User talk:Shady59/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ronaldo.

There are only 3 articles I've found that cite him as the best ever. This is an online encyclopaedia, so stating that he's "regarded by many" needs more proof. Messi, Maradona, and Pele have a large number of articles referring to them as the best ever, whilst Ronaldo, really, only has four. CoopRX (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@CoopRX: Buddy, check the Wikipedia page of Messi & count the number of citations for the claim. As I told earlier, you don't need to have a thousand citations to state the claim, nor does there exist any rule that calls for a minimum number of citations. In Messi's page, there are only 2 citations from Guardiola & Zanetti supporting the claim(which you can find in the sub section, coz citations are discouraged in lead) and another from Simeone that says he's better than Maradona. The rest all are articles by editors asking whether he is the best player ever. And in one such article provided as citation, 5 out of 6 correspondents say that he isn't. And some of the citations provided are even dead(which I've removed now). All these have already been discussed before. Check WP:ALIVE for details Shady59 (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Consensus grew that Messi is the best ever, however. I can find dozens of citations from prominent football figures, and commentators, that regard him as such. Same goes for Pele and Maradona. Please find, at least, 10 articles from credible sites that (The Guardian, Independent, etc), where important figures and critics state Ronaldo is the best. I'm not saying the three articles cited aren't credible, those were good articles you found. It's just that three critics don't really count as a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoopRX (talk • contribs) 13:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is just the plain fan talk. You can find the same about Ronaldo. And I'm sure you can't find "dozens" of prominent football figures who claim the same, coz apart from a handful of guys, the rest all are just discussions. Shady59 (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Ronaldo

I have not been warned for anything, so no. I can say the exact same thing to you dude :P don't start an edit war. You're not above the rules here.Csknowitall (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Csknowitall: Dude. I was one of the original contributors of this article. I find it my responsibility to maintain a non-partisan view. The edit war started after claim was changed by a serial offender. The claims in the articles are based on valid citations provided. In this case, both Messi & Ronaldo articles go by the same rules. Only a handful of valid claims for both. So this is not your place to put smileys & engage in edit war. The tab of "greatest" applies equally for both Messi & Ronaldo since you can find only so many claims for both. Shady59 (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Ronaldo

Could you please stop editing information before consensus has been reached? If you disagree please visit the talk page. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Max Eisenhardt: What consensus are you talking about? And who are you? It was quoted the way I did earlier before some random guy changed it. And I'm trying to keep WP:IMPARTIAL with similar article claimm which is Messi's. And also FYI I was one of the original contributors to the page when it was created around 10 years back. Shady59 (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Who are you? What a strange question. I'm a contributor just like you. And saying C. Ronaldo is considered 'by many' to be the greatest footballer of all time doesn't seem like a neutral point of view to me. Also, the fact that Messi has a similar claim is probably the worst argument ever. The fact that Picasso is called a great painter doesn't mean Bob Ross has to be called a great painter. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Max Eisenhardt: Well, it is a neutral point of view if you consider the similar article of Messi. If you check that page. You can only find claims by 3 people as citations, who call him the greatest, rest all are just discussions & the page still states "many" instead of "some". So either both the pages should state "some" or both should state "many". That is what you call a neutral point of view or being unbiased. And moreover, I can see that you even changed the often considered "the best" in the world statement to "one of the best" in the world. So your intentions are pretty clear and we don't want any fatuous fanboy trying to impose his standpoint on the page. Shady59 (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The majority view is that Messi is a far greater footballer than Ronaldo. Like I said: the fact that Picasso is called a great painter doesn't mean Bob Ross has to be called a great painter. It's not a matter of being neutral, it's a matter of talking about a completely different footballer. I can't believe that I have to explain this. Secondly, there's a discussion on the TP and you're well aware of that because you participated in it. That discussion hasn't ended yet, and currently there's no-one who agrees with you. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Max Eisenhardt: Majority view? What majority? And it's not about who is better between Messi & Ronaldo, it's about being considered the best ever. Check Messi's page & tell me how many citations you can see that claims the same. It's not about what fan boys comment on social medias, all that matters are valid citations that proves the statement. If you check the pages of Pele & Maradona, you can see over 20 valid citations from distinct people that say they are the greatest ever, whereas in the case of both Messi & Ronaldo, you can find only 3 or 4 distinct sources, rest all just discussions. So keeping WP:IMPARTIAL means, either keep the statement in both the pages as "many" or keep the statement in both the pages as "some". Stating "many" in one page & "some" in the other page, when both the pages have similar claims, is not acceptable. And regarding that discussion, it started after some random offender changed "many" to "one of", not the other way around. So the original statement wich was present when the discussion started was "many". So it stays that way, until decided. Shady59 (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I reported you for edit warring: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Secondly, I never even mentioned the name Messi. Personally I couldn't care less about him. This page is about C. Ronaldo, and the majority view is not that 'many regard him as the greatest player of all time'. This is simply utter nonsense. If you disagree with it, visit the talk page so we can have a discussion about this, but changing the article with erroneous information and without consensus is not how it works. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Max Eisenhardt: Oh really? You've reported me? Good luck with that. And you even changing the statement Often considered the best player in the world to often considered "one of the best" itself shows whether you care about Messi or not. Keep aside the claim of greatest ever, but there are over a dozen citations that claim him to be the best in thw world, more than enough to make the statement "Often considered the best player in the world"Shady59 (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, stop this nonsense. And why do you keep talking about Messi? This article is about C. Ronaldo and there is no majority view that considers him as the greatest of all time, nor on the talk page. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Max Eisenhardt: What exactly do you mean by majority view? The 2 guys involved in the discussion? And you saying citations doesn't matter itself shows your layman approach. And there are more than a dozen citations from distinct players/experts that say Ronaldo is the best & that's the reason why there is a statement saying "often considered the best in the world". So changing it to "often considered one of the best" itself is a vandalism. Opinions of random users doesn't matter when you have valid citations to back the claim Shady59 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The view that the vast majority of writers, managers, players don't rank C. Ronaldo above many other great players of the past. In other words: C. Ronaldo isn't viewed as a greater player than Pelé, Di Stefano, Cruyff, Maradona, Zidane and Messi. And many are still arguing about other players, such as Beckenbauer, Garrincha or Ronaldo (the Brazilian). That's the majority I'm talking about. The second point is that you don't have a majority on the talk page, in fact most people there disagree with you. So stop pushing your biased opinion. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Max Eisenhardt: Let's keep aside the claim of the greatest ever for the moment. But can you explain why you keep on changing the statement "often considered the best in the world" to "often considered one of the best in the world" when the citations listed on the page pertains to players/experts saying Ronaldo is the best in the world & not "one of" the best. That statement has stayed their for years without any dispute until you started changing it. And also you haven't given the answer regarding keeping WP:IMPARTIAL between similar article claims. Since that article was cleared as WP:GA, it would be better keep it as reference for statements in similar articles rather than changing that article. Shady59 (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Shady59:I think it's useless to discuss further, so I've decided to ask for a moderator: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Cristiano_Ronaldo Max Eisenhardt (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

.

You're clearly not impartial when it comes to editing Ronaldo's page. I'd suggest refraining from editing his page, but you have some sort of infatuation with him. There are more experienced, level-headed editors who can produce a page free of bias. Stop with the constant monitoring. You're wasting other people's time by editing every two seconds. Ctapiz (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ctapiz: Well, I'm clearly keeping WP:IMPARTIAL between similar article claims. Now you tell me why in Messi's page there are only 3 or 4 distinct citations from distinct players/coaches who call him the greatest and yet it's stated as "regarded by many" on the page, and there are same number of citations on Ronaldo's page but you're calling to change the statement to "regarded by some" or "regarded by many as one of the greatest". Do you see any kind of bias there? And as far as my infatuation is concerned I've been removing the 2016 UEFA Super Cup win from his honors list as people keeps on adding it, since he wasn't part of the squad and I'm the one who removed the FIFA Confederations 3rd Place from his honors list saying it's not an honor. I would've clearly kept those titles if I was like you said infatuated by him. I remove underserved claims and try to maintain neutrality. Shady59 (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You're incompetent. You refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit your viewpoint. You are trying to propagate a biased statement that gives the idea that Ronaldo is universally perceived as the best—even though there aren't enough citations to indicate that there is a widespread consensus on the matter. Ctapiz (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ctapiz: Exactly my point. There aren't enough citations to indicate that there is a widespread consensus on the matter that Messi is widely regarded as the greatest too. Yet the statement is given on the page. That's why I'm trying to keep WP:IMPARTIAL between articles. Shady59 (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2