|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- 1 Another West Ham game
- 2 Arsenal (F.C)
- 3 You'd already done it ...
- 4 Category:England footballers
- 5 Pictures
- 6 Tawkerbot2 and the reversion of your edit(s)
- 7 More fossil footballers
- 8 Push to FAC
- 9 Fabregas
- 10 Arsenal captains
- 11 nelson vivas
- 12 van Persie Muslim edits
- 13 Kayode Modupe-Ojo
- 14 Re: Andy Kennedy
- 15 The ...in the Premiership business
- 16 Missing source information
- 17 Highbury record
- 18 Football AID 14 May - 20 May
- 19 Vladimir Petrović Pižon
- 20 Football AID 21 May - 27 May
- 21 Template:Arsenal F.C. Squad
- 22 Jeff Blockley
- 23 Seeking an opinion
- 24 Dan Lewis
- 25 Campbell
- 26 Wolverton A.F.C.
- 27 Some questions
- 28 David Dein
- 29 Only one question...
- 30 1932 FA Cup Final
- 31 Plural vs. Singular use in Arsenal article
- 32 Ralph Birkett
- 33 David Rocastle Trust
Another West Ham game
Hi Qwghlm. Greetings from East London :) I wonder if you can shed any light on this. I thought I'd ask, seeing as you seem to be the font of all knowledge about things Arsenal-related. I notice that Spyrides (a friend of mine) has already tapped you about another game between our two clubs. I've been working on the bio for Eddie Chapman, West Ham's club secretary/chief executive from 1956-86, who was also a player during the war years and for a while after. I have the programme for his testimonal, where he recalls a war-time match against Arsenal which we won 6-0. I can't find any record of this, but I presume it was in 1940, because he says he was 16 and it's mentioned after War Cup final against Blackburn Rovers (which was played in June 1940) in the article. He was born sometime in 1923. The full quote is:
"I played outside right against Arsenal and it was truly a marvellous thing to be on the same field as the likes of George Swindon, Eddie Hapgood, the Compton brothers and the rest. I was 16 and scored in a convincing 6-0 win. What a day that was for me".
I've added this to the page, but it would be great if we could put a date to it. I'm fairly certain this isn't the 1946 FA Cup game, as he would have been 23 then and he isn't recorded in the team list. Anything in your books? Cheers, and best of luck for the rest of the season (but not too much, seeing as we actually seem to be your main competition at the moment <g>). - N (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your message - will go through my submissions changing that. Glad you like the articles - can't believe the legendary Glenn Helder had gone without mention!
You'd already done it ...
Go for it. I didn't know it was possible to request a name change like that - I thought it had to be a manual changeover. If it's no trouble, Category:England under-21 footballers would need changing to Category:England under-21 international footballers too. Can you tell me how such a request is made please?
Slumgum 21:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- I see how it's done now. Props.
Slumgum 23:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for that, I thought that if they were broadly speaking in the public domain then it was ok to use them. What's the best way of getting pictures which wikipedia can use?
Thanks, G GWP 15:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Tawkerbot2 and the reversion of your edit(s)
Hello, Qwghlm. You may have noticed User:Tawkerbot2 reverted one or more of your edits and perhaps left a message on your talk page. Wikipedia recently experienced a database malfunction, causing Tawkerbot2 to misidentify legitimate edits; hence the reversion of your edit(s) and the message. The bot has been temporarily disabled until the problems are rectified. Thanks. —Wayward Talk 17:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
More fossil footballers
Hey Chris - noticed you editing Leigh Richmond Roose the other day. I had a spare afternoon today for the first time in several months and put up a couple of new articles about prehistoric footballers - see G.O. Smith, "Nuts" Cobbold and Raby Howell - that I thought you might enjoy even though none is yet as detailed as my entry on Roose & - sadly - none were Arsenal men. Cheers. Mikedash 16:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Push to FAC
I've decided to stop procrastinating and push on to get Manchester City F.C. ready for submission through FAC. The one thing that's stopping me at the moment is I think the history section is about 100 words or so too long. In the peer review you said that you thought Denis Law's backheel should be mentioned, do you think that's still the case following the split to the History of... article? Are there any parts of the history which stick out as unneccessary for the main article? I'll remove the subheadings before nominating. Thanks. Oldelpaso 21:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments and tweaks. The regional bias of using "summer" never occurred to me, but now you've pointed it out it seems obvious. Just the lead that I'm not sure about now - CTOAGN is right, "loyalty and good humour" needs a reference. Predictably most sites that mention it are partisan,  refers to "customary black humour", but thats all I could find in the national press. Oldelpaso 19:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. The article is now featured. *looks at Category:English football clubs* 2 clubs featured, just ~1200 more to go! Oldelpaso 08:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as the position of captain is still officially a match-day one, perhaps we should add a "has captained" column to List of Arsenal players article. Or provide a list of first choice captains ordered by date they joined the club? ed g2s • talk 22:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thank you for updating vivas article! Luckyj 07:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
van Persie Muslim edits
After session of searching to see if I could find a verifiable source for the edits claiming van Persie converted to Islam, I came across this Evening Standard article: . Looks like they may have some substance after all. Oldelpaso 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I knew the Evening Standard sometimes plumbs the depths in the manner of the Mail, but I didn't realise it was that bad. Searching would be a lot easier if it wasn't for the countless unattributed mirrors, I can probably quote the text from the van Persie entry and that of List of converts to Islam verbatim by now. Drawing a blank for anything else so far. Some evidence to suggest that van Persie isn't religious would be a help, but that's not exactly the sort of thing that gets mentioned in a profile. Oldelpaso 21:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently he is Muslim according to wikipedia itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_athletes
- Also see:http://islamonline.net/English/News/2006-06/24/04.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asimk29 (talk • contribs) 23:28, June 29, 2006.
- [The above comment was originally added to the wrong section, and has been moved into the correct one]
Good Evening Qwghlm, my name is Ryan and Im currently on work experience at a local sporting agency in London (as a sports journalist).
I am very dissapointed and 'put-off' by your lack off discretion regarding your 'personal' opinion towards my first ever posting on wiki.
I can tell you one thing..ANY information you recieve from me is 100% TRUTHFULL NOT 'hoax-ful'. I have actually met the athlete in question and watched him 'perform' a couple times, NOT for Bolton but for another club. I also gave his name to my boss for further checks before I put him on wiki, and all the checks came back 110% correct.
I am not defending the athlete because I dont know him, I am however defending my 'work' from unfair dismissal.
Fair enough I may have 'cheated' abit by getting some more biographical stuff from other sources BUT for you to 'slate' me on my actual article page itself is very demeaning AND against the wiki (Resolving Disputes) rules.
I felt very humbled and appreciative when you first told me to 'correct' my article page by adding more 'useful' information on it (which I very swiftly did) because you seem to be a very well respected user on wiki. But for you to start 'publicly' deleting me is unreal!!
I have an email address that you can contact me on personally, although its my works email, please make it for my attention (Ryan Numfield) [email address deleted]
I would appreciate it if you left my first wiki article page 'alone' and kindly forward ANY comment, positive or negative to my email and I would appreciate any help in welcoming me into your 'electronic' information community.
Thank you very much for your interest in my page.
- (its ryan again..this is my new address i have changed it as I do not work for them anymore, thanks - 18-05-2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 11:22, May 18, 2006.
- I have deleted both email addresses from this talk page to prevent them being spammed or misused. Please do not add them in again. Qwghlm 10:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: Andy Kennedy
Thanks for the tip, I forgot about the 'move' function. Still learning, I guess. BMetts 03:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The ...in the Premiership business
I've reverted the ones which just added section headings and nothing else, and cleaned up Fulham. Haven't done Villa, Bolton or Everton yet but will clean them up unless you get there first. Everton will be a pain as it has been edited a number of times since, including a crufty list of club staff (Head of Local Schoolboy Recruitment, Masseur etc). I've noticed this sort of thing creeping into a couple of articles - A masseur at Liverpool even has an article to himself. Oldelpaso 21:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Missing source information
Two images that you uploaded are missing source information and have been tagged as such:
- commons:Image:Plaque outside 15 London Street, Edinburgh, Scotland 2005-02-18.jpg and
- commons:Image:15 London Street, Edinburgh, Scotland 2005-02-18.jpg
Can you please add the source information as soon as possible and subsequently remove the missing source notices, lest the images be deleted. It's very important, as both images are used at is:Lofsöngur, which is a featured article at Icelandic Wikipedia. Thank you. – Krun 21:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Krun - thank you for getting in touch. I took both photographs myself after a request. I've updated the files on the Commons with GFDL-self and have added an information box. Is this enough? If you need anything else from me don't hesitate to ask. Qwghlm 21:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I suspected that you were the author, but just needed to make sure. Thanks for clearing that up. :) – Krun 21:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
the citation for the complete record is  but this was before the final game so i've added the results to it.. not very good at web stuff so if you could put the link in that would be great. Alex —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexmandel (talk • contribs) 00:02, May 10, 2006.
Football AID 14 May - 20 May
Vladimir Petrović Pižon
I disagree with your page move from Vladimir Petrović Pižon to Vladimir Petrović. If necessary, I'll pull it to WP:RM (which, btw, you should have done first, or at least discuss the issue). He is identified with the nickname to the amount that no one refers to him without it at all. If you go and poll the people accross ex-Yugoslavia (and wider) on question "who is Vladimir Petrović?" you will get a blank look in 90% cases if you omit the nickname. We don't describe e.g. William Jefferson Clinton under that entry but under Bill Clinton—the name under he is widely known. Duja 09:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is no particular convention for nickname placement in Serbian—there are e.g. Danilo Bata Stojković and Miodrag Petrović Čkalja. Just, the exact phrase "Vladimir Petrović Pižon" became idiomatic (as the two above) when referring to him. Look at this Google Search—he is not even on three first pages of numerous namesakes. The situation is also not parallel to Brazilians—his given name is not "suppressed" in the same way.
- Now, the solution with quotes is not unacceptable, but this Google search (not that it prooves much) shows that they're omitted even in common English usage (and I find it somewhat clumsy; single or double quotes? etc).Duja 10:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, so be it. Duja 11:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Football AID 21 May - 27 May
I much prefer the wrapped-text version (more now than ever). Aesthetics isn't much ground for a change, as it's just opinion. For practicality the two are close, but I think "the block" version is better than "the column". And you'd have to change all eight instances out of fairness (ARS,LIV,TOT,SHR,ARG,GER,ENG,CRC}. Take a look here.
Is User:Behindcurtain3 a sockpuppet of yours? Or is their intervention today (and elusive moniker) just coincidence? ;o)
Slumgum | yap | stalk | 20:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Kudos to you on an excellent new article on Jeff Blockley! I was quite impressed with the footnotes and references and everything. I wish more wikipedians (myself included) would write such great articles on the first round. --Kchase02 (T, C, e) 01:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Seeking an opinion
As an experienced Wikipedian with an interest in football pages and a record of work on a Featured Article, your opinion would be welcomed on a discussion at Talk:Swansea City A.F.C.. After various attempts to add a site with no original content, the site's owner has now recruited someone else to do the same. The question is this: am I correct to delete links to sites which themselves consist of others' copyrighted material and links to other sites? Given the paucity of real content, I have a strong suspicion that the site is operated on a "cash for clicks" basis.
I would like, ultimately, to see the Swansea City A.F.C. Wikipage reach Featured standard, so I am inviting opinions from Wikipedians with sustantial edit histories. Thank you for your time. - Stevecov 14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Qwghlm, as per your reminder on my talk page, I'm now checking all the pages linked to the old "Dan Lewis" page (which I've turned into a disambig page). Your User page links to it, but I have not edited your User Page, repecting your no-edit request there. However you might like to point the Lewis link at Dan Lewis (footballer) now! :-) Cheers & best regards! Bezapt 11:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Your use of the word "alleged" in Sol Campbell is totally useless unless you provide details of who is doing the alleging; without that context then your additions are mere repetition of the same rumours, which from the point of view of libel law is no different from making the allegation yourself. Wikipedia has come under a lot of flak recently for possible defamations, which highlight how important it is that Wikipedia's content is accurate and verifiable.
Your recent edits to this article are not only unsourced, but contravene several Wikipedia policies and guidelines: The use of weasel words such as "Many supporters" and "It is speculated" is strongly discouraged, your speculation about Campbell's mental condition is not verifiable and the insinuation that homosexuality is "shameful" or something to feel "guilty" about contravenes neutral point of view. Please read the above policies and bear them in mind when making future edits. Qwghlm 11:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- You are an Arsenal fan, how surprising you are doing your utmost to keep this allegation under wraps, by all means do, I cannot believe you went to such lengths to explain your removal of the contribution. Spare me the pontificating and lecturing with regard to WP policies or what constituted defammation. I am aware of the ramifications of my words. Bazzajf 11:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am playing by the rules, you need to breathe out mate, How can a law suit be brought for defammation or libel when the word alleged is used and other such provisional language, ok a case can be brought but having studied law myself, the judge would not rule in the plaintiffs favour (the plaintiff's legal rep would probably advise against bringing such a silly action in the first place) if he brought a case on the basis of such ambiguous language lacking in positivity so stop over-estimating and exagerrating the legal potential of this type of statement. You worry too much, it probably stems from ignorance of the facts in your case. Bazzajf 11:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
If you have a minute to spare, could you have a look at Wolverton A.F.C., please? It has a great history, but went bust in 1992. Somebody is trying to revive it, but to be honest it looks like wishful thinking. Clearly, the club has been notable in the past, but certainly isn't notable now. How should this be represented? I've had a go, but it might still be giving it more value than it deserves. Are there other precedents for revivals? --Concrete Cowboy 13:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is the only news reference I can find.
- I also found  that the club beat Arsenal 5-0! (in 1895). --Concrete Cowboy 16:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, as you might have noticed, i am strolling around the articles connected to Arsenal F.C., removing vandalism and dubious additions as they come, whenever i can. This is because everything Strasbourg is close to my heart, and that is where i would like to ask you something. How has it ever come to the gratuitous accusation that Arsène Wenger was a paedophile ? Who launched it ? When ? On what grounds ? It still turns up one and again - is it because of his professional interest in young players ? Thanks for explaining me - it disgusts and puzzles me for a while now. RCS 19:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer. But i'm still not satisfied. I mean, why would he be precisely accused of that ? Why he ? Xenophobia is too general a reason. But maybe there is absolutely no rational explanation. It makes it all the more sickening. RCS 10:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I keep having problems with spurs fans adding unproven conspiracy theories to the article on David Dein is this against Wikipedia rules? they do not provide any proof or references to back up their accusations i.e. Dein got the Premier League to refuse to postpone their game against West Ham. Vivbaker 00:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Only one question...
1932 FA Cup Final
Hiya, thanks for tidying the Jimmy Richardson article. I noticed you've added a link to a page that suggests the ball went out of play before Richardson kicked it. I don't think the link should be included because the 'over the line' argument has continued for years as there is no definitive photographic evidence to show whether the ball was in or out. I don't think the photo on that link is clear enough to show whether the ball went out - For many years after that final, the BBC showed the inconclusive (due to the angle) video footage of the incident as a 'controversial' event. My understanding is that no one knew or knows if the ball was in or out and there's never been any way to prove it. I knew Jimmy and he always said he honsestly did not know whether it was in or out - he just kicked it in the hope of keeping it in. I want to keep the article NPOV and I accept the ball might have gone out - but I don't think anyone knows for certain that it did or didn't. I don't want to annoy you by removing the link without discussing it. I thought I could instead include a link to the official NUFC history webpage which I don't think is biased (and a similar Arsenal one if this would help improve NPOV). Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Jilly 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC) :o)
- PS I'd also like to remove the bias in the article itself, to make it known that no one knew for certain whether the ball was in or out. Cheers :o) Jilly 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Plural vs. Singular use in Arsenal article
Cheers... I agree with you that consistency is important; however, in the sentence where you changed The club has also been mentioned..., to The club have also been mentioned... your possesive verb is inconsistent with the quantity in the direct object. As the direct object in the sentence, Club is singular. Therefore, it is correct to say the club has... not the club have.... Actually, Arsenal should always be mentioned as a single unit, since Arsenal is Arsenal FC (Football Club). Even if we are calling them The Arsenal, Arsenal it is still a singular in any case. The Gunners are plural... but Arsenal is singular.
I have gone back and changed the tenses so that they are correct. Ryecatcher773
David Rocastle Trust
Apologies for any copyright violation text rewritten hope it now passes muster --Vivbaker 17:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)