User talk:EPL contract law

Welcome!

Hello, EPL contract law, 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

John Obi Mikel

MartinRe said: Hello. Do you have sources for the information that you just re-inserted into this article? Namely the unconfirmed reports, the settling of the two cases, and that the action was a violation of FIFA rules? Any information needs to be cited, or it can be removed. For example, I have re-inserted one of the claims you took out, with a reference to the BBC website, backing up the claim. Could you please do the same, and add appropiate references for the claims you have inserted. Regards, MartinRe 09:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EPL contract law 10:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC) 'The article you have cited does not support the claim made in the WIKI article in any way what so ever. You should remove it again[reply]

There is a vague reference, made without any supporting evidence, of SAF not making a planned visit but that does not state he intended to discuss the situation with John Obi.

The statement in the article is baised as it is now written and even if it was not the comment serves no purpose.

As for reference to the FIFA violation I will look, but it will take time and this is exactly why the Wiki articles regarding sport are so poor and baised. It is common knowledge in the football world that all players have the right to have an agent present during a signing and denying that right invalidates a registration transfer - there simply is no real reason to cite the rule regarding it. But, for the sake of contention I will supply it

Anytime, someone tries to clean up an article that is baised, by adding facts, they are questioned but the original article in its baised form is not questioned

I've modified the phrase to say "visit" as opposed to "discuss the sistuation", as per the reference given. The problem with quoting "common knowledge" is that it isn't common to those unfamiliar with the sporting rules. (what happens if a player doesn't have an agent, for example?) Also, the situation runs the risk of being original research, see the plagerism example in WP:NOR. And, for reference, I have also also questioned the original article for being lacking in sources, and as you are probably aware adding "facts" is not sufficent, what has to be added is "verifable facts". Regards, MartinRe 10:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EPL contract law 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC) So you edit out the parts you do not like, add baised information that has no relevance, and basically dismiss the most basic of common knowledge? The average person does not need to know the exact rule, as this is an encyclopedia entry not a legal reference manual, but none-the-less the rule violation is covered under "The FA handbook" page 219, I General Rules, Article 1.1. Violation of that rule violates the "Code of Conduct" rules under FIFA guidelines of the game.[reply]

I am putting my entry back in, as it is relevant considering the slanderous charges made by Manchester United during the case.