User talk:Danlaycock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is Danlaycock's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Danlaycock.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Committed identity: 390d0e40969a8b041b178b5ada625d157b62befec186507791b21b1e23357b7f2a25328becf9e6f480adc0fe158b5efbe063ce697c938e7c677da38babe87f00 is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.


2014 Toronto FC season[edit]

You know very well it wasn't blanked. You personally deleted a properly sourced paragraph about pre–season. The match templates you added in violates MOS:COLLAPSE. Kingjeff (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you are clearly mistaken. I did not delete anything. The paragraph was simply moved back to where it was before you had moved it. And I see you have since moved it back to where I put it. If you don't like the template I used, then replace it with another (and nominate the old one for deletion.) That's not a valid reason to delete the content. TDL (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Your match reports show why I deleted the match reports to begin with. Two of the sources are not proper sources and the "goalscorers and disciplined players" section is blank for the match against the Philadelphia Union and doesn't "Trialist #25" have a name? You should familiarize yourself with featured article criteria since I plan on nominating it after the article is completed. With the information you provided, it fails point 1b which states, "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context." Missing goalscorers and disciplined players from a table is definitely missing "major facts or details." As far as your two bad surces go, "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate." The policy on verifiability states "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published." WP:THIRDPARTY states that "every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." So, it is not possible to fix anything to the quality that featured article criteria requires. Kingjeff (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture, but no that's just revisionist history. There was no "Goalscorers and disciplined players" in the original table. (And it is blank for the Union game becuse (gasp!) there was no goal scorers!) It was only after you complained about the format used for the table that I converted to the one used for the regular season. But if it upsets you so, I will drop the "disciplined" from the heading. And the information in the table is contained in sources linked in the prose (which I presume that you have deemed to be of sufficient reliabliity), so if you were so concerned all you had to do was repeat the refs in the table.
And are you seriously trying to argue that omitting the goal scorers (as your revision does) is MORE "comprehensive" and that the revision that does not omit this information is less comprehensive? That's a rather incomprehensible argument.
I've gone ahead and fixed these issues for you, and added some more refs just for kicks. So how easy that was? Please in the future if you have a concern either fix them yourself or raise the issue on the talk page rather than blindly reverting.
PS: If you really want to get this to FA, I suggest you familiarize yourself with 1a: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" As it stands, the article is written so poorly it is painful to read. It is going to need to be completely rewritten if you ever want to get it to FA. TDL (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome for the lecture. Hopefully you will be more mindful about the information. You are the only one who stated that "Goalscorers and disciplined players" was not in the original table. I never said which revision it was in. Not adding what isn't sourced. Not all sources were in the table. You added sources to from the Toronto FC website and Olando City Website. These are illegitimate sources. It doesn't matter if the matches were scoreless or not. You leave a — in each column for column. Omitting the goalscorers was in the best interest since there were not enough info in the sources to ad all goalscorers and using the goalscorers template. PS: Feel free to add to the prose. Kingjeff (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"Your match reports show why I deleted the match reports to begin with" - If it wasn't "originally" in the table then that couldn't possibly be the reason why you removed it "to begin with" now could it? Unless you have some sort of alternative understanding of the word "begin" than "to start"?
Primary sources are certainly not "illegitimate". As per WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". Do you not accept that a list of goal scorers is a "descriptive statement of facts"? And yes I agree, not all the supplementary secondary sources were repeated in the table. But that doesn't change the fact that the content was indeed sourced.
But I'm glad we've finally got to the bottom of your beef: I didn't use a "—". Is there some sort of policy or consensus discussion I am unaware of that requires a dash? 2013 Toronto FC season doesn't use dashes. 2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season doesn't use dashes. 2013–14 F.C. Internazionale Milano season doesn't use dashes. If you think these articles should start using dashes, then fine. But aside from you unilaterally imposing a rule on editors of the article, I don't see any reason why this is necessary. All of this over two dashes that could be easily fixed with two keystrokes! As you can see, when you explain your concerns I have addressed them, but since I am not a mind reader, unexplained content blanking does not help. Nor does saying things like "it is not possible to fix anything". Had I known this was all over two dashes I could have added them in 2 seconds! (Or you could have added them faster than it took you to mash the revert button 3 times.) Please be mindful to explain your concerns in the future rather than blindly reverting so we don't have to go through a whole song and dance before you finally get around to elucidating them.
PS: No, I'm not going to waste my time rewriting an article for you which is WP:OWNED to the extent that any contributions are blindly reverted over minor stylistic objections without any sort of explanation. TDL (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't blindly revert. You took out the portion that stated "disciplined players." So, when you have "goalscorers and disciplined players," who is to know the difference between an incomplete row and a row with legitimately nothing there? Kingjeff (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

And again, to begin with there was no "goalscorers and disciplined players" heading so that isn't a justification for your first two reverts. A properly written article won't have a "incomplete row" so I don't see this as a problem. But if it bothers you, then as I said above go ahead and add dashes to heart's delight.. TDL (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Country data Abkhazia[edit]

Hello Danlaycockh I have no permission to edit Template:Country data Abkhazia so please see talk page and my proporsal here: Template talk:Country data Abkhazia. Thanks. --g. balaxaZe 11:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palestine 194, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vienna Conventions (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) 08:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Toronto Argonauts[edit]

slakrtalk / 17:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)