User talk:Camw/Archives/2010/September - December

Carney

Why won't you let the beetroot thing be? Its is a fact that he is known as that. If you got out and meet some Sydney FC fans you would find that out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aresaresares (talk • contribs)

So do I so I put his nickname there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aresaresares (talk • contribs)

Okay champ. how about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Carney#Sydney_FC

"crowd favourite at Sydney FC, earned him the nickname "Super David Carney" or "Super Dave" and attracted the attention of clubs in Europe.

I don't see a source there. Hmmmmmm

How about you delete both or you are having a double standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aresaresares (talk • contribs)

This page? I didn't know where to 'talk' I thought it was the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aresaresares (talk • contribs)

i donot worry that i will be blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.68.80 (talk • contribs)

Help!

Hi there CAMW, VASCO here,

thanks very much for being the only person - for reasons that elude me, happens almost ALL the time - who has addressed my query at the WP:FOOTY forum. I have already added some more stuff to the original message. As you can see, hours pass and several other items have been brought forth to the forum, all have been replied to, save...guess what?

In addition, it would be interesting to know i told the other user he could take part in this discussion and bring his opinion(s), what did he do? Nothing! Remove my combined version (his, mine and some other users i guess) without one word, remove my pertinent additions - then accuse me of removing major info, which i did not), etc, etc. Help please! Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hi there Cam, have already replied in detail to your "play-by-play" commentaries in the article's talkpage, i see that even though you notified Redman19, he did not do the same (let me tell you what he also did while reverting my edits: he reverted the TRANS_TITLE that appears in references when a source is in a foreign language, and (again) he says i am the one removing...

I will work extensively on the article again, compromising with all the opinions you and i have brought forth. Let me also say i am 99,9999999% sure Red will revert EVERYTHING, on sight. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks X 2

Hi there CAMW, long time no see :),

On a related note, thanks for cleaning up my user page, after a cowardly attack (i.e. not to my talkpage). I know i am a bit hysterical in many many of my summaries (i should not), but this user was even more out of order than me. I sent him this message (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:82.46.46.194#.3F.21.3F.3F.3F.21 please see here).

Attentively (and please watch out on any Sukur's developments) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Situation solved (the first not the second man!), the user accepted my apologies, i accepted his, will do better the next time i promise (my edit summaries have got to improve very much overall :(). Cheers! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Contribution team IRC meeting

Greetings! We will be having a meeting of the Contribution and Social Media teams tomorrow in #wikimedia-SM on IRC. Feel free to rebroadcast on social media and invite interested guests. The meeting will be at 11/11 19:00/7pm UTC (2pm Eastern Standard Time, 11am Pacific.) We hope to see you there! ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 19:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sukur improvements (hopefully)

Hi there CAMW, VASCO here,

i have made some more improvements in Hakan Şükür's article, respecting my inputs as well as Redman19's, as well as your "play-by-play" commentary on what was better here and there, in the piece's talkpage.

Speaking of the talk page, i have corrected my input in item number 12. The player did not win the UEFA Super Cup in 2000, he had left for Italy, so i think it's not relevant to his article, but the team's. Also please note how Redman keeps reverting, in the last paragraph of CLUB CAREER, to his input "The following season saw the prolific goalscorer net 18 goals, but ultimately lose out on all competitions.". Not true, because we can clearly see in HONOURS that the team won the 2005 cup, which i have reinstated in storyline duly. Ah, and saying "prolific goalscorer" over and over again in the article is not POVish and unneccessary? Methinks so...

That bit about the manager who gave Sukur his international debut has been again relocated to INT.CAREER, per your and my suggestion (Redman does not have an opinion, or does not convey it, but reverts anyway!). His goal total with Sakaryaspor i don't have any certainties anymore man, as the REF #4 states he only scored in his second season with the club, whereas NATIONAL-FOOTBALL-TEAMS.com says he scored in all of the seasons. Also, the REF is in Turkish and i don't know any of the language, and i assume good faith on those edits, so...Anyhow, this seems like the easiest matter to deal with, when we reach a conclusion - Redman seems much more equipped than me on that matter - we'll duly correct box and/or chart of statistics.

All in all, if you check my version and Redman's last closely, you will see i have inserted a mixture of his and my storyline, not just mine as he says! Also, i have - but it can be changed if you think it's better - rephrased SUPER LIG (gets kind of boring to have it written all the time, just one time suffices, then "league" is best, moreso when the club has NEVER been relegated from the top level, so people reading the article will immediately know what league are we talking about). As you said to the other user in your summary titled "That's not the point", i have removed the reference in intro which consists of backing up POV.

I appreciate your assistance on this one, but i would really also appreciate if you could keep a close eye on this for the following days, because i am 100% sure Red will revert everything again, accusing me of the same (especially the said ref in intro, i think he will be greatly offended it has been removed, because his summary read "sourced"; however, if you finally choose to accept it in intro, i have no problem with it myself). I also admit to you, as i previously did in Redman's talkpage, that one of my summaries read "have reverted to my storyline", it was wrong and inconsiderate from me, but i have only done it once, now i am trying to reach a compromise.

Attentively, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'll try to keep an eye on it and the talk page for further developments. I'm expecting a busy week at work, so I can't promise I'll be on as much as I'd like, but I'll try to check once a day at least. Camw (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• As i feared, he reverted everything, without adding anything else but the self-explanatory summary. Subsequently, he reverted himself, but i sent him a very detailed message nonetheless. You have been "briefed", cheers! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Les Murray (broadcaster)

I have started a discussion on terminology at Talk:Les Murray (broadcaster)#.22Soccer.22.2F.22football.22.2F.22association football.22. Please feel free to comment there. —sroc (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, every time this gets discussed it goes in circles and just leads to me wanting to spend less time here. I'll discuss with users the current consensus when they try to push their agendas but I don't have the time to get involved in any kind of effort to change consensus sorry. Camw (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean because there's no previous discussion on this on the article's talk page. If this has been discussed on individual users' talk pages or in the edit summaries, these aren't fora that encourage general discussion; the article's talk page is the place for that which allows discussion amongst several users. If this has been discussed elsewhere, a link to it would be welcome. I encourage your input because you presumably have an opinion on this (as you have made some of the efforts) so I would hate for that opinion to be lost just because you keep getting reverted without being heard/understood. —sroc (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have had similar conversations on more talk pages than I can remember - Talk:Melbourne Heart FC might be the most recent one where there was some objection to using FC in the title of the page. The archives of Talk:Association_football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Association Football in Australia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football are pages where this has gone around in circles every time it gets discussed. I have a preference for consistency, be it association football or football (soccer) (with "association football (soccer)" being the least desired outcome) but there are too many opinions from too many people with both agendas to push and valid comments to actually get an agreement. A RFC would probably be the best way to at least get some sort of decision made for consistency across Australian articles, but I'm not the person to drive that right now - maybe next year if nobody else does and I feel brave. Camw (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cullen Wines

Hello! Your submission of Cullen Wines at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

ah.. sorry. I meant that the article seems too promotional, not the hook. While you do have good sources (except for the company's website which shouldnt be used), I still dont see what makes this winery notable. We will need another opinion for this.Thelmadatter (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

mmmm interesting about the WP:SELFPUB. Ive had problems with an editor over the Mexican beer article over using company websites. As for the article, what I think seems really promotional is that it is a series of short one to three sentences "paragraphs" lots about awards and comes across as bullet points, like you would use on a brochure. There is very little about products except to say that one won an award and was rated excellent. I know DYK has been running really slow and behind, but Id rather get another editor's opinion on this.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ferdinand Finne

Could you tell me what source you believe this article closely paraphrases? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)