User talk:FMPR

Djeziri has left? To what club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth107 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 May 2008

Do you know any information on this Hassani bloke? I think his name is Ali, but I don't know his nationality or anything else about him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth107 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 10 May 2008

May & June 2008
I wrote to you 30 days ago, as follows:
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Portsmouth F.C., did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. It's quite possible that you know as much more than i about PFC, as i know more than than you do about Wikipedia. Take a look at Johnny Come Lately, as i infer you have not yet done; i know it should not exist, but i need help deciding whether its content should be merged or trashed, and that is the purpose of the note saying
 * It has been suggested that Johnny Come Lately be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)
 * -- to get your (and others') no doubt valuable input, which your reversion interfered with. If you don't care to discuss it, you're still going to have to let the banner stand while others do so. Thanks, and i hope to hear more from you. --Jerzy•t 11:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Without making any comment on Talk:Johnny Come Lately, the target of the "Discuss" lk in the msg i left you, you reverted a second time, at 19:00, 31 May 2008, with the edit summary
 * Every club has a new influx of fans when succesful, is there a JCL tab on each club? Thought not

And at 19:03, 31 May 2008, you then removed the personal message i had left you, without even an edit summary. While your roughly 20 edits before (and your roughly 10 since) make you a newcomer, and prone to errors, For those reasons, i am escalating the warning inherent in my original msg here. Do not rely on your own judgment as to when this matter is sufficiently closed that this discussion may be consigned to an archive of your talk page. Please stop your disruptive editing; if it continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I want you to be aware of the effect of your previous action: instead of a discussion ensuing on Talk:Portsmouth F.C., which presumably would have resulted in the timely removal of Johnny Come Lately, it hung around for 15 days until nominated it for speedy deletion "because [it was a] minor term used by any british team where fans turn up due to success" and deleted an hour or so later. I hold you personally responsible for that degradation in the quality of WP; that is trivial in the sense that the contribution of any individual in a project this size is; how trivial it is on the scale of your overall contribution here is another matter, which may concern you more than it does me. BTW (at the risk of beating what should by now be a dead horse), i would be guessing if i pretended to have any idea why you mean by "a JCL tab" (beyond that JCL stands for Johnny Come Lately, topic of the now deleted article from which this matter sprang). I went so far as to look at WP:TAB, which turns out to be short for How to use tables. The small (single word or symbol) rectangular projections on the top of the main box, generated by the MediaWiki S/W (at least using the default "MonoBook" skin) on (AFAIK) every WP page, are often called tabs, but they, the Tab constructs in the GUI of browsers for selecting among several pages of interest in a single browser window, and the TAB key all seem irrelevant. --Jerzy•t 23:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC) You replied at my talk: I'll reply pointwise to those 5 brief 'graphs: --Jerzy•t 20:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) the unconstructiveness of the first reversion is a simple fact;
 * 2) you knew or should have known, especially as a newcomer, that your unilateral decision to dismiss a presumably more experienced colleague's judgment was uncooperative and reckless;
 * 3) having been informed in such detail of a perceived problem, you should have taken care to note the obvious implication of the coincident language of the Discuss link, my focus on the word discuss, and the "discussion" link on a tab on every non-special page, on one hand, and on the other the contrasting notations (emphasis added)
 * Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made):
 * on the edit-summary pane, and thus -- for two reasons -- not to have been satisfied with treating your sarcastic and otherwise un-collegial comment in the edit history (which is not intended for dialogues) as adequate to close discussion;
 * 1) no one can make a half dozen edits on WP without being aware that every article is a work in progress, and it is well established that what is absent or present elsewhere cannot rule out the opposite being appropriate for a given article;
 * 2) in this specific case, the question is not whether there are more "Johnny come latelies" at Portsmouth than at other clubs, but whether the use of that specific term for them is a notable institution there, relative to other aspects of PFC whether or not relative to other clubs; you should not necessarily be expected to foresee that distinction, but only to foresee that you would be reckless in assuming (as you did) that you could foresee all relevant distinctions and therefore unilaterally close discussion after your had been exhorted not to;
 * 3) the focus of interest on one club and its players (which your contribs suggest) is no excuse for disrupting your colleagues' work: our efforts to integrate it properly with related articles (including removal of articles that claim to be related and notable, but aren't) reflect awareness of the necessity, to the value that the online world has shown it puts on WP, of the article's prolific site-internal linking (and those of virtually all other articles);
 * 4) your removal of my previous contrib on this sparsely used talk page could serve no purposes other than clouding the record, obstructing further discussion, or concealing the appearance of shortcomings as a colleague, especially since a far more appropriate and effective  response to guidance you disagree with is to offer the community who encounter it here with a collegial rebuttal following it as closely as possible without placing it inside a colleague's signed contribution.
 * Jerzy got your message. Johnny Come lately as I said in my response is a tag which would be put on every club that is successful. Has that discussion been put on every club page? Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea etc You say I am disruptively editing the PFC page, when In fact I am correcting it. I have substantially more knowledge of what going on at Portsmouth than 99.9% of fans so I leave it entirely in your hands. Ban me if you wish but it is to your detriment not mine. I need not reveal my sources for such info and correct it as I see fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FMPR (talk • contribs) 14:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Thanks for the response, which is the more welcome for the preceding difficulties.
 * 2) (Re the expression and other clubs:)
 * Yes, you were clear that every club has "Johnny come latelies", but whether there are such (or even whether they are called that at every club) is not relevant to this situation. (It sounds as if by "tab", you meant "tag" in the sense of what WP'ians often include under the heading of tags, namely the markup that produces a box like the one proposing the merge.) I have to believe that if you had taken either that "tag" or my message as more than annoyances, you'd have understood then, let alone now, what each is about: not whether WP should discuss Portsmouth Jcls, but (in light of the fact that it did at that point) whether it really should do so in a separate article. (Your participation in such a discussion would have been welcome and useful, even if your thrust were along the lines of "This discussion begs the question of whether JCL is notable, anywhere; let's widen the topic and consider the fact that Jcls show up when fortunes improve, and are sneered at, and there's nothing worth saying about them. Let's get an admin, like that wanker Jerzy, to just speedy-delete JCL, or if necessary put it on AfD". An argument that the question is being begged is probably always in order; your solution of stealing the answer is always a problem.)  Your rhetorical question surely insinuates that discussions such as i sought are (at best) rare, re UK-team article pages, and i don't contest that. But i have two reasons why it bears little on this matter:
 * The question is not what has been done on comparable pages, but rather (assuming they are indeed comparable, in relevant aspects) what is an improvement. Propagation of improvements is a good thing, whether they are the minority or majority case, and since WP is always a work in process, improvements are often a minority among comparable cases; since everyone is their own assignment editor here, that may sometimes persist for a long time.
 * Even when someone has a great idea with wider applicability, and is willing to commit to personally ensuring its full implementation, they are likely to be wise to make one page a pilot project: if they've got an appropriate level of humility, they know they may have overlooked a crucial objection, and even if they are dead on about it, it will be helpful to have at hand the evidence that the objections have, in the context of the pilot, already been adequately discussed and met.
 * 1) If Johnnies Come Lately talks about Arsenal FC fans, and Johnny come lately about Manchester United, then you can go there and seek deletion of the respective Jcl articles on the basis that a one-edit IP and one admin agreed that Johnny Come Lately met CSD. Since you strangled the discussion in its cradle, that paltry evidence is all that's available, so you'd have to be careful not to overreach in your claims that they should obviously go.
 * 2) I've never doubted that your intention was to improve the article; what i said was that you were reckless (as opposed to merely bold) in those efforts. In fact, nothing on Portsmouth F.C. was incorrect, even tho (like a highway with closed lanes and detours) it was a work in progress and cluttered with the paraphernalia of improving it -- or, in this case, improving an adjacent part of the whole structure. It'd be nice if the A4 were never tarnished by the improvements needed on the roads that cross it, and if Portsmouth F.C. were never cluttered with a notice about the stupid Johnny Come Lately page, but that's not the kind of sub-world that either our road systems or WP amount to. So in this case, your effort to, i guess, clean up the appearance of the page for the sake of immediately uncluttered content, did disrupt WP; the article does not exist in a vacuum, appealing tho that would likely be to many editors who have no interest in the project as a whole. That doesn't make such editors bad people, but if they don't eventually move toward at least tolerance of, and adaptation to, the larger mission and the constraints it imposes, they aren't likely to work out here.
 * 3) (1. Expertise; 2. Resources & sanctions; 3. Sourcing.)
 * 4) It would be hard not to respect your presumed knowledge, tho i am light-years from being able to perceive it; my main opinion abt that football is primarily that it is a lot less stupid than baseball (except in the area of avoiding brain trauma). As to whose hands the matter's in, i can't tell if you're saying you've done everything you can/will or that you appreciate the limitations of your situation, and fortunately for the prospects of the relationship between you and the project, i don't need to.
 * 5) No one wants you temporarily blocked, let alone banned, but on the other hand the criteria for acceptable editing are about behavior and not knowledge. I'll be surprised if i ever discover an admin who thinks subject expertise can trump those standards.
 * 6) Encyclopedias are neither blogs nor scholarly research. They organize established knowledge. You are welcome to add what you know without giving your sources; you should expect that some of your colleagues will look for reliable verification of the purported facts and add footnotes providing that verification if found, some of them will add fact tags if they don't find the verification, and some will add the fact tags (even if they assume its true, or even verifiable) without searching for verification, in order to make them more readily visible to editors who like doing that part of the research and editing. I'm pointing out to you now that removing fact tags without adding verification is disruptive editing, and doing so when the fact tags are about facts you've added yourself is an aggravated form of that offense. I'm also pointing out to you now that rumors are the opposite of reliable verification, and advising you to discuss specifics with an admin or other clearly seasoned editor before citing anything that looks at all like a blog.

Pandor
Sorry, I've go no information on him. Only from what I've seen on the OS. I'm not even 100% sure he's French. There was another lad, Stowell, who played in Scandanavia who I've not seen or heard mentioned before as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth107 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)