Talk:Neil Ruddock

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.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Football: England / Liverpool Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Liverpool task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Website

I have remove the line "at www.passandmove.net". Clearly an attempt at advertsing. Jacobsdad (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Does comeone not have a better picture of him? Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a pretty awful picture. It should come with a sound bite of 'Who ate all the pies!'DarthJoeyJoJo (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, I think this is one of the cases where no picture is better than a bad one. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree hat no image is better than that image, that image is funny and a clear picture of him, why on earth should we not use it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.86.126 (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Negative Content"

Someone constantly removes content that paints Ruddock's character in a negative light. However, this is contravening Wikipedia's polcies, as the content is TRUE. Truth is a defence to defamation, because it actually reflects the truth of the matter. Ruddock's character is not in that sense, negatively portrayed anymore, because the material is true, meaning that those are indeed Ruddock's actions and statements, and truth. The negative statements concerning Ruddock's deliberate decision to break Andrew Cole's legs, is something that he admitted to freely in a public televised interview, and as such, are not defamatory and true. To suggest that negative information can be removed just because they are negative is a contravention of Wikipedia's integrity for balance and fairness and implies that someone (perhaps Ruddock or his PR people) is tampering with the integrity of the information by manipulation.

A user titled "Daemonic Kangaroo" keeps removing a perfectly legitimate source citing "negative content" that is discussed in the previous heading. This is not in fact negative information, because it is information which does exist, and is justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.111.0.12 (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked up on the history page, and Daemonic Kangaroo seems to always edit out unfavourable information, which contravenes Wikipedia's policy. Ruddock's PR agent perhaps?

I will continue to remove negative comment without proper citation. A link to a video is not acceptable. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can Anyone back up Daemonic Kangaroo's point about a video not being acceptable? A video which has the very subject himself in person speaking clearly in an interview is referenceable. Show us the statutes and policies by Wikipedia where this is held to be invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.111.0.12 (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the link to the video cites Ruddock himself admitting to something, it is a perfectly acceptable source. Daemonic Kangaroo is wrong! The section should remain in the article. Jacobsdad (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should actually read the article and follow up the references - the interview is now mentioned and properly referenced. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life

What about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.185.193 (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neil Ruddock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]