Talk:Rab Howell

Birth year
Just a note to explain the IP addition in the infobox of a query with the birth year of Raby Howell. Both external links, to Liverpool information on the player, quote a birth year of 1869 though the GRO Index entry for birth registrations has a birth entry in the December quarter of 1867. Have not located any other information to support either year. Keith D (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying to correct all the rubbish on this page but you keep stopping me. It is getting really frustrating. I have spent years researching Rab and you just keep going on about verifiable sources. The published information is just wrong: much of the club's information is based on hearsay rather than the original documents. What better source of information on his birth and death than his birth and death certificates! This is getting ridiculous. If a published book gets it wrong is that a better source for Wikipedia than the original document: that is nonsense not historical accuracy. I have put nothing in from unreliable sources or from personal opinion. For example on his name: why use the idle speculation from a book that his name derives from Robert? He was Romani: Rabbi is an Old Testament name: means "teacher" - Romanis used Old Testament names. It clearly has nothing to do with Robert. Why disallow that change? It is disrespectful to Romani people as much as anything. There is no evidence that the goals were blatant. I've have checked all original sources and cited the strongest: the contemporary match report and still you block it. Why? You discredit Wikipedia by doing this. I'll change it back once more: if you have a problem can you e-mail me and discuss this properly: stevek1889@gmail.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveK1889 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , what is a WP:Reliable source regarding this or this material you added, which is also detail that I reverted? Do read the WP:Reliable source guideline, and adhere to it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

What better source than the original birth and death certificates! If you want to see the birth certificate have a look at: http://www.theevergreen.co.uk/#!born-in-a-tent/cqrm. This really is nonsense. I can send you a copy of the death cert too if you really are interested in fact and not being deliberately obstructive of the truth. I have changed nothing controversial and can have no other motive than ensuring Wikipedia get this right surely?


 * (last time pinging you to this talk page via WP:Echo because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies)... First of all, you had better not revert my post again, as you did here; you do not have to revert someone's post just so you can post. Reverting my post is also against the WP:Talk guideline. Therefore, as seen in that diff-link, I reverted you on that. As for the theevergreen.co.uk, that does not look like a WP:Reliable source. You didn't even read the WP:Reliable source guideline, did you? The scholarly source that I reverted to is the better source by Wikipedia standards, if it supports what it's backed to in the article. It seems that it's time to take this matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I have read it, yes. But if what you call a reliable source is wrong and has clearly drawn on inaccurate sources itself rather than original sources such as birth certificates and death certificates which do you believe. The sources you refer not are not scholarly, they are just plain old inaccurate. I am no expert on the ins and outs of wikipedia I'll admit that but I know about Rabbi Howell and am honestly trying to help you get this right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveK1889 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems the only way to get a response from you Wikipedia patrollers is to do an edit. So I'll have another go. I am doing this for the best of reasons, I assure you: I know my subject and don't want to see you publishing untruths about Rab. I don't know what else to do; all the Wikipedia rules seem arcane: I am sure they are there for good reason, but they are beyond me. You can see who I am: I am not hiding behind some anonymous avatar name. I have no ulterior motive and nothing to gain, but it seems I am just wasting my time and you would rather publish inaccuracies. If there is something else I need to do to get these corrections accepted please let me know. Regards, SteveSteveK1889 (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That is not the way to get a response, and all you are doing is frustrating me, similar to how I am frustrating you. WP:Edit warring is not the answer, and is likely to get you WP:Blocked. You are not truly listening to what I am stating. We go by Wikipedia's rules. I already pointed you to a WP:Dispute resolution process -- the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. That is where you should make your case on this matter since no one else is yet chiming in on this matter. It should not be up to me to take the case there. It's not my WP:Burden. In fact, I might simply take this article off my WP:Watchlist. I only came across it because I was using the WP:STiki tool. Flyer22 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made changes again because I can'f seem to get the Wikipedia patrollers to respond otherwise. I have no axe to grind and am not hiding behind an anonymous avatar name you can see who I am. I am doing this because i do not wish to see you publishing mistakes, some of which are disrespectful to Romani people. I know my subject. I have met Rab's granddaughter and researched this carefully. My changes rely on original source documents: birth and death certificates and contemporary press reports. The published books are wrong on this. I am struggling with what appear to be arcane procedures on Wikipedia. Apologies if I breach protocol. I am just trying to help you with the truth. Hopefully you can see that. If there is something else I need to do to get this accepted please let me know. I have wasted enough time on this trying to help you. If you are not interested in getting this right please let me know too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveK1889 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I already replied to you above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I said I couldn't follow the arcane procedures; I thought my message had been lost. I've deleted the repeat. I haven't got hours to waste trying to figure out all these complex procedures. It really is not worth while helping Wikipedia if that is the rigmarole you have to go through. As I said I have nothing to gain from this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveK1889 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I hate to tell you this, but sometimes it takes days, even weeks, for consensus to develop on a complex edit.
 * That said, one of the fundamental issues is that Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources. We prefer a source written about the subject rather than a statement by the subject or a primary document like a birth certificate. That said, contemporary press reports are secondary sources, but the issue becomes quality of the source. Which is more reliable, a book published after extensive research, or a newspaper story that has to meet a deadline? The newspaper story might be more accurate, but that's a matter for editors to discuss and reach a conclusion on.
 * Finally, bear in mind that in most cases, when an edit is made, the burden of proof is on the editor changing the page to prove their material. Thus, it was best practice for your edits to be reverted. Per the bold edit-revert-discuss model of editing, you made a bold edit, and it was reverted, so now we're in the discussion phase. —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * SteveK1889, I apologize for having gotten too stern and snippy with you. I have to always remember that editing Wikipedia is usually confusing for WP:Newbies. I should know; I was clearly a WP:Newbie as well before. I'll take the matter at hand to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard soon. Maybe in an hour or two. I will then alert you when I have, via WP:Echo there. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I do just want you to get this right, and for the right reasons. And for Rab's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveK1889 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I took the matter to the aforementioned noticeboard: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So what happens now: can I just edit the page to show the correct version? Or will someone still try and block me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.124.145 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I just remembered this matter, and reverted the same poor edits, per Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 181. There was never any WP:Consensus for that material, . What happens now is that the poor and unsourced edits stay out of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And it's ridiculous that all of that material was allowed to stay in this article for months. I hadn't taken this article off my WP:Watchlist, but I'd somehow missed the re-addition of that material. Flyer22 (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)