User talk:Uris/Perhaps you can come help...
Perhaps you can come help...
[edit]As we've been working on the United States men's national soccer team page for awhile, user Panairjdde has been pushing his pov. Perhaps you can come over and take a look at the "projected changes" that we were discussing....mainly about how many consecutive world cups the usa has qualified for. He keeps reverting it to his pov, i'm curious as to what you think about it. Batman2005 16:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, do it. I asked for a third part opinion, but I had to work with Batman, with whom I have problems of incompatibility, it seems.--Panairjdde 16:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Panairjdde, I looked at the edits he was talking about and you really were just trolling, which you seem to admit on the Talkpage. I had to revert pretty far back to the bot this morning before people started inserting "football" for "soccer" in the US-centric article and other such questionable edits. I admire your enthusiasm for the sport, but not for trolling on the US team's article. We know we aren't the most successful soccer (football) country in the world, but that's no reason to pick on the article so much. Uris 16:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Uris, why do you think that I am trolling, and where did I admit I was doing this? When you answered my points, we settle most of the matter: you conceded the point about the Colombia match, and I conceded the one about attendance record. All I want is that someone admits that a ranking based on WC qualifications is meaningless. I got no aswer on this. Notice that changed the USmnst page only after a debate with Batman in which he kept ignoring my point, the one about the value of this ranking.--Panairjdde 16:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Panairjdde, I looked at the edits he was talking about and you really were just trolling, which you seem to admit on the Talkpage. I had to revert pretty far back to the bot this morning before people started inserting "football" for "soccer" in the US-centric article and other such questionable edits. I admire your enthusiasm for the sport, but not for trolling on the US team's article. We know we aren't the most successful soccer (football) country in the world, but that's no reason to pick on the article so much. Uris 16:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is, it's not a ranking. It was stating that it was a longer streak than some traditional powers in the sport, not ranking the US team ahead of those teams. Now it's saying that the streak is eclipsed by only so-and-so teams. It isn't stating that the team is ranked 7th in the world because it has the 7th longest streak. It's just showing that the string of qualifications is a significant achievement, particularly in light of NOT qualifying 9 straight times prior to that. Uris 16:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- If the five-qualifications-in-a-row is not used as a "ranking", then why it is said that it is better that England/France/Mexico or worse than Brazil/Argentina/Germany? (Better and worse, or similar words, were used in the notes, if memoery doesn't fail me Such a statement implies the possibility of a comparison, since I can apply it (as it was in all of the versions proposed by Batman) to all teams, and therefore promotes an implicit "ranking"; don't you agree with me? (Thanks for the civil answer.) --Panairjdde 16:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- The only "worse" mentioned was that a "worse" team could qualify while a "better" team does not, which you are in agreement with. So no, it's really not stating that the teams are ranked by their consecutive appearances. Uris 17:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)