This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mosmof (talk | contribs) at 05:45, 12 February 2015 (→February 2015). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:45, 12 February 2015 by Mosmof (talk | contribs) (→February 2015)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archives |
NYCFC
Shouldn't the team nick name come from the fans? Because that's how teams get their nick names — Preceding unsigned comment added by Only1bigc (talk • contribs) 18:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 26 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Robbie Rogers page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Liverpool FC
Hi Mosmof, Could i just inquire about the reasons as to why you constantly remove my contributions to the 'rivalries' section Liverpool FC page? You did say it was my POV but It's actually a factual account complete with (though incorrectly inserted) cited reference. The overall section on the rivalries is miss leading to the casual reader as it is, as there really should be a 'citation needed' insert at the end of the "rivalry intensified after Manchester Utd became the first English team to win a European cup" line. To say Liverpool's four European cup wins coincided with their domination of English football is a fact bore out by their Honours list in the same article aswell as my referenced add-on. I do think the overall section is miss leading to the casual reader without it.Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for leaving a message. My thinking is that "domination" is a little bit of a peacock term and the reader would be served better by simply stating the numbers (and looking at that passage again, I should probably edit the part about Manchester United "dominating" English football as well.
- FYI, this edit broke the formatting on the page - when you have a line break followed by a period, it messes up the rest of the line.
- Again, thanks - let me know if my latest edit works for you. Mosmof (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for the prompt response and the appropriate re-editing.Also apologies for the mix-up with the format. Just one more point, i do also feel the line mentioned about the rivalry intensifying in the 60's after Manchester Utd's European cup win is also a little dubious and slightly miss-leading to the casual reader. I do feel if this is the case then it either needs a citation or i could reference claims that the rivalry actually intensified in the 1970's after Liverpool started their successful period with their first of their eleven league titles in that period. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 18:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Coop City
Coop City is not a police force, just look at their own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.136.236.207 (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing indicating they're not a private police force. In fact, their badge features the words "N.Y. POLICE" and their Twitter handle is titled "Co-Op City Police" and its website features a logo with the word "community policing at its finest". So yeah, if we go by their own description, CC Public Safety is indeed a police force. Mosmof (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Question regarding citing sources
What is the best way to cite information if it is from a book, which I can't find as an e-book to be read online? Is it better off just to leave off wiki if that's the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.227.50 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 31 January 2015
- Books are certainly welcome - you can read more about citing sources at WP:CITE (this section will show you what information to include), and the {{Cite book}} template is useful for organizing the source information. Also, sometimes (but not always), you can use books.google.com to link to specific pages in books. Hope this helps. Mosmof (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Pablo Aimar
Hi there MOSMOF, from Portugal,
I have started a WP:FOOTY I discussion, I am 99,99999999999% sure that what you and the other user are doing in this article is wrong (if you link a WP article more than once it's overlinking, period), but let's wait for more opinions.
Also, if you two were correct, why wikilink only River Plate and not the other club from Malaysia? And I don't see the need to write "free agent" in the introduction because the box will already tell you that. Don't worry I won't remove it again, a bit tired of pointless edit wars, it stays your way.
Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Turns out you are right about WP:OVERLINKING, though it's a guideline that seems to be rarely put into practice. As for your point about "free agent" not being needed because it's in the infobox, the problem is that if you apply your logic, we'd be removing a lot more information from the lede that's redundant with the infobox - name, date of birth, clubs he's played for, etc. That the lede duplicates a lot of the information isn't a problem - the point of the introduction is to summarize the content in the article body, and the infobox just gives an overview of the player's career. They serve different, albeit overlapping, purposes. Mosmof (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
February 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Liverpool F.C. may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Total titles won (1871–present)]] have won more European trophies than any other English team]] with five ], three ] and
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miami MLS stadium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miami River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
February 2015
This is despite me clearly putting in a credible independent source that contradicts him? Kingjeff (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- You read the message and understand how WP:3RR works, yes? And your source and the IP's source aren't necessarily contradictory. Mosmof (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Of course I do. But I don't consider his source a credible source. Kingjeff (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Then you have a disagreement that's not going to be solved by edit-warring. Mosmof (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- That was actually going to be my next post on the ip's talk page. Since, you're online, do you mind if you look at this AfD? Kingjeff (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've made an edit which uses both sources - Bild (or at least people translating from German) calls it "demotion", HSV says "he's getting extra match action". The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.
- As for the AfD, yeah, I think it's a clear delete, though it looks like whoever edited tried their best. Mosmof (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- That was actually going to be my next post on the ip's talk page. Since, you're online, do you mind if you look at this AfD? Kingjeff (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Then you have a disagreement that's not going to be solved by edit-warring. Mosmof (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Of course I do. But I don't consider his source a credible source. Kingjeff (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)