:29, 25 January 2014 edit undoGiantSnowman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators601,146 edits →Removal of reliable source: rspNext edit → | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
| ::There is no consensus - in fact significant opposition - into introducing cm into this article, or the ] article, and indeed ''any'' footballer article. That is simply not the format that is widely used in that sport, it is ft and inches or m. Gibson, I suggest you finally accept that and then move on. Feel free to introduce cm to actors and supermodels, but not footballers. ]] 09:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC) | ::There is no consensus - in fact significant opposition - into introducing cm into this article, or the ] article, and indeed ''any'' footballer article. That is simply not the format that is widely used in that sport, it is ft and inches or m. Gibson, I suggest you finally accept that and then move on. Feel free to introduce cm to actors and supermodels, but not footballers. ]] 09:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::], my confusion about "why the references I included aren't appearing" related to the wiki coding in my immediately preceding post, which, if viewed through the editing window, shows both of our references along with a reflist template included with the height. Your response ("Because that includes sources for two different heights") is therefore quite puzzling. Even more puzzling though is your next statement: "5'8" might equate approximately to 1.78m, but they are not equivalent." As far as I can tell 5'8" = 68 inches = 173 cm. Also, you just finished telling me that "No one is insisting on metres here" but ] seems to be doing just that.--] (]) 13:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC) | :::], my confusion about "why the references I included aren't appearing" related to the wiki coding in my immediately preceding post, which, if viewed through the editing window, shows both of our references along with a reflist template included with the height. Your response ("Because that includes sources for two different heights") is therefore quite puzzling. Even more puzzling though is your next statement: "5'8" might equate approximately to 1.78m, but they are not equivalent." As far as I can tell 5'8" = 68 inches = 173 cm. Also, you just finished telling me that "No one is insisting on metres here" but ] seems to be doing just that.--] (]) 13:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Yes, because me commenting, based on 8 years of editing experience, that that the format widely used in footballer articles is "ft and inches or m" is the ''exact'' same as me insisting on metres in these articles...if that is the upper limit of your deduction skills then no wonder your 'arguments' are getting you nowhere. ]] 13:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:29, 25 January 2014
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liam Miller article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Liam Miller has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
Wasn;t his loan extended?--Vindicta 00:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've also removed the Stuff about Tapping because it was a rumour and pointed fingers at Ferguson unfairly. Stabilo boss
Lead contradicting infobox
In the lead, it says he played 9 times for United, scoring no goals, whereas the info box lists him as scoring once for United. Which is it? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 18:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Accoding to the United stat site (http://www.stretfordend.co.uk/playermenu/miller_l.html), he never scored a league goal for United, so I'll change accordingly.
Removal of reliable source
Just wondering if User:PeeJay2K3 would mind explaining this edit in which he removed a reliable source from this biography of a living person.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- I could ask the same of you. What is the point of replacing one source with another just to satisfy your POINTY crusade to enforce the measurement of human height in centimetres? – PeeJay 22:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- You could ask anything you wanted. Will you answer my question though?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- No. You removed a valid reference without a valid reason. Stop it. – PeeJay 23:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- You've already removed a high-quality source from this BLP and accused another editor of bad faith. Now you're refusing to discuss your actions on the talk page. If you look again you'll see that I did not remove the source, as two references to it were still present in the article. You appear to think the source I added has absolutely no business being used in this article. Again, could you please explain yourself?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- No. You removed a valid reference without a valid reason. Stop it. – PeeJay 23:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- You could ask anything you wanted. Will you answer my question though?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
You've remained eerily silent on what unit is used in the source you deleted the Football Federation Australia one in favour of. If I were you and I had a copy in front of me, I'd be letting everyone know it uses metres, if, of course that is in fact the case (although that would be very surprising to me). User:Lukeno94 has now said "it was rather lame of you to replace a good reference that used feet/inches with one that used cm just to further your viewpoint". He might like to look at my version (and its reference) a little more carefully and perhaps think about retracting this statement.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Gibson, please can you explain why you removed a reliable source from a biography of a living person? GiantSnowman 20:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you pay also closer attention GiantSnowman, you'll see that I did not remove the source, I only replaced a reference to it with one to an additional source (whose inclusion is clearly warranted), thus strenthening this article's sourcing overall. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it become true.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Repeating something over and over doesn't make it become true" - take your own advice. Did you, or did you not, replace a reliable source being used to verify the height with one which used your preferred cm format? Did you, or did you not, remove that source from where it was placed in the article, and from the information it was verifying? GiantSnowman 20:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I stand by my comment, and suggest that you either voluntarily stop this pointless crusade, Gibson, or I will have no choice to recommend that you get topic banned. You seem simply incapable of seeing that people are disagreeing with you, and that you could possibly be wrong. You also are doing a very good job around skirting the question of "why did you remove reliably sourced information just to replace it with the same information, but in a manner that reflects your POV?" And your claim of "I added an extra source, the article therefore must be better" is, purely and simply, utter bollocks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- As you've come to the party a little later than the rest, Lukeno94, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not aware of the following details:
- 02:15, 22 January 2014: My last edit to an article's height. Do check this carefully (especially the source referred to in my edit summary) while you ponder whether it's harmful or not.
- 14:26, 22 January 2014: User:Laser_brain's suggestion that I wait for the outcome of the RFC before editing articles' height at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Gibson_Flying_V. I was in bed asleep at this time.
- 20:39, 22 January 2014: Me confirming that I'd stopped editing articles' height at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Gibson_Flying_V.
- As you've come to the party a little later than the rest, Lukeno94, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not aware of the following details:
- Now, just so you don't think I'm skirting the question of "why did you remove reliably sourced information just to replace it with the same information, but in a manner that reflects your POV?" I'll explain the problems with this inherently bad faith question. I was in fact attempting to reflect more closely the preference of Football Federation Australia, a reliable source I'm sure you'd agree. How adding Miller's biography from the club he's currently playing at can be construed as not enhancing this article's sourcing is what needs explaining here. It's removal from this article is indefensible, as this thread shows.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's easily defensible. There was absolutely nothing wrong before. The value was not inaccurate. Therefore, your change was pointless, and simply to push your POV. Simple. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Leaving aside for now the continuing blatant disregard for Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, editors urging the continued exclusion of the FFA source from this article would do well to make at least one meaningful policy or source based argument in their favour. As far as I can tell, only arguments very closely resembling WP:IDONTLIKEIT have been forthcoming.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Empirical evidence would suggest that good faith went out of the window with good reason. Besides, who says that the FFA source has to be included? What makes it a better source than Barry Hugman's book? As far as I can see, you're only including it because it uses centimetres over feet and inches, and this actually has nothing to do with either source being of higher quality than the other. – PeeJay 23:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realise Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith was not merely being overlooked, but actually consciously thrown "out of the window". I stand corrected. There appears to be some confusion. Are you saying, PeeJay, that in fact your problem with my version is that it puts metric units first (with imperial units in parentheses) rather than imperial units first (with metric units in parentheses), as this would offend the sensibilities of Miller's countrymen (as per WP:ENGVAR)? I thought the focus here was on the metric units themselves and whether to use metres or centimetres. I have no problem with imperial units appearing first (with metric units in parentheses). My only concern was that the metric units used in the article (m) are not reflective of the metric units used in the WP:SOURCE I added (cm).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, my problem is that you replaced a perfectly valid source with another one just to push your POV. – PeeJay 01:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought the ft/in thing looked suspiciously like a straw man. We've already been over how I did not replace once source with another. I left the existing source in the article and included an additional one. Please try to get this right. Now, the only reason I can think of for you to say what you just did is that Miller's height is displayed as 1.73 metres in Barry Hugman's book. Is this the case? Also, considering that Misplaced Pages's core policy Verifiability states that The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine, ask yourself the following: should a sophisticated organisation that currently has access to Miller and the ability to take recent photos and measurements of his height and weight be disregarded. Now, it's very important, for your own sake, that in your response you try to make reasoned arguments grounded in policy/sources, and avoid any more of these.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- What are you actually talking about? Hugman's book gives Miller's height in feet and inches. You replaced that source for his height with one giving it in centimetres. If you were adding a second source, you would have left the original source in its place and added the other one next to it, but you didn't – you just replaced it. That is what we mean by "replacing" a source. It doesn't matter where else in the article that source appears, you removed it as a source for Miller's height and added a different one that expressed his height in units that you found preferable. As an isolated incident, I could have viewed that as an edit made in good faith, but your edit history clearly indicates that you are a man on a mission. By the way, I really don't see how you can view Hugman's book as an inferior source when it is an official publication of the Professional Footballers' Association (which, in case you don't know, is the players' union in the UK). – PeeJay 02:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- What am I actually talking about? I'm trying really hard to come up with possible reasons for your insistence on metres and the exclusion of the FFA source, since you won't provide a single one. And I think my edit history and this discussion will bear out any scrutiny with regard to good faith. Shall we just go back to my version with the references stacked then? --Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- No one is insisting on metres here. The original source gives Miller's height in feet and inches, and that is exactly the primary unit used in the article. Now who's clutching at straws, fella? – PeeJay 02:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- What am I actually talking about? I'm trying really hard to come up with possible reasons for your insistence on metres and the exclusion of the FFA source, since you won't provide a single one. And I think my edit history and this discussion will bear out any scrutiny with regard to good faith. Shall we just go back to my version with the references stacked then? --Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- What are you actually talking about? Hugman's book gives Miller's height in feet and inches. You replaced that source for his height with one giving it in centimetres. If you were adding a second source, you would have left the original source in its place and added the other one next to it, but you didn't – you just replaced it. That is what we mean by "replacing" a source. It doesn't matter where else in the article that source appears, you removed it as a source for Miller's height and added a different one that expressed his height in units that you found preferable. As an isolated incident, I could have viewed that as an edit made in good faith, but your edit history clearly indicates that you are a man on a mission. By the way, I really don't see how you can view Hugman's book as an inferior source when it is an official publication of the Professional Footballers' Association (which, in case you don't know, is the players' union in the UK). – PeeJay 02:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought the ft/in thing looked suspiciously like a straw man. We've already been over how I did not replace once source with another. I left the existing source in the article and included an additional one. Please try to get this right. Now, the only reason I can think of for you to say what you just did is that Miller's height is displayed as 1.73 metres in Barry Hugman's book. Is this the case? Also, considering that Misplaced Pages's core policy Verifiability states that The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine, ask yourself the following: should a sophisticated organisation that currently has access to Miller and the ability to take recent photos and measurements of his height and weight be disregarded. Now, it's very important, for your own sake, that in your response you try to make reasoned arguments grounded in policy/sources, and avoid any more of these.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, my problem is that you replaced a perfectly valid source with another one just to push your POV. – PeeJay 01:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realise Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith was not merely being overlooked, but actually consciously thrown "out of the window". I stand corrected. There appears to be some confusion. Are you saying, PeeJay, that in fact your problem with my version is that it puts metric units first (with imperial units in parentheses) rather than imperial units first (with metric units in parentheses), as this would offend the sensibilities of Miller's countrymen (as per WP:ENGVAR)? I thought the focus here was on the metric units themselves and whether to use metres or centimetres. I have no problem with imperial units appearing first (with metric units in parentheses). My only concern was that the metric units used in the article (m) are not reflective of the metric units used in the WP:SOURCE I added (cm).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Empirical evidence would suggest that good faith went out of the window with good reason. Besides, who says that the FFA source has to be included? What makes it a better source than Barry Hugman's book? As far as I can see, you're only including it because it uses centimetres over feet and inches, and this actually has nothing to do with either source being of higher quality than the other. – PeeJay 23:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Leaving aside for now the continuing blatant disregard for Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, editors urging the continued exclusion of the FFA source from this article would do well to make at least one meaningful policy or source based argument in their favour. As far as I can tell, only arguments very closely resembling WP:IDONTLIKEIT have been forthcoming.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Repeating something over and over doesn't make it become true" - take your own advice. Did you, or did you not, replace a reliable source being used to verify the height with one which used your preferred cm format? Did you, or did you not, remove that source from where it was placed in the article, and from the information it was verifying? GiantSnowman 20:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you pay also closer attention GiantSnowman, you'll see that I did not remove the source, I only replaced a reference to it with one to an additional source (whose inclusion is clearly warranted), thus strenthening this article's sourcing overall. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it become true.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful. So how about this:
5 ft 8 in (173 cm)Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
P.S. I have no idea what that last sentence meant.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC) I don't know why the references I included aren't appearing.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because that includes sources for two different heights. 5'8" might equate approximately to 1.78m, but they are not equivalent. – PeeJay 09:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is no consensus - in fact significant opposition - into introducing cm into this article, or the Davide Astori article, and indeed any footballer article. That is simply not the format that is widely used in that sport, it is ft and inches or m. Gibson, I suggest you finally accept that and then move on. Feel free to introduce cm to actors and supermodels, but not footballers. GiantSnowman 09:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- PeeJay, my confusion about "why the references I included aren't appearing" related to the wiki coding in my immediately preceding post, which, if viewed through the editing window, shows both of our references along with a reflist template included with the height. Your response ("Because that includes sources for two different heights") is therefore quite puzzling. Even more puzzling though is your next statement: "5'8" might equate approximately to 1.78m, but they are not equivalent." As far as I can tell 5'8" = 68 inches = 173 cm. Also, you just finished telling me that "No one is insisting on metres here" but User:GiantSnowman seems to be doing just that.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, because me commenting, based on 8 years of editing experience, that that the format widely used in footballer articles is "ft and inches or m" is the exact same as me insisting on metres in these articles...if that is the upper limit of your deduction skills then no wonder your 'arguments' are getting you nowhere. GiantSnowman 13:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- PeeJay, my confusion about "why the references I included aren't appearing" related to the wiki coding in my immediately preceding post, which, if viewed through the editing window, shows both of our references along with a reflist template included with the height. Your response ("Because that includes sources for two different heights") is therefore quite puzzling. Even more puzzling though is your next statement: "5'8" might equate approximately to 1.78m, but they are not equivalent." As far as I can tell 5'8" = 68 inches = 173 cm. Also, you just finished telling me that "No one is insisting on metres here" but User:GiantSnowman seems to be doing just that.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is no consensus - in fact significant opposition - into introducing cm into this article, or the Davide Astori article, and indeed any footballer article. That is simply not the format that is widely used in that sport, it is ft and inches or m. Gibson, I suggest you finally accept that and then move on. Feel free to introduce cm to actors and supermodels, but not footballers. GiantSnowman 09:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Sports and recreation good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (sports and games) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (sports and games) articles
- Sports and games work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class football articles
- Mid-importance football articles
- GA-Class football in England articles
- Mid-importance football in England articles
- Football in England task force articles
- GA-Class football in Ireland articles
- Mid-importance football in Ireland articles
- Football in Ireland task force articles
- GA-Class football in Scotland articles
- Mid-importance football in Scotland articles
- Football in Scotland task force articles
- GA-Class Celtic F.C. articles
- Mid-importance Celtic F.C. articles
- Celtic F.C. task force articles
- GA-Class Manchester United F.C. articles
- Mid-importance Manchester United F.C. articles
- Manchester United F.C. task force articles
- WikiProject Football articles
- GA-Class Ireland articles
- Low-importance Ireland articles
- GA-Class Ireland articles of Low-importance
- All WikiProject Ireland pages