User talk:RayCee1

False claim of 'prejudice'
It is not remotely clear how referring to 50 as 'many' is supposedly 'prejudicial'. Perhaps you will engage at the article's Talk page to address your concerns.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

My reasoning
The reason for my concern was that the list of nations I checked has overwhelmingly nations that no one would question as such. Some of the 50 you mentioned ( I haven't counted) are to my knowledge of nations acceptable as separate listings in their own right. As a couple of examples Niue is accepted in New Zealand as an independent state and Serbia may dispute Kosovo's independence but we aren't supposed to be judging what constitutes an independent nation. The total list of nations is extensive and taking away some of the unnecessary references to some not being independent, it makes for a small percentage of the total list. Therefore the word 'many' is inaccurate, whereas what I suggested 'some' is a far more accurate representation of the facts. Your insistence on 'many' came across to me as to your bearing some sort of prejudice, by wishing to make something look far more more extreme than it was. If it was just an opinion based on how you saw it, then I apologise for the inference. However, the word many is not accurate as I see it. RayCee1 (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're just wrong. Based on what are recognised as 'countries' by the UN, there's about 50 in the list that are not 'countries'. '50' is reasonably recognised as 'many', beyond the typical usage of 'some', 'several', or 'a few'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Dictionary definition of 'Many' and 'Some'
Many: A large number of people, things, places etc.

Some: Used for emphasizing that you are talking about a fairly large amount of something or a fairly large number of people or things. We’ve been waiting here for some time already. He left Cranfield some years ago and hasn’t been heard of since. It took some courage to speak out against her employer."
 * Your chosen 'definition' of 'some' gets a total of 6 unique hits on Google, and isn't from an especially authoritative source. The ultimate source is the Macmillan Dictionary, a fairly minor dictionary, and it isn't even that dictionary's primary definition of 'some', nor is it related to the sense used in the article you're trying to use it in. Your chosen definition is in reference to 'some' in the sense of 'we've been here for some time', and not at all in the sense of 'there are some countries'."3 used for emphasizing that you are talking about a fairly large amount of something or a fairly large number of people or things
 * Quite dishonest.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I come to Wiki to get accurate, unbiased articles. There is too little of that around. When I read the article, I had no problem with the point being made, but felt it was over emphasised. Once something comes across as over emphasised, it raises doubt about the integrity of the article and objectivity of the author. That is how it made me feel.

As for the reference, it came up very early in the Google search. I wonder what the authors of that site would think if told their efforts were not especially authoritative. The definition was hardly controversial yet you chose to attack the source and then throw in 'dishonest' for good measure. My contact with Wiki has been as a reader and very occasional minor contributor. If your attitude is reflective of the culture at Wiki, I will in future make no corrections as dealing with the likes of you isn't worth the trouble.
 * It was indeed dishonest to provide a 'definition' in an attempt to make 'some' seem like 'many' when that definition is used in an entirely different context. I'm fairly certain that the publishers of a dictionary that started in 2002 are quite aware that there are more authoritative dictionaries around the world, but since even that source has the primary definition of 'some' first, it's not even relevant, and their 'feelings' aren't my concern anyway. Of course, I didn't actually 'attack' that source at all, and that dictionary's secondary use of 'some' is of course also presented in other dictionaries, and I already provided that dictionary's usage of your chosen definition of 'some' to show clearly that it was your use of that definition that was poor, and not some 'indictment' on the publishers of that work. If the biggest element of 'bias' you can find in the article is that it refers to 50 'lands' as 'many', then the article is doing very well indeed, and the rest of the 'article' is just statistics from JW source material, so it's not really clear how the 'objectivity' or 'integrity' would be further called into question anyway.
 * I'm not terribly swayed by your decision to leave, which seems like an irrelevant appeal to sentiment. Stay or go. Edit articles on this subject or different subjects. Entirely up to you. It actually looks as though you were actually a fairly frequent editor in 2016, and you may enjoy continuing to contribute to those articles. Best of luck in your endeavours.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Rugby league attendances
Hi, where do you get the attendances from for the super League matches? I've checked the match reports for all matches, but can't find any attendances. Could you add them? Thanks.

L1amw90 (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)