User talk:A99 Wiki
- 1 February 2014
- 2 AlexWaterfield8, you are invited to the Teahouse
- 3 Your attention needed at WP:CHU
- 4 December 2015
- 5 Welcome AlexMlcfc!
- 6 Leicester Title Edits
- 7 Disambiguation link notification for May 29
- 8 Disambiguation link notification for September 16
- 9 Your attention needed at WP:CHU
- 10 November 2016
- 11 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 12 Claudio Ranieri & LCFC
- 13 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Leicester City F.C. without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Mattythewhite (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
AlexWaterfield8, you are invited to the Teahouse
Your attention needed at WP:CHU
Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 23:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Leicester City F.C., without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Leicester Title Edits
I snipped this bit you wrote, 'Due to the magnitude of Leicester's title win, it is categorized as one of the greatest achievements in English football history'. The first bit I chopped because it's possibly inaccurate: at max 83 points, the magnitude of the win itself isn't that high; it's instead impressive because of how unlikely it was. The second bit is probably not that WP:NPOV. One source saying it's 'surely the most remarkable' isn't definitive or widely held enough for Wikipedia to declare that as fact. It's better to provide info on the things we can prove, like whether it was the longest odds paid out by a bookie. I kept the Economist bit though, because that will be a nice piece of history. I'm not trying to be annoying removing your edits, and I hope this explains why! :-) Madshurtie (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Madshurtie, yeah that's absolutely fine about the recent edit, to be honest it's worded better now anyway. I understand entirely so please don't feel bad about removing some of my edits. Would you mind though if I was to still put in the part about the achievement going down in English football history, but I would reword it better? I feel this is very relevant information and it has not yet been mentioned in the article at all. I will use proper sources of information if you agree with me to do it. Thank you for giving me feedback about the sources by the way, much appreciated. All the best, Alex. AlexMlcfc 17:42 May 6 2016 (UTC)
- @AlexMlcfc: I think talking about historical importance is great, I just think it should be kept concrete. For example, phrases like 'one of the greatest' are vague (how great, top 3, top 5, top 20?) and indicate that we don't really know how great it is. We also should be careful putting the opinions of journalists down as facts, rather than widely held opinions. Notice Federer leads with 'his accomplishments in professional tennis cause him to be regarded by many as the greatest'. Though I think even better writing is if we can prove that it's remarkable in some way, like the stuff about how Leicester overcame the longest odds for a victor. This stuff can be verified and isn't open to opinion, and means Wikipedia is giving more information to the reader. If you think we should add a bit about how massive a challenge Leicester overcame (i.e. the scale of the achievement, rather than the scale of the surprise), this fivethirtyeight article is a good starting point for facts about how unprecedented Leicester's feat was. Madshurtie (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi again Madshurtie, I have just added new content on this section, and tried to make it worded to sound more factual. Feel free to take a look to check if it's ok with you. Hopefully I have understood correctly what you meant, with the changes I've made? If you think it's still not quite right, please go ahead to make the changes you feel necessary. Thank you for your understanding. AlexMlcfc 22:51 May 6 2016 (UTC)
- @AlexMlcfc: Hi again. The thing is it's better if we show the reader how great it was rather than telling them. There's good example on the wiki manual of style here. Another thing is that it's subjective whether it's the greatest achievement. Is it greater than the Barcelona sextuple or the Arsenal Invincibles? There weren't even odds offered on those, so we have no guide for how unlikely they were. So if we just describe everything that's remarkable about Leicester's triumph, it allows the reader to see for themselves. I've tried to rework it a bit more. Take care. Madshurtie (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, well I may leave editing this section for a bit now. I may come back to this in the near future though. By all means, if you can add something in about it being one of English football's greatest achievement, then of course go ahead, but at the moment I don't think I can quite find the right wording to explain the point. Many thanks. AlexMlcfc (talk) 13:25 May 7 2016 (UTC)
- @AlexMlcfc: It's just that wiki generally frowns upon statements like 'one of the greatest', because they sound boastful and aren't very precise. For example, the Liverpool, Arsenal, and Man U articles (all featured articles) all used to have text in the intro saying they're 'one of the most successful' clubs, but editors have since removed it, leaving the specific achievements to speak for themselves. The best way to get away with it is like the Federer page, where it takes a neutral stance by saying 'he is regarded by many as the greatest' and then backs it up with a long list of commentators who've said that. Even then it's not ideal, because there's no way of knowing what proportion of commentators disagree. I personally think the current intro 'by some measures it was the greatest sporting upset ever...' is effusive enough, though other editor's opinions might be interesting. I think I'll move this conversation to the club talk page. Thanks. Madshurtie (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leicester City F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria Park. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leicester City F.C., you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Crystal Palace and Champions League. 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.
Your attention needed at WP:CHU
Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Riyad Mahrez. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. GiantSnowman 18:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Claudio Ranieri & LCFC
Hi Alex. You earlier provided by far the most authoritative quote on motivation with respect to Leicester City F.C.. As a mere observer, I note the demotivating effects of excess money. Are you aware of any comments from the Economist made this year? Regards JRPG (talk)