Jump to content

Talk:Gus Poyet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Skysports news has mentioned he is also currently registered as a player in Leeds.--Vindicta 21:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Would it be worth requesting a caption field to be added to {{Football manager infobox}} so that a caption clarifying which person is Poyet can be in view? I thought the version with the arrow and label looked unencyclopedic and other images with 2 or more people in them usually have a caption. Bill (talk|contribs) 17:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Who is the young man with Poyet? he looks familiar should he have a caption clarifying his name too? Perhaps a link to his Wiki page would be helpful and encyclopedic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.222.129.82 (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Person

[edit]

Who is this other person with Gus? Wasn't he on Big Brother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.222.129.82 (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both this comment and the one above are by the same person. The guy is actually a friend of mine and was fooling around. I mention this because a couple of people have pointed to these comments as an excuse to remove the photo. regozcan —Preceding comment was added at 09:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

Why is there another person standing next to Gus? The picture only needs to show Gus. It should be edited. 86.153.129.218 (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detail on poyet's cult [chants, beliefs, etc.] wud be good. If he moves then he can die lulzz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.54.54 (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better with or without the photo?

[edit]

Hi all

My view is that it is better to have a photo (even if it is one that contains another person) rather than not have one at all.

I propose that until someone submits a 'better' photo, the photo that I uploaded should remain. I am, of course, happy to listen to the views of others and to be guided by the consensus. regozcan —Preceding comment was added at 09:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it's better to include the photo than no photo in this case. Bill (talk|contribs) 12:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image only needs to show gus, not an individual who is not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.130.241 (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that is your opinion. From what I am led to believe, Wikipedia is about consenses. It is not about one person (in this case you) dictating what they believe is the correct approach. I am more than happy to step down if some of the more senior users think that this article is better without a photo. Until then, please refrain from wasting your time by continually deleting the photo as I will keep on reinstating. regozcan —Preceding comment was added at 09:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! Wikipedia image policy also agrees with me: Wikipedia:Images. Which states that famous individuals are better in the photo on their own than with someone else.It seems that regozcan is the other individual in the picture and has a Conflict of Interest on this subject.

Congratulations! Did it really take you until now to work out that I am the other person in the photo?! It clearly indicates this (and always has done) when you click on the image itself! This point is also discussed above!

The question that I posed above is this: Is it not better to have the, admittedly, imperfect photo that I have uploaded rather than no photo at all. I and plenty of other Wikipedians think it is. You seem to be in the minority of people that thinks it is better not to have a photo. I have therefore reinstated the photo until someone finds a better photo on until the powers that be decide that it is better to have no photo. regozcan —Preceding comment was added at 14:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the 'plenty of other Wikpedians' who agree with you ? As far as I can see it is just two - one of which is a pal of yours. Like someone said on your talk page you just want your photo to be on wikipedia (hence conflict of interest) and you strongly objected when they put up a cropped version which only showed gus. If the image is to stay i therefore propose using a cropped version.

Who is the pal of mine that you refer to?! The guy that is my friend was the one that was taking the piss saying who's the other guy? The plenty of other Wikipedians that I refer to are people that have posted both on this thread and on my talk page. Also all of the people that have viewed the photo and not decided to remove it. You and one other person are the only people that have removed the photo. Therefore the people that object to it are currently outnumbered by those that don't.

I suggest we take a straw-poll. If more people want the photo taken down, I'll leave quietly.regozcan —Preceding comment was added at 14:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence of these "plenty of other wikipedians". User:Bill agreed with the photo and the other comment was from a pal of yours. On your talk page User;Jack ojected to the image and User:Tmol42 said it may raise objections.

"Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it." Every person that viewed the page and did not delete the image agreed that it is better to have a photo rather than no photo at all. Therefore the consensus appears to be that it is better to have a photo..regozcan —Preceding comment was added at 14:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest."

"There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference."

and how many people have edited the article since you added the photo ? at least 2 editors have tried to have it removed or altered and fallen foul of you. wikipedia policy states that it is better to have only the subject in the picture. One user cropped the picture to show gus only and you objected. it is clear you want your photo on wikipedia and have a conflict of interest.

The 2 editors include yourself. So that's 2 people that object versus all of the people that have viewed the page and not objected. It is clear that, at present, the consensus is that the photo should stay. Wikipedia is all about consensus.

By the way, please note: "Signing your posts on talk pages and other Wikipedia discourse is good etiquette and facilitates discussion by helping other users to identify the author of a particular comment. The responder can navigate to talk pages and address their comments to the specific relevant user(s). Discussion is an important part of collaborative editing because it helps all users to understand the progress and evolution of a work."

Can I suggest that you sign your contributions and separate them out the way I have been doing for you. It will make it easier for people to follow the debate...regozcan —Preceding comment was added at 14:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action (editing), or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on."

just viewing a page is not evidence that they accept the version as it is and there is no agreement between the parties involved. the chances are they clicked on it by chance or have no interest in editing an article they have no knowledge of. Of the 3 people who have showed particular interest in the image 2 have objected to your version.

and may i suggest you stop breaking up comments with dashes. it means an editor has to scan up to the top of the page to find an edit button.

Edit Warring on this Page

[edit]

I have placed the following message on both these editors Talk Pages:-

Hi Regozcan / 86.162.69.29, Despite requesting that you seek to resolve your difference of opinion regarding the image of Gus Poyet via the talk page both you and User:Regozcan/ User:86.162.69.29 have continued your edit warring. Far from trying to seek consensus both of you have just further inflamed the situation by your comments and have continued to revert each others edits on the article at least 8 times in the last 24 hours. Clearly despite my hope neither of you are capable in conducting an intelligent conversation. This is a final warning that any further edits will result in a report for 3RR Violation which I would expect to result in Edit Block being applied. A similar message will appear on the other editors Talk Page. I will meantime report to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and see if someone there can provide some clarity as to the best way forward in this truly petty dispute.Tmol42 (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I will post a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to see if an experienced Editor or Admin can look in on this "debate" and bring some light where there is currently dark. Meanwhile if anyone else looking on can assist you are welcome to have a go !!!!!!!!!!Tmol42 (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Edit Warring on Gustavo Poyet page as indicated above and would suggest you take a look ove there to see if anyonecan suggest a way forwardTmol42 (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poyet

[edit]

What part of France does his surname come from? Spiderone (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Anyway, can we get a managerial stats table set up for this guy please? (W, L, D, percentage etc..) he's been in a job long enough now surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.184.159 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captaincy

[edit]

Zaragoza's captain in that 1995 Final was Miguel Pardeza. I made notes from the TV at the time; it's in World Soccer; and The Independent of 7 April 1995 mentions him as captain v Chelsea in an earlier match, with Poyet in the team.

All the best,

Cris Freddi

Sources? links? Or do I have to revert? Govvy (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Gus and not Gustavo?

[edit]

I probably can't prove it but I bet this guy is best known (especially outside of England) by his actual name Gustavo. I don't know why or when the article name was changed but I don't see a discussion about it. Since I don't feel so bold as to change it back before letting people know, I'm hereby proposing to change the article name back to Gustavo Poyet. Discuss. --ChaChaFut (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Poyet → Gustavo Poyet — Per above. ChaChaFut (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should try to prove it. Think of a dozen major English language news sources (suggest at least half UK, as he has far more significance in UK football than that played in any other English speaking country), check their sites to see what they call him, then present your findings. Kevin McE (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally: you are here one button press away from knowing when and why it was moved: it appears in the talk history. Kevin McE (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pronounciation of Poyet

[edit]

The "spanish pronounciation" on the main page suggests pronouncing his name without the t. However, Gus himself says the t SHOULD be pronounced. Unfortunately, the video where he says it (on the Brighton and Hove Albion homepage) is only available to members. Does this make it useless as a reference here or can it still be used? Clearly there is no better source for this than him himself! http://www.seagulls.co.uk/articles/20110727/video-gus-qa-part-two_2264458_2403580/0,,10433~2403580~1,00.html Fork me (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,as a Spaniard I can confirm that Spanish-speaking people would never say something like "poiei", but "poiet". Never heard during his career in Spain something different form the actual spelling: Poyet, with the final t pronounced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.187.96 (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is from Uruguay, not Spain. Despite speaking Spanish, his name is not pronounced in the typical Spanish way, but is pronounced Poi-jet. Listen to many discussions on this issue with the journalist Tim Vickery who was told that he was the only British person who said him his name correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.254.239 (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox stats

[edit]

Are they correct? They suggest he didn't start his career until he was 21, then made 78 appearances in a season for River Plate. I wonder if this spell was actually before Grenoble, as fr:Gus Poyet seems to suggest. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gus Poyet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gus_Poyet&oldid=1206051538"