Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:52, 5 October 2015

Welcome!

Hello, Davefelmer, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Misplaced Pages Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Misplaced Pages.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please assume good faith in other users. Please also read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry

I appreciate what you're doing at Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry, but where the hell were you when all the discussions were going on? You're just being disruptive now. I don't like it any more than you do, since United are clearly more successful, but you're not helping anyone's cause by engaging in an edit war. Also, the "table" you introduced in your last edits was absolute dogshit. – PeeJay 22:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi mate, this is Dave. Sorry I wasnt there when the discussions were taking place; I am also still new to wiki so dont quite know how to talk directly to other users beyond when editing. The fact of the matter is that the lad wrote a ridiculous edit that clearly favored Liverpool. 80% of his facts were false and he in any case used the subjective "major honour" system that is not used on any other subsequent wiki rivalry page. Not to mention his principle source of FIFA.com counts other countries' versions of the Charity Shield as major titles but not ours. He lied about our website not listing the intercontinental cup and listing 40 major honours when it just lists 62 honours, he lied about the telegraph listing liverpool 65 honours and giving us 62, he doesnt mention that we have more honours and he ignores that UEFA leave out the CWC because it isnt their competition. He has lied and spun all his facts and wont be allowed to get away with it. I have now made a very fair and even page describing all accounts and every perspective that should be stuck with. The trophy comparison was from BBC but I just dont know how to make it look polished and more official like the the copy and previous posted hauls.

@Davefelmer:, I think you've missed the point about what Misplaced Pages is about. It is no place for original research or for making unfounded accusations about other editors. I see that you are a Manchester United fan and want to portray the article as showing your team ahead. The fact is, there is no definitive source of this data. In that situation, we have to cite the most prominent source and then give other differing sources an in-text attribution in the approximate order of prominence. The page you changed was a result of a long discussion about this on the talk page and then it went to dispute resolution where a couple of admins got involved to mediate. There were no lies by any of the participants, it was all very civil and the language of the resulting article doesn't show any bias. If you have some problems with the content, you should go to the talk page for the article and state what your objections are, how you'd like to change it and the references you think back up your position better than the sources in the current article. Note that this article went through this process for weeks.

Give it a season or two and all sources will probably have your team ahead. Chrisuae (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

@Davefelmer:, please don't keep reverting - it's not the way to settle a dispute. Read over the talk page for the article and the Dispute Resolution. To sum it up: editors can only cite external sources. When there are multiple sources, the most prominent one is used and other high quality sources are given in-text attribution. Your objection to FIFA not recognising the Community Shield, Second division, youth cups, etc doesn't invalidate FIFA as the world governing body of football. UEFA is 99% the same as FIFA. FIFA and UEFA are authoritative for this subject. Personally, I would only include the 5 main trophies and not bother with the super cups, but there is no source that does this and outweighs FIFA's prominence. Our own opinions should not affect the article. Also, when citing a source, you cannot editorialise. Both club websites make a distinction in their honours tables. These are very similar to FIFA and UEFA and the difference is noted in the article. The BBC includes the Community Shield and that is noted. Other media sites include all honours and that is also noted in the article.

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fma12 (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Davefelmer:, Misplaced Pages is not the right place to express fandom - please see WP:PROMOTION. Please also see WP:DE to avoid inadvertently being disruptive. Chrisuae (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chrisuae (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

Please follow WP:STICKTOSOURCE and avoid WP:PEACOCK. You have added nothing to the discussion between many experienced users that took place in Dispute Resolution. You haven't read the FIFA and UEFA sites well, they state that they do not include minor honours. That means no charity matches, pre-season fiendlies, lower tier trophies, youth trophies, individual honours, etc. UEFA doesn't include the FIFA trophy and that is noted under the table in the article. The ManU and Liverpool sites list their honours very clearly and that is noted under the table in the article. They also list the "Other honours" below and that is where they note their charity matches, pre-season fiendlies, lower tier trophies, youth trophies, etc. That is also noted in the article. The article follows WP:NPOV. Please read WP:NPOVT and WP:V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisuae (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C.

Are you serious? Why set an arbitrary year like 1945 as the cut-off point? Furthermore, the lead section should summarise the contents of the article as a whole - your fact about United having the most wins since 1945 is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and it probably shouldn't be either. As it is, the lead summarises the entire article, whereas you keep adding unnecessary fluff. – PeeJay 18:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)world war II is a very realistic cut off point for measuring team success and is often done by the BBC and Guardian (I'll provide the sources if you want). The point, as it is well sourced, deserves a mention in the honours section if not the intro. We can leave the intro as is.

You see, the problem is that "The most wins since World War 2" is a very variable stat. Unlike honours, which are permanent, this type of stat can change over time. – PeeJay 19:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Almost any stat is a variable one. By that token, no club can say they've won something more than someone else because one day it might not be the case. The stat is factual until it is changed by another club, at which point it will be removed. It is the same as Real Madrid saying they've won the european cup more than anyone; one day it may be different but today it is a fact.

Your recent editing history at Manchester United F.C. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)lovely of you to chip in on something you arent part of; but the "edit war" there has been resolved

Unsourced material

Davefelmer, just a friendly reminder to use the citation needed tag for text that you think is unsourced rather than deleting it. That way, any needed references can be added while the rest of the article remains editable with no loss of info. Thanks - Chrisuae (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

If it is a BLP, it can be removed if it is unsourced. Murry1975 (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)exactly as Murry1975 said; its unsourced, unreliable and unfactual. You cannot publish totally incorrect material without a source. when you do have a source, then you can publish. You can't write any rubbish and THEN find justification. It is the other way round.

Murry1975 mentioned BLP articles. You have been going through all of the articles that show other clubs to be more successful than your favourite club and taking out longstanding information and stating it is not sourced. Most of it is sourced accurately and other editors have reverted your changes eg: Levski Sofia. If you think it is not well sourced, you should add the citation needed tag. If no source is added in a reasonable time, then it is reasonable to remove it. If you just delete it, the information can be lost when other edits are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisuae (talk • contribs) 18:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)do not through around wild and absurd accusations; I have rightfully edited biased information that was included without any justifiable source and evidence on several clubs; all of which have won less than the club you assume I support (Arsenal and Everton have won 20 and 40 trophies less than Man Utd who I believe you think I support). You cannot write whatever you want and leave someone else to source it; that is against what[REDACTED] is and stands for. Until you have credible factual information to add, you dont add it. Any such unsourced and unfactually information will be promptly deleted as it should be until it can be justified.

September 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Arsenal F.C.. Qed237 (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

vandalising is what you are doing by adding in information not backed by a single reliable source. Until you can show ONE mainstream media site, footballing body or club that acknowledges those regional and youth trophies as "honours", then you can include them. until then, you cannot as club bias cannot rule wikipedia. Davefelmer (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You must be blind, all of the honours you remove are sourced, and I reverted your removal on several articles not just one. Accusing me and other experienced editors of being biased is amusing and continuing your abusive and disruptive behaiviour with edit wars will have you blocked. Qed237 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

other[REDACTED] articles are not reliable sources. Futhermore, this is not saying that Arsenal havent won said "trophies", it is that they do not count as honours and until you can show me an honours count by a credible site that encorporates these regional and youth matches, it cannot be included. It is worth noting that before this summer, all these ridiculous matches were not added so there was never a dispute. The club does not list them as honours, neither do FIFA or UEFA and no media site does either. Just because a club won something doesnt make it an honour. Liverpool dont include their 40 Liverpool senior cups and United their 32 Manchester Senior Cups and 14 Lancashire Cups do they? Davefelmer (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please learn how to sign posts. Qed237 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

please learn how to be an unbiased and neutral editor. Davefelmer (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I already am. Qed237 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

)you are attempting to use your bias towards Arsenal to bolster their count through information not corroborated by any media, clubs or footballing body. That is irresponsible at best and subject to punishment at worst. Davefelmer (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC

If I was biased against Arsenal, then why did I do the same at Everton? Qed237 (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)to justify your actions for Arsenal. In any case, neither can be allowed to stand as they are not corroborated by any neutral source in the media or football body.

They are sourced.... Qed237 (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — MusikAnimal 18:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Was editing articles that were listing information without any/credible/reliable sources as per the rules of[REDACTED] in terms of sourcing. I attempted to explain the need for neutral and reliable sourcing to other editors but to no avail. Davefelmer (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You'd been given plenty of warning to stop edit warring. OhNoitsJamie 21:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Is there any reason why you edited an old post you wrote on my talk page and changed your wording from "us" to "them" when you were referring to your favourite club? BTW, you forgot to change what you wrote on your own page on Aug 20, 2015 when you also referred to Manchester United as "us" and called www.manutd.com "our website". Chrisuae (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC) chrisuae

Davefelmer (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)not at all. My supporting of Man Utd does not change the fact that I have discovered beyond all reasonable doubt evidence to support a point that must be included in that article. Your prior point was one based on an assumption set up to clearly favor Liverpool, a club you support, with no clear-cut fact to back it up. The site clearly says "major trophies" before the trophy room and calls us the most successful team in england, something your assumption would ensure we would not be. Thus, it is a fully recognizable point that must be changed. If you persist on changing it back from factual information to unfactual assumption, I wll report you instantly.

Your edits are not contributing any information. Your website lists the trophies exactly as it is written in the article. The article already states that both clubs can claim to be more successful. You are simply re-hashing what was discussed in arbitration by plenty of neutral experienced editors. Please stop edit warring and accusing other editors of lies. I don't give any personal information here but you are making assumptions about me that are wrong. Chrisuae (talk) Chrisuae —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)you can't tell me to not accuse you of lying when that is what you do even now. Look at the link. Read the description leading into "trophy room" (where the trophies are listed) where it says "this lists all the MAJOR HONOURS" won by the club. Add to this the second link in which the site claims United are more successful, a statement that would not be true had it counted the trophies you suggested they do as "major" or more important than others. You have NOT acnowledged that United claim to be more successful on their website, what you have done is listed several unreliable counts ti favor Liverpool and said United are ahead by one count in a throwaway line in the lower part of the section before claiming both clubs can claim to be more successful. That is a ridiculous manipulation of facts right there. Now, I could go on about how the Manchester Evening News (domestic media conveniently left out) as well as Talksport amongst others proclaim United as more successful by corroborating the BBC's trophy tally, (http://talksport.com/football/which-club-has-won-most-trophies-europe-most-successful-clubs-best-leagues-revealed) (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/12-reasons-manchester-united-better-6812070) but initially all I ask is that the United website be referred to properly and the relevant information accurately quoted. If you are not a Liverpool supporter, then you are clearly an ardent United hater because you have left out any and all logical facts that put up United's side of this argument.

Again your assumption about me is wrong. Putting your personal attacks aside, the article text accurately reflects the website and does not make any judgement about either club - it simply states the facts as they are on the websites. There are no throwaway lines. To repeat, when there are multiple sources that give differing opinions, they are mentioned using inline references in order of the prominence of the sources. As I wrote on your page earlier, give it a season or two and your club will likely surpass the other. Chrisuae (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

Davefelmer (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)] (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)That is the thing; it DOES NOT state the facts at all. You have clearly worded it to give Liverpool supremacy and have not used any facts provided. United clearly list those trophies as "major" and you havent mentioned that the site claims United are more successful. All you have done is compared United's top tier honours with Liverpool's and added Liverpool's youth and reserve trophies. Liverpool dont even have an "others" section on their website so it is a straight up lie to make them look more successful. Now, I'm not advocating to totally change the article, but it is only fair to present the full and neutral view on the matter and thus all sides should be accounted for. United clearly list those trophies as "major honours" as the link shows and claim to be more successful and that should be reflected. Also, The Manchester Evening News article has to be included as they are prominent media.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on PFC Levski Sofia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Qed237 (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Davefelmer reported by User:Qed237 (Result: ). Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Signing

Hi, as you have been told before. Please, sign at BOTTOM of the posts. First write text and then you say at the bottom "I wrote this" by signing. And stop reverting. Qed237 (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, PLEASE SIGN AFTER YOUR POST, NOT BEFORE IT. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Your recent editing history at Alex Ferguson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Qed237 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  NeilN 21:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

At this point, any unblock request should come with a promise to abide by WP:1RR. --NeilN 21:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

was new to[REDACTED] and didnt understand rules on edit warring. Apologise for my actions and agree to abide by 1 revert rule. Davefelmer (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have been repeatededly warned about and linked to the edit warring rules; you have even been blocked for edit warring in the past. I find it impossible to believe you didn't understand that continuing to edit war after your block expired would be unacceptable. Yunshui _水 06:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Davefelmer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I appreciate the response to my first request. However, I feel that my edits were not senseless trolling or anything of the like; I always tried to make valid points and back them up with sources. The fact that some werent accepted and I tried to argue my points in the response space through edits rather than the talk page is my fault and I apologise and accept responsibility for it. However, I feel that most of my edits were done correctly and only on a select few pages was there a conflict that resulted in a block, and since I definitely feel I understand the rules now having read them through again the previous two nights, I would like to ask for a last chance and want to state again that I will abide by the 1 revert rule policy at all times (as the editor who blocked me requested I do if I want to be unblocked which I understand and admit is for the best). I do not know how long an "indefinite" block is but in the best of cases it feels like a long time and I hope I do not lose the chance to edit permanently as I did enjoy it, felt on the whole I was making positive contributions and on only a few pages was there a conflict. Davefelmer (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

On the basis of your assurance that you will avoid the problems that you have had before, and considering that you have accepted the 1RR rule specified by the blocking administrator, I am willing to give you another chance. I will also give you a word of personal advice. Misplaced Pages works by discussion and consensus. If you disagree with other editors, then by all means tell them why, and try to persuade them, but bear in mind that sometimes consensus will be against you, and at the end of the day you have to accept that, and move on, even if you are personally convinced that the consensus is mistaken. Better to move on to do some other editing that is likely to stick than to spend your time battling away at something which clearly isn't going to stick: at best that will be a waste of your time, and at worst it will mean that you get blocked again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)