User talk:Daemonic Kangaroo/Archive-final

Welcome!

Hello, Daemonic Kangaroo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - Darwinek 21:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Saints players

Hey bud, thanks for the thanks... the thankses, I guess? Anyway, cheers, much appreciated; you're welcome. I recently bought the All the Saints book, so I'm going to be creating a number of early players' articles using the sources from the season articles also. Obviously, please feel free to edit these articles as well; I want to help you reach your stated goal of a page for every player! ;) Cheers mate. Andre666 (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it might be handy if you let me know if you're going to create a player article, just so we don't duplicate the work. I'm currently working on Frank Bromley now, then that'll be it until tomorrow. Andre666 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burke and Burkei

Hi Daemonic Kangaroo. Thanks for the thanks. Perhaps you can help with a curiosity of mine. Trying to figure out what the scientific name is for the "bi bulb"/ "bi plant"/ "bi! bulb"/ "bi! plant" of Namibia, I came across a number of possibilities, one of them a xxxxxx burkei. To triangualte, I looked for other species named burkei, in the apparently shortsighted belief that the botanist would have worked in a limited geographic area (with due exceptions for the fathers of botany who roamed the world in the early days - and by the way, I was amazed to read about David Burke and how wide an area he worked). My curiosity comes from finding non plant species bearing the name burkei - a fly, a beetle and a freshwater mussel. My question - are these named after the same Burke, or is there somebody else? A follow-on question - is there some kind of a table in WP that connects the scientific names to the people they were named after? Thanks and best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see there is a Joseph Burke, plant and animal collector, who worked in Southern Africa. He is most likely the one after whom african species bearing burkei as a name are named. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joleon Lescott

Hi there DK, AL "here",

being you a longtime English football follower (i reckon this), i ask of thee: what is your opinion on this player, who not long ago started and scored for England? Even a limping 33-year-old Argentine gets the best of him (you have to keep in mind he's a buddy of Manuel Pellegrini!), really really strange, my opinion is he does not play more because he's English, period, but would like to hear your trusted (to me input (is there a dramatic loss of form, problems with coach, etc? Cannot be age, as Demichelis is TWO years older).

I found absolutely despicable what teams like City are doing, with the most absolute loathing (the proper word, nothing more, nothing less) for national players. Problem is, if they don't win the league, Arsenal or Chelsea will (former has the fun fact that, being also a Foreign Legion-type team, who are the most injury-ridden players for them last years? Gibbs, Walcott and Wilshere, and now Chamberlain seems to be "learning the trade" too; latter managed by my "charming" compatriot). Your Southampton is a breath of fresh air in the PL, with only a few exceptions (Aston Villa or West Ham maybe).

All in all, i'd really like to know your footballing input on Lescott (Micah Richards i know his story more or less, has had a bad run with injuries in the last years), the rest maybe it's just me ranting about after seeing the state of football in my country and overall (just check the roster of any Primeira Liga and Segunda Liga club to see what i mean, nothing wrong with six, seven or eight imports per club, but twenty?) :)

Wish you a very happy and invigorating break, "see" you --AL (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste! --AL (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FoxesTalk

Re:Frank Worthington and others; as far as I can tell this is not a WP:RS and is being spammed, hence my removal. Giant Snowman 13:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but you have restored to a broken URL. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, got caught up in my mass reversal of the addition of the link, I didn't notice on a few pages it was already present. However, I intend to remove completely later. @Struway2:, this is what happened at Muzzy Izzet. Giant Snowman 17:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Replying here for convenience, hope DK doesn't mind. If links to that site have been mass-added, then I won't question their mass removal, but I will comment on its potential as an EL for players whose career pre-dates Soccerbase coverage in whole or part.

When the link was first added at Muzzy Izzet, my instinctive reaction was to remove it as just another fansite. However, when I looked at it, the statistical part actually does add value, specifically a full list of appearances/goals. For pre-Soccerbase players, that's informative, and its inclusion as an EL might well be justifiable in specific cases under WP:ELYES point 3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due ... amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics...", and WP:ELMAYBE point 4 (making clear that ELs don't need to be RS): "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources".

As it's AFAIK not RS, we can't use it to source entries in a career stats table, but I don't see why such a site couldn't be added as an EL to appropriate articles on an individual basis. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article has been spammed by Marklcfc (talk · contribs), whose only edits have been to add or edit this link. I don't think this should be used as an EL either, these player profiles simply form part of a Leicester City fan's forum (albeit it a good-looking, well-produced one), and so seems to fall foul of WP:ELNO #10 ("chat or discussion forums/groups") as well as arguably ELNO #1 (Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article"). I will hold off removing entirely while this discussion is ongoing. Giant Snowman 18:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statistical pages form a major part of a Leicester City fansite one of whose other major parts is a forum, certainly. But the links don't go to the forum, they go to the player profiles. If we eliminated linking to any site with a forum, or even just eliminated linking to any site where the forum is a major part of the site, the average football-related article would shrink quite sharply. These days, most online newspaper reports have half a mile of moronic reader comments at the bottom, and those are on the actual page we're linking to, not just on another part of the same site. As to ELNO#1, a full apps/goals list is clearly beyond what we could expect a footballer article to contain, but it's also clearly within the compass of what may be relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, which is presumably why professional athlete stats are given as an example in ELYES#3. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But reader's comments are not what we are using as a source, they are completely irrelevant to the content that Wikipedia cares about. Who is creating/maintaining these player stats? Where are they sourced from? What benefit does it bring to the article? Giant Snowman 19:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't know. Presumably a Leicester fan interested in their club's players' stats. 2. I don't know. Presumably from a book, or from ENFA. 3. The same benefit as an EL to any statistical source brings to an article: so that the reader can find out the player's stats that we don't include in the article. TBH, I'd be more likely to trust the figures produced by a well used fansite, where the compiler is likely to actually care about and take an interest in the accuracy of their stats and where mistakes are likely to be corrected, than the likes of the laughably RS Soccerbase, who still tell us that the 11-year-old Simon Wormull played in the 1988 UEFA Cup Final. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced to be honest, but I'm happy to leave the existing links as they are. Giant Snowman 21:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely correctly links that were broken. Now they have either been removed or showing the previous broken link. My stats are more accurate than any other website.foxestalk.co.uk (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)marklcfc[reply]

Message

Hi, I received a message that you have thanked me for helping out with the Southampton FC article. It's no problem. Glad to be of help. Thank you. Red Cervelli (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Football League clubs

The category says at the top that it is all clubs past and present. But the category consists almost entirely of current clubs, with a few who have recently left (eg Barnet, Aldershot, Hull, Crystal P), missing a few who have just joined/returned (QPR, Reading, Mansfield). If it really is supposed to be all the clubs then it is an appallingly incomplete, missing nearly all the current Premier League clubs, who were all Football League clubs once, and the many many many clubs who have dropped out (eg Luton, Hereford, Glossop to name just a few). Either way there is clearly something very wrong with the category as it is at the minute. In any case, there is a separate Category:Former Football League Clubs for those who have left. Whatever, someone needs to figure out what the category is supposed to be and amend it accordingly, because at present it seems like no-one has any idea what the category is supposed to be and its contents aren't correct under any definition. Oh, and you reverted my edits putting QPR, Reading and Mansfield back into the category, but they obviously should be in it regardless of whether it is current or all time clubs, so maybe in future you should actually look at an edit before you revert it. The- (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all - sorry for incorrectly reverting your edits on QPR, Reading and Mansfield. I just assumed that, because the edit on Southampton was wrong, all your edits at the same time were wrong. Mea culpa. My understanding of the basic structure of categories is that once an article belongs to a category, it stays there permanently. Thus, we don't have a Category:Former Premier League clubs. IMHO, the Category:Former Football League clubs should be deleted and all its contents moved back up to the Category:Football League clubs. The separate Category:Defunct Football League clubs should be retained, as long as it only includes defunct clubs who had once been in The Football League. I am copying this discussion to WT:FOOTY. Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malaya vs Indonesia (1977 Pre-World Cup)

Hello, when a PROD is removed for whatever reason it must then go to AfD. I've sent Malaya vs Indonesia (1977 Pre-World Cup) to AfD for deletion now. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dailymail

You know, I used Dailymail as a reliable source for a long time before I was continuously reverted saying it's a tabloid and not a RS. Can you point to where it says it is a RS just so I can point it out the next time lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Harry Burrard, 1st Baronet of Lymington

The mistake was in the edit comment not the edit! So would you like to undo your reverts? The reason is that it is desirable is that as a Bart his title Sir ought to be include in the link hi-light when the mouse pointer is moved over it. -- PBS (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford School

First, may I thank you for being so civil and polite. You're the first person from Wikipedia with whom I've had any dealings who's been anything more than ill-mannered and uncivilised. I will indeed place footnotes for every single Notable Old Bedfordian. I was told to do this a week ago and I've been putting it off. I've been working on this article since November, giving up every spare minute to it. I was putting off footnoting for as long as I possibly could. But I'll start this weekend. Many thanks and have a very good weekend.

Gastón Ramírez

Sorry, typo, fixed! Giant Snowman 19:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Silence and consensus

Please read WP:SILENCE. I now take it that your reverts are a sign of disagreement, but you really need to address my concerns on the talk page, because without doing that, I have grounds to remove the content again. At the moment, it just seems like you're being disruptive. – Pee Jay 13:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is this vandalism? I expressed my opinions regarding the section on the article's talk page at the end of February, and since there was no opposition to my suggestion that the section should be deleted, I did just that. Now you're telling me that you just didn't see the thread I started on the talk page despite reverting me so quickly that I have no choice but to assume that you must have the article on your watchlist? Instead of getting all pouty about a section you're clearly quite precious about, why not actually address my concerns, or at least give me a vague reason why I've got it all wrong? Otherwise you're the one who's vandalising by re-adding content that really has no place in an encyclopaedia. – Pee Jay 21:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]