Jump to content

Talk:Sports agent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linkspam

[edit]

There is a blog that deals with Sports Agent issues and personalities at "http://www.sportsagentblog.com" [The previous unsigned message was posted by 24.136.47.51 (talk · contribs)/24.136.43.71 (talk · contribs), 21:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Um, no. Wikipedia is not a web directory; try Yahoo. In particular, links to blogs and webboards that do not provide encyclopedically useful material for Wikipedia readers are not permitted, per our policies and guidelines on advertising, external links and conflict of interest. If you continue to add linkspam, you will be blocked from editing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not delete the information on this page. Whoever made the revision before the current page deleted important facts. [The previous unsigned message was posted by 24.136.43.71 (talk · contribs)/24.136.47.51 (talk · contribs), 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Please sign your posts (add "~~~~" - four tildes - after your post). And stop adding linkspam. Ordering other editors to not do this or not do that will get you not just ignored but ridiculed. Please familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works, both technically and socially, before making any more major edits or attempting to throw your weight around (hint: you don't have any here). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous agents

[edit]

I think the Famous agents list needs cleaning up but, since I'm new, I wanted to run it by others first. I can't find any web references to Barry Thomas while, Darren Heitner, look to be, at best, very minor agents. Shall I just go in and delete? Should this page be protected from linkspam? Tom.green2 09:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks real spammy; "famous" list includes those who never had a page or had one that was deleted, it seems to need a serious housecleaning. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sports agent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gobs of unreferenced material

[edit]

There are gobs of unreferenced entries in here. I have marked the applicable sections with appropriate templates, but they have been reverted twice by user:Bbny-wiki-editor.

The first reversion confused the basis for the tags, saying that "if the listed weren't/aren't notable, they shouldn't have Wiki pages", but that missed the point. The issue is not whether the entries are notable, it's whether the facts themselves have references by which to verify, per WP:V.

The second reversion was said "the references are on the respective pages; no need to clutter lists like these with hundreds of references." But I think this is a misunderstanding of WP:LEADCITE, i.e., you don't need to repeat a reference in the lead if the references are already present elsewhere in the article.' I'm not aware of any guideline or policy that suggests that statements should not be referenced if they are in another article being linked to (other than DAB pages, which are purely navigational pages that don't get references at all. References to a list are "cluttering" it, they're the basic backbone of WP:V.

I don't want to three-revert, hence this talk conversation. Bbny-wiki-editor, can you point me to what you're thinking of that suggests that these statements should not have references? The most on-point statement is WP:WHENNOTCITE, which says only: "Citations are not used on disambiguation pages (sourcing for the information given there should be done in the target articles). Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although quotations and controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead." Nothing about omitting references when the statement could be supported in some other article (assuming they actually are). TJRC (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • You tagged almost every list section as "needing a lot of clean-up," or something to that effect, as if there was incorrect and/or non-notable info./people/companies in the lists, which simply isn't true. Almost all of the people and companies listed on this page have passed the notability hurdle, as they have Wiki pages themselves. The additional info. posted after such people and companies might be unsourced here, but it's sourced on the respective pages. If you want to migrate those sources over here, then I suppose you're free to do so, but simply plastering a bunch of tags all over and then leaving doesn't accomplish anything other than cluttering the page/sections. (I'll note that this page has existed in its current form since around 2004 and no one else has ever objected to the format.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"as if there was incorrect and/or non-notable info./people/companies in the lists" No, as if they didn't have sources, which they don't. That's my point.
I tagged only the sections that either had no sources or multiple items without sources. Those need to be corrected or deleted. That's what the tag indicates. It's not clutter. It's giving other editors who care s=about their retention an opportunity to add sources. It's giving notice that the unsourced material is subject to deletion.
It's not incumbent on other editors to go and research every unsubstantiated fact. That's the burden on the editors who are adding it. You can certainly do that if you wish, but don't remove the tags that indicate that it needs to be done. Then no one will do it.
Do you have a guideline or policy for your position that a reference in a different article is sufficient referencing? Because I don't see it. TJRC (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this page has existed for well over a decade and has presumably been seen by hundreds of contributors. If anyone else thought that the little blurbs next to the notable agents and agencies needed the sources migrated over from the respective pages, someone would have done it by now. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still coming back to the question you have not answered: what policy and guideline are you basing this on?
Your initial argument was that a reference is not required if the individual is notable, which has nothing to do with referencing. When I asked what the basis for this was, you didn't provide one and instead took a new tack, that references are not required if there's another article that (might have) a reference. When I again asked what you were basing this on, pointing out that that's not supported by, for example WP:WHENNOTCITE, you couldn't support that with any guideline or policy and are now taking yet another tack, that claims that have been around a long time do not need to be referenced. I ask again, what's the basis for that position? What policy or guideline says that? I don't think any does. If that were policy none of the entries at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia would have been able to be addressed.
So far, you're up to three arguments, each of them unsupported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. So if you really think all this stuff should remain, unsourced and without a marking to help clean that up, please identify the policy or guideline you're relying on. TJRC (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be a lawyer, go to law school. As I said before, it doesn't help Wikipedia at all to have drive-by editors slapping 15 tags on pages that have existed in their curent form for a dozen years. If you feel so strongly that the references need to be migrated over, then do so. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, rather than attacking me, can you just tell me what you're basing your position that this should stay unreferenced, and steps to get it referenced should be reverted, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Because so far, your position is completely counter to Wikipedia's basic principles. TJRC (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sports agent. 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) 15:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

[edit]

Attribution: Text and references copied from Nick Brockmeyer to Sports agents. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MD mamun sarkar

[edit]

MD mamun sarkar 37.111.219.128 (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MD mamun sarkar

[edit]

mamnun 37.111.219.128 (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sports_agent&oldid=1230621838"