Talk:Bicycle kick/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Ownership

It is clear that MarshalN20 believes that he owns the Peru section, refering to it on more than one occasion as "my material", "my imformation" and "my sources" even accusing selecciones of "stealing" when he used some of the sources to create the much needed Football in Peru article to give a place to the historical information that is irrelevant to the invention of the bicycle kick. He has reverted myself and two highly respected editors when we have tried to remove some of the superfluous information. The long rembling paragraph about the origins of the game in Peru and the Lima Cricket and Football Club does not even mention the bicycle kick once, it is unneccessary and should be trimmed. Sourced material can and should be removed if it is not relevant. There is growing consensus that the Peruvian section should be shortened so as to read more clearly and concisely and avoid making reference to institutions such as Lima Cricket and Football Club unless a source can be provided that shows that the club played a specific role in the invention of the move, rather than a general role in the history of Peruvian football. EP 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't own the "Peruvian Claim" section, get your facts straight buddy. I only stated that nearly all of the information in the Peru section was information that I provided ("my information," as in the information that I spent days gathering). Selecciones used all of my sources (the sources I provided), not "some," to create the new article. Oh, and please don't start again with your "Respected Editors" thing because I really don't give a *&^&# to people who act like they're the Mafiosos of Wikipedia.--MarshalN20 (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, regarding the point of a growing consensus among editors that is both important and a must. My position and concern with the Peruvian section has been stated throughout the talk page. After the latest edits the section now reads more clearly while maintaining sources that refer directly to the claim of invention. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My contributions to Wikipedia are simply aimed at improving the quality of this website and at providing factual information in order to uncover the truth out of controversial topics. Nonetheless, after all the hard work I do to improve articles, gather sources, gather pictures, and all other sort of information; I end up getting back-handed by a bunch of imbeciles that, like you, think you're some sort of "bad boys" of Wikipedia and that with your self-given title of "respected editors" you can and have a right to act as if you were professionals of this website. I do not have to bow down to any of your stupid comments that try to make me seem as if I was some biased freak. Also, I have every single God-given right to state the information I provide to Wikipedia is information that I gathered. I am the one that has taken the time to search throughout the internet for sources, for information, and for other things important and relevant to the section. Still, if I dare mention that I am the provider of such sources I get blamed of being selfish and, yet again, a biased freak. Yet, to further contribute to the irony of things, in the Bicycle Kick article I get attacked by a biased group of people led by a guy from Chile that firmly believes that the bicycle kick was invented in Chile and that the Peruvian claim holds no foundation and is a piece of crap. If you actually take some time to read the article you'll see the user "Selecciones de la Vida" is the biased person that has been constantly attacking the Peruvian section. Still, you take sides with him to work against the Peruvian section under the claim that it is "too long" and "unecessary." Without trying to make a direct comparisson, it would be like saying some sections in the Bible are longer than others and therefore should be truncated in order to fit the size of the other sections! But you know what, I really do have better things to do than to argue with you or any other of the "respected editors" of Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia). I already did as much as a "biased freak" like me can apparently do in the article before the "respected editors" gang up on me. I really do hope you someday understand the mistake you're making. Until then, happy editings "respected editor."--MarshalN20 (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you really just compare your work here to the Bible? Get a sense of perspective and read the message that comes up every time you edit a page "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." EP 22:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG. I feel like I'm speaking to a bunch of foreign people that do not know how to write or speak English! Seriously, without trying to insult you, if you guys don't know the English language then please do not comment in the English Wikipedia. When referring to the Bible, I specifically stated: "Without trying to make a direct comparisson." For a "respected editor," you certainly do not know how to read "English" Peasant. Next, obviously I know that Wikipedia has a policy of other people taking your work and re-destributing for free; nonetheless, that does not mean I cannot claim things to be what I provided. Certainly, that also means that for the sake of respect and courtesy, which neither you of you apparently have, you can for the least state in the history page that you're including information that you got from somebody (If you have happen to know who that somebody is). Per se, if I were to suddenly go to one of the articles you've been working on, English Peasant, and then take nearly all (if not all, as Selecciones did with the things I submitted) of what you've provided (knowing that it was you whom provided such information) and made a new article; common courtesy from my part would make me state in the history section: "Made new article on blah blah blah; information gathered by User:English peasant." Once again, that's called courtesy. Happy editings "respected editor."--MarshalN20 (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

One last thing. Callao was a highly important port in the Pacific Ocean prior to the construction of the Panama Canal. Do not remove that again for it is one of the key ideas that helps establish the concept as to why football became prominent in that zone, just as the other things you seek to remove. I'll edit that back in and hope you won't remove it to your biased likings.--MarshalN20 (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Reflexion

Marshal, EP's complains on you "Owning" the section are refered to your inflexible posture on the subject. I can understand your attempts as Peruvian football fan to make the Peruvian claim as valid as you can, and that's not wrong by itself. What you fail to see is that all that extra information that gives nothing on the subject only add noise to the claim, actually hurting its credibility, and certanly weasel words and redundant paragraphs don't help either.Mariano(t/c) 08:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, don't tell me what helps the validity or denies the validity of a certain something. I've written a series of research papers in the past and all of them have gained much appraisal from the people who have read them. Also, don't come trying to act as an apologist of English Peasant. He came into the article simply to favor the statements of Selecciones de la Vida and did not act as an arbitrary, which is supposed to be a person that works to find a compromise (something all sides agree on) to the problem. His mentioning of me "owning" the article did not relate to my "inflexible posture," but rather it was obvious that he meant it as a personal insult. Out of the whole bunch that have attacked me in this particular article, you, Mariano, have been the only one that apparently actually came sincerely with the purpose of working a compromise; and I respect that.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Having 2/3 of the section talking about things such as Peruvian players without any historical background that support the claim, or Peruvian football history the 20th century does not talk about the claim. Another example, what are those images supposed to bring to the article? I wish you used that energy to expand other Peruvian football related articles, such as its history.Mariano(t/c) 08:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

2/3 of the article talking about Peruvian players? Certainly, you must have not read the section very clearly. The majority of the article dealt with the port of Callao: its football history starting from when the English brought the sport and how the sport evolved in the port. After that historically valid section, with a series of valid sources, came the statement of Jorge Barraza. The only part I admit that strayed away from the article was the too exact description of Lima Cricket Club, but that only came about because Selecciones de La Vida kept on claiming that the Club was not founded in 1859 as the official of the website of the club states. This claim later went on to be followed by English Peasant, and he claims that the official website does not state the truth. Now, how in the world can the official website of an organization not be considered a reliable source? Does that mean that in a statement about City Bank, the official website of the bank cannot be used as a reliable source? Pardon me, but that sounds like the biggest bull crap of the century.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The only support a the claim, and a perfectly valid one, is the report of respected historians, or in this case Barraza's research. The rest of the section only contributes to hide this fact, and reduce the claim's credibility. Keeping the important suff clean sounds like the best idea.

Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 08:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No. All the work that was done against the Peruvian section section meant to make it shorter for the sake of "keeping all the sections equal." Do you think I'm retarded enough not to notice what Selecciones de la Vida wrote to English peasant? Here's exactly what he wrote: "Is there any way that you can review the article, I have a concern with the overall length and validity of the Peruvian claim section, and neutral editors are needed for assistance." So then English Peasant comes here and further takes away a series of many more things even after the section was edited to fit what you, Mariano, proposed as a compromise. Furthermore, English Peasant draws up a list of names and states that they are all "Respected Editors" of Wikipedia; including himself. Here are some of his exact words: "Mariano, Nanonic and Selecciones are the respected editors." Therefore, yet again, he tries to insult me by stating (in other words) that I cannot or am not allowed to judge any of his or your actions because you're all "above" me. As far as that concerns me, this idea of English Peasant's competes rather well with the other idea for the biggest bull crap of the century.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Marshal, you seam to start from the idea that people are trying to invalidate the Peruvian section. I've worked with English Peasant in several football related articles before even if we shaare very different backgrounds, and I can assure you that he doesn't support any claim over the other.Mariano(t/c) 07:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Good Mariano, I value your positive intentions with much appraisal. Even if we did start in the wrong foot, I know that you're only trying to actually help. Nonetheless, here is something that English peasant wrote in the Wikiproject Football page. In this you can perfectly see that he is completely biased towards the move not being invented in Peru and, to furthermore prove this, he states that "lazy journalists" will think the move "was invented in Peru" in a manner that seems almost as if he were telling a horror story. Moreover, it also proves that his sole intention was and is to make the Peruvian section shorter. In this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#MarshallN20) he writes:

-"he has also hijacked Bicycle Kick adding a huge rambling section full of irrelevant and misleading sources claiming it was invented in Callao, Peru. The Peruvian claim certainly deserves a mention, but 7.5 kb is a bit much." HE ALSO STATES: "This is a dangerous development for two reasons: Lazy journalism, some idiot journalist will come along read Marshalls POV that the bicycle Kick and even the concept of the football club were invented in Peru, publish it in a newspaper without citing Wikipedia, then it will become a reliable source to support the minority POV that modern football [and the bicycle kick] was invented in Peru."-EP 14:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I stated before, Mariano. I value your attempts at trying to make this peaceful, but the above quotes by English peasant clearly show: 1. He does not agree that the bicycle kick was invented in Peru. 2. He insults me by saying that I have "hijacked" the article and thus completely twisting the facts and ignoring that I've provided a series of sources to verify what I write. 3. By directly stating that "7.5 kb is a bit much" he is hereby auto-declaring that he does not want the section to be long; in other words, he wants to truncate it (and invalidate it) in order to prove his biased opinion that the bicycle kick was not invented in Peru. 4. He also uses the word "idiot" (which like imbecile, retarded, etc.); therefore completing destroying his "sense of civility" at later stating that I wrote the word "imbecile."--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

But with your answer to my message you are showing that you are not open to conversation, and you read everything as an attack. For instance, I wrote that 2/3 of the article has things such as Peruvian players oppinions. (ie. "Teofilo Cubillas, an association football star of the 1970s, has asked the Peruvian government to seek international recognition for Callao and its invention of the bicycle kick").Mariano(t/c) 07:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Mariano. I do not know how old you are or what your knowledge on football is; and neither do I care or want to know. Teofilo Cubillas is a football star from the 1970s and reached a certain degree of high fame due to his ability to play. You may not know about him, but people who know about football and know some history of those particular times can all certainly agree that this player was one of the best to have ever appeared in the football field. His status goes beyond that of his nationality, just like Pele, Maradonna, and Platini do for their respective countries. In other words, his opinion goes beyond that of a simple Peruvian player. I'm sure you can understand this.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There are several things that I believe should be removed and other things to improve, but I feel it would be useless to take any action if you are going to take it as a personal attack and revert it to your liking. Mariano(t/c) 07:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing and I've been willing to reach a compromise. I won't simply give in to the opinions of others, if that's what you seek, Mariano. That's not what the outcome of a debate or discussion should be.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's see now about these "respectable editors." Nanonic only came in here once and said the article was "being destroyed," but when I asked him for some advice on how to then fix the article he never replied. How is that a "respected editor"? Selecciones de la Vida is a biased Chilean that seeks to shorten up or take away as much information from the Peruvian section as he possibly can. I can bet you my life that if someone came in here and said that Jorge Barraza was not a respectable source and deleted that entire paragraph, Selecciones de la Vida would stand right behind said person and work agains the Peruvian section. How is that a "respected editor"? English Peasant also showed his true colors by seeking to make me feel inferior and simply taking away chunks of the Peruvian section in order to make the size somewhat equal to the other sections, and did not act as a fair arbitrator that would give a compromise that everyone agreed upon. How is that a respected editor? The only actual "respected editor" that did not seek an argument, even after (I admit) I rudely responded to him, was Mariano. He actually explained his concerns and points, and I complied to most of them. Now, I do not and never will claim myself as being a "respected editor," because such a stupid idea could only come out of the mind of some childish idiot that wants to be try and be "somebody" in life by trying to make himself sound like an awesome Wikipedist. My only purpose was to bring up as much factual information as possible in order to make the Peruvian section more valid. Moreover, I also provided more information (and reliable sources) for the construction of the Italian and Brazilian sections of the article. Even if any of you said everything in that section was my POV, you could not and you still cannot get such a thing upon me because I have actually used and will still use a series of reliable sources that show it's not my POV and certainly that does not mean I "own" the article. If whoever reads this cannot understand that, then there's nothing more I can do.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet another series of personal attacks, false allegations, rudeness and misrepresentations of other editors words and motivations. You worked in a mention of that club again, with no reliable source to verify that they have anything to do with the invention of the move, it is irrelevant and misleading as has been explained before, yet you persist. All of this and you have the cheek to call anyone else childish, unbelievable. EP 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The source specifically indicates that it was that club which organized the game that Jorge Basadre mentions. You seem to have problems with the mere mention of the club's name.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Where does this source state that an overhead kick was used in this game? How is this game relevant to the invention of the bicycle kick other than the weak correlation that Jorge Barraza says an overhead kick occurred in a game between Englishmen and Peruvians and this is the earliest mention of such a game you could find? How is this not WP:OR? EP 01:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The mention of the game is relevant to the idea supported by Jorge Barraza that the bicycle kick was invented in an early football match involving Englishmen. According to the source, not me, the research of Jorge Basadre is the oldest football match record thus found. The information has been published, therefore it is not WP:OR. Moreover, the information relates to the subject discussed. Please stop trying to attack me or the Peruvian section by making yourself sound wise with Wikipedia terms. Thank you.--MarshalN20 (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking 3 questions is not an attack on you or the section, comparing people to dictators, calling people imbeciles, and worse than dirt and making accusations of bias are personal attacks. EP 02:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Please stop your personal attacks against me. User:Alexf already stated that he wished for the discussion to be calm, but you still keep flaming and destroying the peace. Nonetheless, here is my response: Comparing Selecciones de la Vida to Pinochet simply served as a comic relief to the argument. It's not an insult unless Selecciones qualifies himself as truly being a dictator. This same thing goes with him calling me the awkward name of "Silly Rabbit," which would only be an insult if I truly believed myself to jump around fields like a rabbit. The word "imbecile" is a valid English language word that describes retardation, stupidity, or idiocy. If you can't learn to live with that word, then you might as well think about learning another language; of course, take note that in a series of other languages, such as in French and Spanish, the word sounds nearly the same and has the same meaning. Finally, the "dirt" mention of Selecciones (which you so obviously take out of context to facilitate your means) came about because he hid information from the article that he knew existed and would help clarify things, and instead he waited for me to waste my time looking for the information he already knew and argued with me for no reason at all. Even after reading what I wrote to him, I still think that he acted quite like a piece of dirt. If you know information that you know you can provide to Wikipedia in order to solve a dispute, it is obviously best to provide such information in order to prevent further arguments; which is something Selecciones de la Vida admittedly did not do because he simply wanted to see me get frustrated. Now please stop making inflamatory demands against me, English peasant. Remember to stop being a hypocrit and keep the discussion peaceful.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You accused me of making personal attacks for asking 3 questions, I only used diffs to show your personal attacks against myself and other people to illustrate what personal attacks are. You still fail to address the point that saying "Jorge Barraza that the bicycle kick was invented in an [unspecified] early football match involving Englishmen" then digging out the earliest [specific] game that matches and giving a description of that game in the article is speculative and misleading. If there is no source to say that a bicycle kick was used in that game, how is it relevant to the bicycle kick article? I can't see how you fail to understand the point and construe it as a personal attack. I also fail to understand which demands I am accused of making, I have not demanded anything only pointed out your incivility. EP 22:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

English peasant, I don't care about your silly and aggressive opinions that make no sense. The whole point of those games being mentioned in the article is to illustrate a time frame for the academic community that is interested on knowing a certain date when such a move could have been created. Obviously, the sourced material that talks about the "first recorded football game" among Englishmen and Peruvians is highly relevant to the section (since it was during one of those games when the move got created). The material provided by Jorge Basadre also serves to illustrate a time frame since it shows that the move itself could have gotten invented even earlier than the "first recorded football game between Englishmen and Peruvians," since Englishmen (Of the "Lima Cricket" club) set up a game among Limeans and Chalacos. What I do not understand, because you don't explain, is why you think such an information should be removed.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To put it simply the argument"it shows that the move itself could have gotten invented even earlier than the "first recorded football game between Englishmen and Peruvians" = conjecture, not fact. I am not disputing the fact that the games occurred and believe that the information would be suitably placed in the football in Peru article. If you could just address the point without insults or accusations, I would not have to defend myself or point out your incivility again EP 22:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course the information would be suitable in the football in Peru article, but it is also just as equally suitable in this article. Barraza not only states that the move was invented during a Peruvian vs. Englishmen game, but he also states that the move was done during the time period when football was beginning to be introduced into Peru. Therefore, even though the first record for an "Englishman vs. Peruvian" game was found to be for 1894, it is important to mention to the readers that there were games before that one that took place as early as 1892 (which is a 2 years difference, which during that time period was certainly quite a long length of time). In other words, 1894 was certainly not a time when football was first introduced in Peru, and therefore this theory points toward the year for the invention of the bicycle kick to years prior to 1892. Basically, this is actually quite important in order for the reader to get some associated time in their heads. And no, it's not a conjecture because never in the article is it stated that the bicycle kick was created anywhere in those two dates. Just by presenting the dates, which as you say are facts, there is no conjecture being made. Thereupon, the information is well fit into the section.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the personal insults, this defence "comparing Selecciones de la Vida to Pinochet simply served as a comic relief to the argument" is unbelievable. What if I had a disagreement with a German in a public forum, would comparing him to Hitler be funny or would it be inflammatory? O.K. maybe "Hitler" was worse than Pinochet, where does it stop being insulting and start being funny, comparing Cambodians to Pol Pot? Ugandans to Idi Amin? Iraqis to Saddam Hussain? Zimbabweans to Robert Mugabe? It was clear that Selecciones did not find your comparison humourus, yet your response was "you keep trying to make yourself a victim" a role you yourself seem to be revelling in. I cannot defend all of SdVs actions here, but in my opinion calling you a "silly rabbit" shows some restraint after the Pinochet comment. The fact that you have repeatedly called me biased and have insinuated that Selecciones and I are part of a secret cabal colluding to work against you without presenting any supporting evidence, caused me to postulate the existence of a paranoid conspiracy theory, if this insulted you I apologise. In your most recent comment you accuse me of hypocrisy, attempt to defend comparing people with dictators, call Selecciones dirt (again) and explain that when calling people imbeciles, the word describes retardation, stupidity, or idiocy and in the same edit you instruct me to "keep your ugly and inflammatory comments to yoursel[f]", the unintentional irony is impressive. EP 00:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Selecciones did not tell me he felt insulted. His words were: "It's incredible how you lie and equate me to a dictator[...]" That was everything he ever said about that, and that was all I ever said about that too. You're the perfect example of someone who likes to spark arguments where none had ever existed. Please stop your aggressiveness and lies. On the matter of "cabal," I still think that you and Selecciones are working to simply get the Peruvian section shorter. Whether you're working together or alone, you're still acting for a common goal. Also, I gave my reasons for calling Selecciones "dirt," and yet again you try to make it seem more terrible than what it actually was. What's impressive are your cheap and constant attempts at making a time bomb out of this discussion. Nonetheless, like I priorly mentioned to User:Alexf, I do not care for your aggressiveness and will simply dismiss everything you try to inflamate with this unconstructive discussion.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You state "Selecciones did not tell me he felt insulted" read what I said again, I never said he did, I said he clearly didn't find it funny, this is a misrepresentation of my point and doesn't stop such comparisons from from being personal attacks. You then call me a liar without presenting any evidence which is another personal attack and present a case that personal insults are sometimes justified, which they are not. Please just read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Your misrepresentations and unsubstantiated allegations are succeding in winding me up and forcing me to defend myself but they are fooling nobody. I shall expect further allegations and insults rather than reasoned debate in response even though you are clearly intelligent enough to stick to debating the issue rather than clouding the debate by insulting people and casting aspersions EP 22:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You shall expect what you deserve. On your own words: "As for the personal insults, this defence 'comparing Selecciones de la Vida to Pinochet simply served as a comic relief to the argument' is unbelievable. What if I had a disagreement with a German in a public forum, would comparing him to Hitler be funny or would it be inflammatory? O.K. maybe "Hitler" was worse than Pinochet, where does it stop being insulting and start being funny [...]" This is clearly what you wrote, and clearly you were relating the situation to that of Selecciones. Please, before you post something, make sure you re-read what you wrote; otherwise you simply look foolish. lol. And at the end, nothing was accomplished out of your little inflamed comments. Good job "respected editor." lol.--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That accurate quotation is part of a question, the premise being that if comparing a German to Hitler is insulting and comparing a Chilean to Pinochet is "funny" (as you claim) where is the dividing line? The question is not whether SdV felt insulted as you wish to frame it, it's whether comparing people to dictators is a personal attack. Either you cannot understand what I am writing or you are misrepresenting it to wind me up as you do over and again with the "respected editor." comment. EP 00:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

lol. You're so immature. Please stop your aggressive comments against me. No, comparing a German to Hitler should not be considered insulting unless it is actually meant to be insulting. It's easy to tell the distinction between an insult and a joke. Also, if you think I'm "winding you up," then that's your own problem. I'm not doing that, and I really could not care less about what is going on in your mind "respected editor." As far as it concerns me, and seeing as how you just seemingly want to keep this going on for no other reason than to argue, this discussion is done.--MarshalN20 (talk)

If you follow the individual talk pages, English Peasant voiced his concern with the section to Mariano 12 days before I even asked for his assistance. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There's more than one way to contact a person other than through the talk page.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The evidence contradicts your point, so rather than accept that you made a mistake, you invent another paranoid conspiracy theory to fit in with your "everyone who disagrees with me is part of the Wikipedia mafia" theory. EP 01:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your aggresive comments that wish to incite more "fire" into this discussion. There exists more than one way to contact a person from Wikipedia, and that is a fact. Also, if you wish to state that what I state are theories, then you are stating that what I write are valid ideas that have received other approvals as testable or highly likely. Otherwise please learn to distinguish a theory from a hypothesis. Furthermore, by stating I have a "paranoid conspiracy theory" you are obviously throwing a personal insult at me; next time you want to go whine to people (such as User:Alexf) about "uncivility," please do not be a hypocrit and try to get away with insulting me. Thank you.--MarshalN20 (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You are the one making allegations of collusion, and you have made the mafia claim on several occasions, which I interpreted as a Conspiracy theory, hence the use of the word "theory". The reason I went to an admin is that you suggested I go talk to a real Wikipedia Administrator (not that Mariano isn't) and I was getting sick of the way you rile people up by abusing them and twisting their words instead of addressing the issues that they have raised. So I asked him to review the behaviour of everyone here including myself. EP 02:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You keep making allegations and personal attacks on me. You say that I "abuse" people and that I "twist their words," and even though in a political sphere that would make me sound like quite an awesome politician, I do take your wordings as insults. Please remember that User:Alexf has stated to keep civility in the article. You are breaking the civility by continuing to insult me and making false allegations. I have neither abused people or twisted their words. Here is an example as to how User:Selecciones de la Vida "abused" and frustrated me during a discussion: {{{What source states that it wasn't the first club???? WHERE IS THIS SOURCE???? WHAT WAS THE FIRST FOOTBALL CLUB OF CHILE???? OMG, please, if you know Santiago Wanderers are not the first club, then what is the first football club of Chile???--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Well you proved yourself wrong with that one, since Valparaiso Football Club came before Santiago Wanderers, I at least give you credit for learning the error of your ways. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)}}} NEXT, the same user twisted my words to the point that at end went as far as to state on the matter still relating to the date of foundation of the Lima Cricket Club: {{{Actually I was not aware until you properly cited the page where the information on the official website was to be found, before you had just linked the statement to the frontpage of the website that did not include that information which was extremely unprofessional. [...] Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)}}} As you can see, he went as far as to call me "unprofessional," which is also a personal insult. Therefore I state, no matter how bad you (which by this I mean English peasant and Selecciones de la Vida) want to make me sound in front of others (such as Alex and Mariano), what you wrote still remains as a proof that this mud slinging went back and forth from both sides. Now please stop trying to infuriate me. Alex already stated that he wanted no more uncivility in the article or inflamatory comments. So please, English peasant and Selecciones, keep your ugly and inflamatory comments to yourselves.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.articlesbase.com/soccer-articles/ten-best-soccer-goals-of-all-time-524436.html

  Triggered by \barticles(?:base|vana)\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Royal Spanish Academy

The Royal Spanish Academy source states the following when defining the bicycle kick under the name of "chilena": "En fútbol, remate o despeje de espaldas a la portería contraria, con los dos pies en el aire." ("In soccer, strike or backwards clearance towards the opposing goal, with both feet in the air") [1]. This in no way, shape, or form justifies the claim being made by an IP user ([2]). Any further disruption will be reported to the administrator's noticeboard.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 07:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious comment

The text "News reports, like this excerpt from El Comercio about a match between the HMS Amphion's crew and a united squad of Lima Cricket/Unión Cricket (from Peru) in 1904, pieced together the bicycle kick's complex origin history" seems to be tendentious since the footnote text from El Comercio ("The sight that we offer today to our readers was taken especially for El Comercio, in the moments in which was occurring in Santa Beatriz, this past Thursday, the most interesting part of the football match between sailors from the English warship Amphion and the Peruvian eleven that were victorious, as we had reported when we announced past Friday about this beautiful sports fest") has nothing to do with the bicycle kick. Editors' comments should be avoided to let the readers draw their own conclusions.--Alpinu (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The image is very useful for the article. It is an example of the role the British had in the spread of football in South America. It is also contemporary to the times discussed (early 20th century). The fact that it is a news report makes it all the more important as this is what the section primarily discusses.

So, it's not about images "having to do" with the title of the article; it's about the content and how it adds to it.

I do agree, nonetheless, that the description could have been worded better. Instead of deleting the material, I improved the wording and cited the statement.

Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Images are useful to illustrate articles, no doubt about it, the problem is the text, which seems to be tendentious in the section "Invention". On the other hand, if the role the British had in the spread of football in South America were illustrated then, taking into account the years of tradition, it should be with images from Argentina (some reasons: first football match in Argentina: 1867, the first football association in South America: AFA, 1893, for instance). The ref. used ([3] has innacurate information (see Bicycle kick/GA1 "Objectivity"). The text ("News reports helped piece together the bicycle kick's complex origin") and the ref. should be omitted. Regards.--Alpinu (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This is very infantile behavior, Alpinu. I am using the images that are available for free and are best suited for the material. I neither have the magic to create photographs nor can I create free-licenses for those that I may find. What you reflect in your comment is a problem with the nationality of the image. You want an Argentine image, not a Peruvian one. This is an unacceptable stance/critique.

The reference is being used appropriately. The article highlights the importance of news reports in finding the origin of the bicycle kick. It also makes sense; this type of history depends on reports of sporting events.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 21:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The image in question also depicts a scene of British sailors playing football with South Americans in the early 1900s. That's the way that I appreciated the image. This is very valuable.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 23:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review 1

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bicycle kick/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Alpinu (talk · contribs) 18:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

Adjectives should be avoided:

(section: "Name"): "there exists a fierce controversy between Chile and Peru—as part of their historic sports rivalry—over the naming of the bicycle kick" (the text should read "there exists a controversy over the naming of the bicycle kick").

"less tendentious" (this text should be omitted).

Alphabetical order:

(section: "Name"): "; Peruvians call it the chalaca, while Chileans know it as the chilena" (the text should read "; Chileans know it as the chilena, while Peruvians call it the chalaca" [compare "The controversy over the move's invention and name in Brazil, Chile, and Peru" in the intro]).--Alpinu (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Answer: I've addressed the "alphabetical order" point, despite considering a totally irrelevant matter to raise. In fact, it is very ridiculous to consider the order of two statements in a sentence to be a problem of neutrality. That type of suggestion isn't fit for a professional review. There is also no reason to remove what you claim are "adjectives"; these are sourced explanations that are perfectly valid.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Objectivity

The article has a variety of references, and shows different viewpoints. Congratulations.

Nevertheless, and taking into account material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, references should always be objective and factual and not based on someone else's assumptions or on sources with mistakes: Barraza mentions rather vague Chilean sources ("Chilean newspaper records from 1900 also name the bicycle kick as a chalaca"). In addition, there is information which is not accurate: the first record of the chalaca dates back to 1924 [4], the Chilean newspapers citing it are from Santiago in 1935 [5] and the manoeuvre called chorera / chilena dates back to 1910s [1914: O'Brien, Richard (2005). «Soccer: How to perform a bicycle kick»], [1918: [6] ].--Alpinu (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Answer: Yes, the article has a variety of references from different viewpoints. I've worked hard to read all of the available literature on the topic prior to submitting it for GA review. That is how I work; that is why I already have written, submitted, and gotten approved three featured articles. Anyhow, moving on to your points:

1. I have included the 1924 date into the article.
2. Roberto Castro does not state that the newspapers are from Santiago. Please read the text again: "De hecho, por ello durante algún tiempo en Chile a la jugada se la conoció como chalaca, tal como ocurre en otros países de la región como Ecuador o Colombia" (In fact, for some time in Chile was known as chalaca, the same as it occurs in other countries in the region like Ecuador or Colombia).
3. The 1910s date has been added. It's a complicated matter since different sources provide different dates for Unzaga's first kick: 1914, 1916, 1918. There's nothing exact about it aside from the 1918 date, likely due to the legal nature of it (the fist fight is a wonderful anecdote, by the way).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for including the 1924 date into the article. If the first record of the "chalaca" dates back to 1924, it certainly deserves to be included.
• R. Castro states that the manoeuvre was performed in Santiago and that is why it was known as "chalaca": "Años después, en 1935, cuando Alianza Lima hizo la famosa gira por Chile en la que saltó a la palestra el afamado 'Rodillo Negro' del ataque íntimo, Villanueva ejecutó la jugada y maravilló a la afición de Santiago, que aparentemente no la había visto muchas veces. De hecho, por ello durante algún tiempo en Chile a la jugada se la conoció como chalaca, tal como ocurre en otros países de la región como Ecuador o Colombia." Was it known (only) orally...? If there were records, they would be from newspapers from Santiago.
• Yes, it is a complicated matter because depending on the source there are different dates for R. Unzaga's first kick (1914, 1916, 1918), but since we have to provide all the available viewpoints based on the records/references... (and yep, the fist fight is a great anecdote).--Alpinu (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Answer: There's a problem of interpretation here. The word "Santiago" only appears a couple of times in the article, neither in reference to newspapers. Regardless, "Chilean newspapers" are inclusive of those from Santiago (assuming that is your concern).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliability

Ref 43: Kike Giles, "La 'Chalaca' de Ronaldinho" does not seem to be reliable: ("Todo indica que (la jugada) es peruana, se le conoce internacionalmente como chilena, lo patentó un español y tomó nombre en Argentina. Los primeros en hacerla, según testimonios periodísticos muy antiguos y relatos orales, fueron los negros del puerto del Callao, donde tuvo su nacimiento el fútbol peruano [...] A fines del sigo XIX y comienzos del XX, eran frecuentes los enfrentamientos entre chilenos y peruanos, muy conectados a través de los viajes marítimos entre Valparaíso y el Callao. Allí fue donde los marineros y futbolistas chilenos y británicos habrían visto hacer esta maravilla futbolera", acotó Barraza [...] Inclusive fueron los mismos chilenos quienes llamaron a dicha jugada 'chalaca', gentilicio propio de los oriundos del puerto limeño, lo cual reforzaría la teoría de que la pirueta tuvo su origen en nuestro país. Entonces, ¿cómo se llegó a llamar 'chilena'? Cuenta la historia que en 1917, el chileno Ramón Unzaga (futbolista español que jugaba por la selección de Chile, cosa permisible en esa tiempo) realizó varias veces esa jugada en el torneo Sudamericano de Argentina, y las personas comenzaron a llamarla 'chilena' ").

Rather vague sources: What ancient records? Could either oral tradition or tales be accurate to transmit this kind of information? Most of that text seems to be speculation. In addition, the ref. has six mistakes according to the facts:

1. If the manoeuvre had been called "chalaca" in Chile, it would have been in 1935's newspapers [7] not before (consider that the first record of that name in Peru dates back to 1924 [8]).
2. Ramón Unzaga became a Chilean citizen in 1912, when he was 18,[Palmira Oyanguren, (27 de enero-3 de febrero de 2006). «La "chilena" es cosa de vascos». Euskonews.com; César Ortúzar (3 de septiembre de 2008). «La jugada más bella». Deia] therefore he was not a "Spanish football player" in 1917.
3. Unzaga was a member of the national football team in 1916 [9] and in 1920 [10], not in 1917.
4. Unzaga did not take part in 1917 Campeonato Sudamericano [11].
5. The 1917 edition of that championship was not in Argentina but in Uruguay [12].
6. The manoeuvre was called "chilena" by Argentine press in 1920 [Carlo Giacomini (2005), «8. São Paulo 3 x 3 Corinthians (1942)». São Paulo: dentre os grandes, és o primeiro. Rio de Janeiro: Ediouro Publicações. p. 64. ISBN 85-00-01572-1; Palmira Oyanguren, (27 de enero-3 de febrero de 2006). «La "chilena" es cosa de vascos». Euskonews.com].--Alpinu (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Answer What is the Kike Giles source citing? Ah, yes, a direct quote from Barraza. Is it citing any of these things you point out? I'll let you answer that one.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have written "Ref 43: Kike Giles, "La 'Chalaca' de Ronaldinho" does not seem to be reliable" (regardless of what it cites) and the evidence: vague sources and a series of mistakes (one mistake could pass, two mistakes could be a coincidence, but three mistakes are a custom). You should cite Barraza's article(s) instead. Best regards.--Alpinu (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bicycle kick/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 18:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Will review later tonight or early tomorrow. Wugapodes (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. This exception is most significant in Spanish, where there exists a fierce controversy between Chile and Peru Is this distinction in every variety of Spanish or is the alternation only in Chilean and Peruvian Spanishes? If the source makes a distinction, it should be stated in the article. As a sub point, is the "neutral" term tijera widespread or only in Castilian/Hispanola Spanishes?
2. thus, in the words of British sports journalist Jonathan Wilson, "[the British] exploited South America's natural resources, and in return they gave soccer." What's the purpose of this quote? It feels out of place and a little POV (or at least WP:UNDUE)
3. Throughout the article, but particularly in Bicycle kick#acclaim the use of quote seem to verge on violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in particular. The repetition and use of quotes to describe the acclaim given for using the kick doesn't add much to the information I'm giving but tries to reinforce the idea that players who use it are popular which may be true but that's not really what people would be coming to this page for.

   (These last three were going to be optional, but given the concerns above I'm going to make them required to be addressed but with a little lower burden.)

4. The bicycle kick is known in English by three different names Does the source differentiate the dialects? In American English I have only ever heard "bicycle kick" and I'd assume the others may be chiefly British. But if the source isn't that precise, then it's not a problem.
5. The quotations in the first paragraph of Bicycle kick#Execution seem rather WP:QUOTEFARM-y. Give some thought to whether the quotations add something that can't be gotten from paraphrasing the sources. The rest of them though seem to add to the information but I do think fewer direct quotations are better in general. I'm leaving this unstruck as a reminder to review quotation use in general throughout the article
6. According to sports historian David Goldblatt, South America "added a greater emphasis on individual trickery and dexterity, the continent's footballers claiming the invention of the bicycle kick and bending free kicks, and allotting pride of place to the individual dribble". Again, not entirely sure why this is quoted rather than paraphrased.

Response

Thank you, Wugapodes. This is a very thoughtful and smart review. I am very grateful that you focused on the language because, as you also correctly figured out, this is the most complicated part of the article. My plan is to next take this for an FA review (perhaps between mid-December and early January). I will respond to your points in numerical format (to match the numbers in the above list); or, let me know how you best would prefer for me to respond.

1. The sources (Witzig & DK Publishing) do not make a distinction on the language variety, but Witzig does make a distinction on geography ("depending on which country you are visiting"). Perhaps the names could be considered a country-specific variation, but their use in other countries dismisses the idea (for example, the Castro source identifies them as synonyms and the Lati source considers the names are a matter of personal preference rather than tied to a particular variety of Spanish). The same applies to tijera, where the sources do not make a distinction. Maybe they should; I have sent a few online letters to newspapers in the past suggesting them to conduct a formal study on what country uses what term (they don't seem to share my dedication to the subject).

2. I feared the word "exploited" might be harsh, but I included the quote thinking it was a nice representation of cultural & economic exchange. Wilson's tone is very sour towards Britain (despite he is English), but I think it may be because he is upset at the lack of development of the sport in Britain during this time—I am not sure why, it may just have been the general feeling he had at the time of writing this part of the book. I tried a paraphrase ([13]); please, let me know what you think.

3. I think the paraphrase should be complete. I only left a couple of quotes in there (one is for "The Goal of the Century," which is not really much of a quote as it is the name by which the goal is known, and the "wonder goal" quote for Ibrahimovic's very unique bicycle kick ([14]). I really can't think of another way to describe it: Video of the Goal.

4. The sources aren't that precise. I am not sure why. From discussion in a few football forums, people from Britain have told me that they use "overhead kick" more than "bicycle kick" (which they associate as an American term). I considered source quality could be a problem, but even The American Encyclopedia of Soccer (Hollander 1980) finds no distinction (for "bicycle kick" it recommended to "see 'overhead kick'").

5. I understand and totally agree; thank you! The flow is better now with the paraphrased text ([15]). I only left a few small quotes in the section (although I think the one in the last paragraph can also be removed, and probably will do so at some point in the near future).

6. I'm a fan of Goldblatt's work (The Ball is Round is a personal favorite), but I agree that the use of quotes in the article was approaching ad nauseum levels. I hope the paraphrase ([16]) catches the main idea.

I will respond to points 3, 5, and 6 as soon as possible. Please do let me know if you have any additional suggestions (or if there are any points that I may not have addressed correctly). Thanks again for the review!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 03:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Take your time with the rest of the points (you get 7 days for a reason, don't feel pressured). I think this will do well at FAC with some more work, particularly on MOS issues and use of quotes. The jump between FA and GA can be a very large one. For example, the GA criteria only require compliance with 5 sections of the WP:Manual of Style but the FA criteria require compliance with all of it. So while the quotes here are more of a question of neutrality, I could see objections based upon MOS:QUOTE or criteria 1(a) since quotes interrupt the flow of prose and distract from encyclopedic tone. It may do very well though, I'm not an FA reviewer and my first nomination has only been open a few days so I'm far from an expert on it. That being said, I highly recommend a WP:Peer review and possibly a WP:Copyedit before nominating for FA to make sure that people who are well versed in the FA criteria and MOS can iron out the issues before WP:FAC.

Anyway, to address your points,

• Regarding 1 and 4, since the sources aren't that specific I will drop those; if that's the best information available, it's all you can be expected to put in the article.
• Regarding 2, I think the new wording is better.

Wugapodes (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a copyedit and peer review will be very useful. By the way, I had no idea that there existed a Black American Sign Language. The article is a very informative and interesting read; I think it will do great in its FAC nomination.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 09:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Results

On Hold for 7 days. Sorry about the heavy focus on languages, but that's what you get when you bring a sociolinguist into a discussion of language, haha. OVerall a very good article that I think needs to have its prose tightened. Try to paraphrase a number of the quotations, and be more precise about languages that use the various terms.Wugapodes (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Listed after the revisions made. While they weren't a problem for GA, the use of quotes as a whole is little much, and I do think a copy edit to try and help paraphrase the quotes would really make the prose brilliant. It's not far from FA quality, but still needs a bit of work. Considering how well you've done so far though, I don't think it will be a big challenge. Keep up the good work and best of luck at FAC. Wugapodes (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent GOCE-request Copy-Edit completed by Drcrazy102 (talk)

Hi, if there are any concerns or sections that you believe may still require further copy-editing, please let me know ASAP and I will seek to fix or edit the sections/problems. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Drcrazy102: Amazing! Thank you very much for the work.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "Different Denominations"

It seems that this is, by far, the worst section out of the whole article. It breaks WP:OR, and it is really almost quite silly with all of the countries being placed on what they call the move. I propose that only the language and the names of the moves are mentioned. All mention to particular countries should be removed, and I am sure that would help clear up recent vandalism attacks to the article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Complete and utter trivia hardly suitable for a travel guide, let alone Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. Finally somebody had the determination to do away with that bundle of uselessness.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a bicycle kick

It is a scissor kick or overhead kick.

The bicycle kick is when a football player pretends to intend kicking the ball with one foot but changes to the other foot with the first foot still in the air. Hence, the title of bicycle kick because the player is performing a cycling action whilst still upright and not on his back, in the air. I have never seen anyone riding a bike using a scissor kick! 213.162.125.117 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You're partially right. Bicycle, overhead, and scissors kick are all valid ways to call the move.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)