User talk:Coopuk

Welcome!

Hello, Coopuk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Qwghlm 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds United A.F.C.

Although I can understand why you may have thought this it wasn't me that actually removed your edits from the page, however the user was correct in removing them. If you read the comment placed at the top of the history section when you click edit (it's hidden from view on the actual page) it says please make additions to the Leeds United A.F.C. History page not there. Myself and others have gone to some length to reduce the size of the history on the main page as we're trying to eventually get it nominated for featured article status like Manchester City and Sheffield Wednesday's articles. As is wikipedia's policy you are free to edit any page, but if you look at the two afore mentioned clubs pages their history sections on the main page are small. My self and others have agreed on the history section being as reduced as it possibly can, (we feel it cannot be reduced further) but only major new events should really be added to this.

Also as the welcome notice above suggests please sign you comments on talk pages so that people know who is writing them.

Thanks.

--Chappy84 17:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much the reason Chappy84 has outlined in that extensive paragraph he's written. Plus the user before you had added a load of his personal opinion so I reverted back to chappy84's last revert.--86.29.46.214 18:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coopuk 13:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC) OK, I can see why the history can go on its own page - but there are still grammatical errors and typos that need cleaning up on the original Leeds United AFC page. I don't think those should be rolled back.[reply]

thanks

My aim right now it to make this a GA. This has been made a lot harder by Chappy84's persistence to keep the triva section and revert most of my changes. Anyway I've set up a peer review for this article so if you'd like to contribute please do.

Mediation Cabal Request

I have opened your Mediation Request and I would like you to answer the question at User:Natl1/Mediation Case: 2006-12-17 Leeds United A.F.C.--Natl1 22:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Arthur Hart

Thank you for creating the Ernest Arthur Hart article. It would help if you could add verifiable sources as references for the information it contains. Thanks. Truthanado 12:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Coopuk! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Duncan McKenzie - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Golden Team'

Hello Coopuk. I'm deeply concerned that you totally re-wrote, utterly pruned and vandalized an article that has taken me 5 years to write and do research on. I invested tremendous energy, and especially research in writing 99% of the article I created (Golden Team). All of the source material are listed on the bottom of the article. One day I went to do some minor edits and the entire article was gutted, you completely erased about 70-80% of my writing. This article was an excersize not only in sports journalism and history but a modern investigative exposition into 1950s socialist sport. I'm not sure what the admins will say about this. Expect me to incorporate some ideas from your edits, but also expect the entire article reverted to its original form. Please limit yourself to doing responsible editing and correction not broadsweeping vandalism. Thanks a bundle. :) (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandMariner (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Golden Team' article needs a responsible audit

Thank you for your belated reply Coopuk. The 'Golden Team' does need a little stylistic revision perhaps but you have eliminated 90% of content with your edits. Again, I must stress all the reference material is provided and I will personally see to it that references are included. Wikipedia editors already acknowledged that this article is "original research", some of the reference material are drawn from YouTube.com and other website articles. Please do not revert back the article to your edits till we have an impartial editorial jury audit it; they simply and, in all probability, won't agree with your "pruning methods" and liquidation of 90% content material. I will finish this article as I have set out to in 2005, and am now writing the 1954 World Cup Final. Thank you again for your interest in "Golden Team" and football.

Thank you for your comments. It is not just my opinion, but the opinion of others, that the article needs editing; it contains a great deal of peacock phrasing, as well as material that is simply not relevant to the subject. In addition, you appear to be treating the page as your own personal property - it is NOT. I am referring this to Wikipedia, and will be requesting that the article be protected. Coopuk (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic

Yes that is what primary topic is all about. If there are multiple articles the primary article is the main topic. An extremely minor article that nobody is interested in is not on the same level as a legitimate article, and viewership can be easily compared in most cases. [1] [2][3]. For example imagine that there is a small village called New York. It does not mean that New York is then renamed The American State New York or New York City, the American City of New York to not confuse them with the village of New York or something similar... It's how Wikipedia always worked, the primary topic is at the name of the thing in question and the small or insignificant topics can still have articles in some cases but not at the expense of the legitimate topic. Hobartimus (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment, however I would contend that Magical Magyars is a more relevant and meaningful primary topic title than Golden Team, which I believe to be too generic a term - as I have indicated, the Romanian Gymnastic team is also a Golden Team. Coopuk (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Just wanted to pop over and say well done for the work you've done on the Golden Team article. I tried editing it to fix the stylistic and other issues last year but, after a few run ins with the article's creator, didn't have the stomach to continue the fight. It reads very clearly and concisely now. I salute you!! ANB (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comments - the article really needed an overhaul! Coopuk (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Cantona

Although I agree with the sentiment that the Palace incident was not the "culmination" of Cantona's disciplinary problems, passing off an edit like this with the summary "Typos" is not really accurate. More precise summaries would be appreciated. Britmax (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected and will try harder in future :) Coopuk (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Team

Hey old buddyroo Coopuk, I'm thoroughly impressed with your fascination of the Golden Team article. Athough I am a little worried that you may have taken out more than you should have in its completely truncated form that you call an 'overhaul'. For beginners, the header was grossly simplified where the majority of important information was about the team. Secondly, 2 charts that explain the team were removed: the World Football Elo Ratings chart, and the Top Goalscorers of the 20th Century was omitted, and I am not sure why you failed to include them in your revision. Most puzzling was your complete revision for the sake of academic style that you refer to basically jettisoned a good 85% of solid and verifiable information. For researchers that want a serious study of this team will have to look elsewhere after your so-called 'overhaul', as I attempted to centralize all real pertinent facts, data, and information on this wikipedia article.

I'm very flattered that you take so much interest in this piece, but your 'overhaul' did more damage than good for serious students of post-war European football; and I'm lead to believe that there may be a certain prejuidice against this team by you in attempting to reduce contents and oversimplification, I'm not sure. As one to call oneself a postwar European football psuedo-historian, you should have left the article as is. A debate is needed to discuss matters, of course.

By the way, I've re-written the Uruguay-Hungary 1954 WC SemiFinal which was a very important game to its full extended, check that out -- its good. I didn't touch your brief sketch of the Scotland-Hungary 1954 game, though some factual error-correction and better style on that is needed. The Scotland v. Hungary at Hampden Park had had 134,000 attendees at the match - perhaps the highest total in European football history, you wrote it had 113,000, small flub there. More important, I closed out the Golden Team article with is last swan song performance against the Soviet Union, that I just posted yesterday.

Enjoy your work in some areas in the article, but too much simplification and reduction, lots of important facts were omitted as were 2 big charts. When you have some time, definately check out the new writing on the Soviet game, I did my best:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Golden_Team&oldid=517111021

Lastly, the large piece on the 1954 Miracle of Berne had no flaws, everything was researched by me thoroughly, and I composed it the way it really happened. Share you thoughts and touch base with me. Talk to you later for now. Caio!

User:George1485 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can a sock type? It has no fingers. Coopuk (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lucas Radebe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Graham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

David Harvey (footballer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Allan Clarke (footballer)

Lucas Radebe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to PFA

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Golden Team]

Hey Coopuk! I was the one who began 'Golden Team' (the 1950s Hungarian football wonderteam ). I started it in December 2015, and could say with some confidence that is nearing completion. I read that you have a good interest in post-war football, so I thought I write to you how well my project is going. You showed real genuine interest in helping edit the Golden Team on wikipedia. I'd like to show you my nearly completed final, perfect product on the Golden Team. Check out here: http://www.magicalmagyars.wikispaces.com. All the best. User:Davidhazy (talk

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Coopuk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jimmy Hogan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Match of the Century. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]