Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dani Ceballos, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Robby.is.on. Welcome to Wikipedia! I just wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions were not quite right. When updating statistics within the infobox of a footballer, please make sure you update the timestamp at the same time, so that both readers and fellow editors know when the information was last updated.
You can do this by replacing the existing timestamp within the |club-update= or |pcupdate= parameter for club stats, or the |nationalteam-update= or |ntupdate= parameter for international stats. For articles that use a DMY date format, use five tildes (~~~~~), or for MDY dates, use {{subst:mdytime}}. This will generate the specific time the update was made.
Per WP:LEAD, "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." The lead is ought to be short and concise, hence reverted changes. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SAF's article did not go through GA checks, hence why I reverted the changes and I'm confident if it eventually does go through GAC or FAC, the lead would need to be worked on. Wenger's article did, hence why I reverted it to something closer to when it met the criteria. In my opinion, we don't need superfluous statements to pad out the lead such as 'often considered the greatest manager...'; his achievements speak for itself -- 'His contribution to English football through changes to scouting, players' training, and diet regimens revitalised Arsenal and aided the globalisation of the sport in the 21st century.'. There is a 'plaudits' section too. If you feel strongly about citations/info missing on lead, I'd suggest raising it on WT:FOOTY or the article's talk page. Lemonade51 (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The claims are cited, and aren't definitive in nature. Moreover, the lead should give an instant introduction to the subject. If a new reader were to read it with & without, the revised lead gives a better understanding of the topic. I wouldn't call it superfluous rather essential knowledge to best understand Wenger's career & impact. I appreciate your contribution and I hope we can find a resolution to this. Bkhd12 (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the claims are cited does not mean it is appropriate to place them in the lead; avoid WP:CITEKILL. Moreover there are statements that aren't backed up or fleshed out in the body of the text, such as "He is often commended for being one of the major catalysts of the success of Arsenal's Hale End youth academy." Commended by whom? That looks like it was crammed in there for no reason. I'm not sure why you have removed the fact he is Arsenal's most successful and longest-serving manager, a bigger and arguably more valuable achievement than winning the most FA Cups or managing the most Premier League matches (he wouldn't have won the cup or managed as many league matches without being at Arsenal in the first place). "He is often considered as one of the greatest managers of all time," again, let the lead speak for itself. These statements wouldn't need citations if this is reflected in the body of the text (like Messi or Ronaldo's pages), which it isn't. Now if that was 'most influential', then you'd have a point. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
""Let the lead speak for itself"" this is a central argument that you are pushing, this is incongruent with the fact that the lead is to provide a comprehensive introduction tot he topic. Go to any other confrère of Wenger's and you'll see that these reputation alluding statements are present. 'most FA Cups & PL games managed' is much more illustrative of Wenger's
credentials in objective terms. I believe it is reflected in the body of the text. You don't manage the most games in arguably the most prestigious league competition in the world & win the most trophies in the oldest, longest running football trophy in the world without being called one of the best. His accomplishments do speak for themself, & they must be noted in the lead to best give fuller understanding of the topic. Citations are there to give credence & evidence of public opinions. Bkhd12 (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Article shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Citations are in the body of the text, they shouldn't be there to pad out the lead. If something is in the lead, the idea is it should be sourced and fleshed out. Winning the most FA cups or managing the most League matches is fine to include in para 3, but he is Arsenal's most successful manager, period. And you can win several FA Cups (a competition that was devalued and lost its shine in the 2000s), and not be called the best. Just like fluking yourself to win a Champions League. As I advised you please take it to a talkpage or WP:FOOTY if you have any issues. The sources you have used are generic, I'm not entirely convinced they are necessary and I'd rather keep it closer to when it met the GA criteria.
So your reasons to 'revert' changes are acceptable? I'm keeping the article in line with the WP:GA criteria, or is that irrelevant to you? In case you need it to be spelled out, this is why I have reverted changes:
-- It doesn't need WP:TOOMANYREFS in the lead. I explained to you that the lead should act as a summary of the main body of the text, and certain references aren't necessary. You haven't used 'specific' references, you used generic ones (like Amy Lawrence's book, without a page number). I wouldn't class 'sportingnews.com' and 'GiveMeSport' as high-quality sources, it would be pulled up if it went to WP:GAR. And as someone who has got this article up to GA standard, and hopes it one day will get past WP:FAC
-- Why is Wenger being Arsenal's most successful and longest-serving manager omitted from the lead para? That is more valuable than him managing 1,000 PL matches or winning 7 FA Cups (Guardiola has won 4 League Cups, you don't see that being in the first para of the lead). Wenger changed the culture of a football club, that is his legacy. Not necessarily his longevity.
-- 'often considered the greatest manager', is unnecessary. I would rather the lead brought out the fact he was an influential manager, to avoid 'greatest ever', tribal playground talk.
-- Hale End, no mention of it in the main body of the text. Why is it included in the lead? To say he is responsible for the 'early success' of Arsenal's Hale End youth academy is disingenuous and vague. Granted he has given young talent a chance to shine, but to make it out like he is/was solely responsible for 'unearthing' talent is nonsense. Plus we don't know if Arsenal will bare the fruits of their labour, so that whole sentence can be removed.
Please be careful and considerate when adding 'controversies' as you did with Chelsea F.C.. Your editing history shows you take great interest in Arsenal, so contributing to a controversial section with arguably the club's biggest London rival is suspicious, not least because it is the only editing contribution you've made to said page and you haven't included similar sections for other clubs. The United Kingdom football sexual abuse scandal is a sensitive topic moreover, stories are still coming out and should not be something to slander clubs with, but instead the individuals, and the environment these crimes took place in. Lemonade51 (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I have to say that it is incredibly ridiculous that you allude that I am trying to 'slander' Chelsea by expanding the public profile section with the sexual abuse scandal. Please see Crewe Alexandra. Secondly, there is 0 direct criticism of Chelsea in that. As far as I know there isn't a relevant sexual abuse scandal concerning Arsenal but if there was it would completely be relevant to put it in. I suspect our conflict of Wenger's lead is affecting your allegations. If you have suggestions to make for WP:NPOV, please go right ahead. But to complete censor this important, vital part of history is honestly repugnant. Please also note I was not the only one contributing to this section before it was clumsily wiped. Bkhd12 (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did see Crewe's page before reverting changes, Daniel Taylor's story emitted from the club. It impacted Crewe's reputation and defined the club because Gradi worked there for so long, the club have since come out and apologised. I should have been explicit: why is there a 'public profile' section for Chelsea that focussed on this, I would have thought from reading the sources you have provided, this information would also be covered on Manchester City and Newcastle United's pages. Why isn't that the case? Especially as the former was also implicated? My reasons for reverting is not about ignoring Chelsea's misdemeanours, but because your editing history demonstrates WP:UNDUE and there is mention of an upcoming trial and the story is still developing, hence WP:CSECTION. Maybe a Chelsea F.C. controversies page would be better suited for this, but again that is something for WT:FOOTY to agree on, and to be actioned across the board. Lemonade51 (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will work to add these sections to NUFC & MCFC pages also. CFC controversies page is a bit much in my opinion. Regarding the upcoming trial, it's a good point. I will reword to focus less on the trial & more on the club's admission of the racially abusive culture. Bkhd12 (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bkhd12, notwithstanding the constant feigning of ignorance of your personal biases, I suggest you quit it with your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, not only on Chelsea FC, but also on Arsene Wenger, or we'll have to take this to ANI. Otterslort (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BATTLEGROUND? instead of challenging the contribution I've made, you participate in ad hominem. Surely that is WP:BATTLEGROUND by you, no? Why threaten with 'ANI', I'm happy and willing to back my corner. Again the sexual abuse scandal was a major event in Chelsea's history, certainly it should be noted in some capacity. Crewe Alexandra has it for example and is WP:GA. If you believe it violates WP:NPOV, edits are completely welcomed. Thank you. Bkhd12 (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Inside Hale End requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 2A01:4C8:49:A87B:1816:CD7E:3B9E:2AD5 (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Inside Hale End, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. LizRead!Talk!06:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bkhd12. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Inside Hale End, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Joe Willock, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Use of unreliable source. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dani Ceballos, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
