User talk:Realgonerocket88

Realgonerocket88, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Realgonerocket88! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2019

Your recent editing history at Tottenham Hotspur F.C. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hzh (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: I am not "engaged in an edit war." I made factually correct, properly formatted edits that are in keeping with Wikipedia precedent. I would suggest that the editors who are engaged in an "edit war" are those who persist in censoring significant information from entries - either due to an incorrect understanding of Wikipedia precedent or perhaps due to personal or club biases? Please see my comments to "Goovy" in the talk section. I will repost it here: "Thank you for your explanation, but your explanation is incorrect and inconsistent with Wikipedia precedent. Firstly, the section is clearly for "Honors" not "Trophies," so your statement that "A football club doesn't receive a runner up trophy!" is irrelevant. (Similarly, we see, for example, that the entry for the Croatian national team lists both runner-up and third-place finishes in the World Cup, and neither came with trophies!) Furthermore, your statement regarding a current consensus is incorrect, as the entries for such runner ups as Atletico Madrid, Borussia Dortmund, Valenica, Monaco, Olympique de Marseille, FK Patrizan, Borussia Mönchengladbach, Malmö FF, Saint-Étienne, Hamburger SV, FCSB, etc., ALL list Runner-up finishes in the European Cup/Champions League. In fact, some of these entries also list Runner-up finishes in their domestic leagues or cups, as well! Clearly, it is neither consensus nor common practice to remove runners-up finishes from these lists. Finally, as Tottenham just had its first appearance in club history in the CL final, it is even more noteworthy that this be listed! The policy here should be to share significant information, not to indiscriminately or selectively censor it just because a few other clubs haven't listed their runner-up finishes yet. Thank you." Furthermore, the editors in question are being doubly inconsistent because, on the one hand, I hear "only list trophies"...but then my inclusion of the International Champions Cup and the Audi Cup trophies under "Honors" are being wrongly deleted. Certainly, a trophy in an international competition would qualify as an "honor," yes? Again, there is ample precedent here. If, for example, the Arsenal F.C. entry can list the very minor "Inter-Cities Fairs Cup" from 1970, we can include Tottenham winning the two biggest summer tournaments in the world these last two seasons. Please explain why you are choosing this one club entry in particular to selectively censor information that, as I have demonstrated, was in keeping in Wikipedia precedent. Thank you. [[User:|Realgonerocket88]] (talk) 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is only you who restored edits by four different editors, therefore it is you who is edit-warring (which is about the number of reverts by a single editor), no one will take your side if this is taken to the admin. Personally I think Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is not signficant (I would also say the same about Charity Shield), but it is considered a major honour by FIFA, so who am I to question it? And you only have to look at the number of international trophies not listed in the main article but listed under List of Arsenal F.C. records and statistics to see that your argument is wrong. However, I hold no opinion on listing runners-up, perhaps you can start a discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to get wider support for your position. Hzh (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: A few things...First, saying I am "edit-warring" because four people disagreed with me is an Argumentum ad populum fallacy, for which Wikipedia has an entry. I made my edits in good conscience per Wikipedia style and precedent, not to please other editors who apparently want to revise history. Second, UEFA, not FIFA, is the governing body of European competition, and UEFA does not recognize the Inter-Cities (which was dismissively called the Runners Up Cup). Also, the statement "FIFA does view the competition as a major honour" in that entry is not supported by the accompanying footnote, which merely mentions Barcelona winning those friendlies tournament and does not speak to whether it is a "major honour" (so that statement should be edited accordingly). Finally, Wikipedia itself has entries for both the International Champions Cup and the Audi Cup AND entries for each year listing the winner. So it's glaringly contradictory for Wikipedia to consider these lucrative, international tournaments major enough to maintain on-going entries, yet for then an editor to decide "Nope, not important enough for ME to include it." Thanks.(talk) 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant arguments. It's the number of reverts per editor that decides whether you are guilty of edit-warring, the others aren't edit-warring because they are not individually involved in many reverts. You can test it if you want, and we can take it to the admins to decide. Your argument that it should be included simply because it is an international competition is invalid because there are plenty that are not listed in your example of Arsenal. Others might give argument for why Inter-Cities Fairs Cup could be included, and you can take the argument to the Arsenal article, but it is entirely irrelevant here. You have to give better reason why Audi Cup or International Champions Cup should be included in the Tottenham article. Hzh (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh:Yes, I know I can file an appeal to admin and will if I must. I am trying to be a gentleman and help you understand that what you are saying goes against logic and -- I will say again, as you seem to keep avoiding this point -- the precedent of Wikipedia entries and editors themselves. I am providing entirely relevant arguments, not at all "irrelevant." I have one editor tell me (incorrectly and against Wikipedia precedent, as I have documented) that I can't list when a club lists silver medals in the biggest club competition in the world because he claims "only trophies" matter to him! But when I list two trophies the club DID win, you jump on me to say those trophies aren't important enough for you. Yet at the same time you deem the ICC and the Audi Cup unimportant, you defend the inclusion of a European competition that is not recognized by the governing body of European football. Facts. If you want to say the ICC is meaningless, then how did the ICC break the U.S. Soccer attendance record (documented by Forbes magazine just last week) and why did 10 of the world's biggest clubs just play in it this year? Look at the length of entry for the 2018 International Champions Cup that Tottenham won, which includes a considerable list of citations including from major media outlets such as ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Forbes, etc. And if the Audi Cup is irrelevant, why is it hosted annually by the 5-time European champions who are 3rd-ranked UEFA team per coefficient; why do they invite European powerhouses (Juventus, Real Madrid, Man Utd, e.g.) every year; why did ESPN and BBC (among others) cover it; and why has Wikipedia documented its history so carefully in its multiple, substantial entries? Furthermore, as you know - and I can speak to this with authority as I have worked in publishing for more than two decades - it is especially significant and newsworthy when a club achieves a distinction for the first time, as happened in EACH item that I added to the club's list of honors, which makes their inclusion all the more relevant and appropriate. So rather than just censoring my edits, perhaps you and your fellow censors should explain why you are so committed to making arbitrarily-based edits on a selective and contradictory basis for this one entry. I have supported my points abundantly. I ask that you remember Wikipedia exists not for 3 or 4 editors who want to selectively apply their personal judgments, but for the purpose of sharing factual information with the users. Thanks again. Realgonerocket88 (talk) 19 August 2019

It seems that you have misunderstood a lot of what has been said so far, and do not appear to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on editing. For example, what I said is not about appealing to the admins, but rather that if you keep reverting other people's edits, you may get blocked from editing by the admins. You should really read up first on the guidelines and policies in Wikipedia (there are many). There are also rough guidelines here on WP:FOOTBALL, for example on clubs Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs (you will see that the section on Honours is for major trophies, but second place may be added or omitted depending on whether there are too many entries (i.e. adding second place is something permitted under the style guide, however, whether to add them can be debated). A lot of things have been discussed before in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, perhaps you can ask there if International Champions Cup or Audi Cup can be consider major trophies. I don't think there is a lot to be gain for me to discuss further here since you appear not to know what is happening, I would just emphasize that if you keep adding the same thing repeatedly that other people have removed, you can get into trouble, therefore discuss first in the talk page mentioned. Hzh (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh:Hello. I just want to add a few things in closing:

First, can I ask that if you respond to me, please just send the message to my email address once, not four times in four minutes?

Second, as you seem to want to talk down to me with comments such as “you appear not to know what is happening,” I must point out this is not just impolite but baseless. I have edited and published more than 90 reference books, have a PhD in the English language, and have considerable experience in editing reference entries for the benefit of the user. I am professionally trained and experienced in selection criteria, and I take them seriously.

Third, yes, I realize Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on editing. For example:

1.. "’Go for it’. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, ADD FACTS [emphasis mine], make sure wording is accurate, etc.” -- That’s what I did.

2..”Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it.” -- That’s what I did.

3..”Be bold again, but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war.” -- This is what I attempted to do with you on this talk page.

In conclusion, I will point out that my edits were entirely in keeping with the “Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs” for which you yourself just sent me a link -- and which, I must point out, you misstate. It clearly says the “Honours” section is for “Achievements of the club including wins and second places.” The word "major" does not appear in that criterion; the guidelines here do not include the stipulation that the section is only for “major” trophies. The word "major" is only used specifically with regard to the suggestion that "For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." Even this is not stated as a rigid prohibition but rather offered as a suggestion for, one can reasonably assume, clubs such as Man U and Liverpool, who’ve won more doubles and trebles than most clubs have won titles--so adding second places to their lists would be unwieldy and overkill. Regardless, as you tell me I "appear not to know what is happening," I feel it is reasonable to point out that the guideline you cite here in fact supports the edit I attempted to make, and which was censored.

I have tried, and am still trying, to discuss this with users in Talk. (I also will gently point out that you wrote “You have to give better reason why Audi Cup or International Champions Cup should be included in the Tottenham article”; so I responded to you thusly with supporting evidence, which you then failed to acknowledge.) But if you don’t want to consider my points, then I agree there’s no point for me to discuss further here with you. My best of luck to you. Thanks. Realgonerocket88 (talk) 21 August 2019

April 2020

Hello, Realgonerocket88. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]