User talk:Thatstheway

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Thatstheway! Thanks for creating the David Bergamini article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience: And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: &#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;. Best of luck, Thatstheway, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the New contributors' help page, the Wikipedia Tutorial and the Manual of Style, and If you still need any help, you can always post your question at the Help Desk.
 * When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia and Assume good faith, but please keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
 * Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
 * Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

Song Lyrics
Hi Thatstheway, and welcome to Wikipedia,

As you will probably notice, the lyrics you added to Stairway to Heaven were removed by another editor. All song lyrics are normally copyrighted and should not be reporduced on Wikipedia. Could we ask you to refrain from adding further lyrics to songs please? Thanks for your consideration. Candy 07:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

CWC2007
1st of this is not a thread, get it right. You have to learn more about wiki rules before blasting at people. Be polite, there is no challenging people here at wiki. Your addition can be added when it is critised by people who's cricket related or big. Adding random peoples oppinion is not allowed in wiki, NPOV means no point of view, it has to be fact. Although you can add peoples point of view if they are big to the related issue, random people is not big. And yes your corrected wikipeadia is edited by random people but at the same time random people can not add their oppinions to it. Even if oppinions were to be added, it would be like "according to who ever this this this". And that oppinion would have to be from someone important. If you added critisms from cricket personals, its perfectly fine. Just like in the champions trophy article it says something like Wisden said the icc trophy was a waiste of time; well thats pov but Wisden is important. Everyone's opinion is valid but wikipedia is an encylopedia and isn't the place for random people's pov to be expressed. I don't take offence from contructive critisms at all, right now I'm worked through alot of constructive critisms to get a article to FA. And yes, I was ignoranant at the time, because I was new to the site, just like you. But I'm learning the rules and so should you, one of them is no personal attacks which you did right there.--Thugchildz

Response: Well, let's start by confirming that what I said wasn't a personal attack, I merely used your own words to suggest why you deleted my work. Who do you define as important? Aren't cricket fans important? Where do you draw the line? Why is Wisden allowed to say something but a normal fan isn't? The addition was written from a neutral perspective, and simply stated the fact that some people have disagreed with it. I challenged your deletion of my work when it complimented the article and did nothing to defame any person or contributor to either Wikipedia or the ICC. It is a FACT that people have criticised the tournament, and I again suggest that you being a cricket fan is the reason for you deleting my work. I'd like to reach an amicable solution to this, but I feel discussion is needed before my work gets deleted with next to no explanation.

Thatstheway


 * Well every person is important at their own field. Hey think your important but how come you dont have a article written about you? Wisden Cricketers' Almanack has a article. So why not you? Where do you draw the line? Well right there. I think we all know where you draw the line... If a ten year old kid says rugby sucks, well that his opinion, does it get on wiki? No, it has to be from someone that is respectable in the specific field. It is FACT that anyone can critised about anything but those criticism are not important if they aren't coming from someone respected from that field. Also if you haven't noticed cricket fans are criticizing in that source you gave, and then saying me being a cricket fan is the reason why I don't want it doesn't sum up to anything. Heck i critisize alot of things the ICC does and a lot of other cricket fans(probably all) critisezes a lot of things about current cricket issues but sadly it isn't important what I say or anyone else says unless its coming from a respectable figure in the field.--Thugchildz


 * I don't mind having a criticism sectin as long as either many more sources are given or the detail is heavily reduced. In addition, "counter-criticism" should be added to make the article adhere to NPOV. (which is Neutral POV not "no" POV so we can balance the POVs up). The ICC must have rebutted against the critics with their own reasons (whether it is true or not if a different story) and that will have to be added to compensate for the criticism. GizzaChat  &#169; 09:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What I was trying to say was that the person I cited had as much right to say what he wanted about cricket as you do to delete my addition. You still haven't addressed the issue of why you deleted my addition without even bothering to tell me in legible terms. I don't mind my work being edited, but having the courtesy to inform me of it would be nice. I appreciate that you don't respect the opinions of normal fans in comparison with professionals, however you must understand that such an approach rules you out by your own argument. I am now going to find some sources from supposedly 'respectable' people which will enable us to put this dispute to bed. Thatstheway


 * I thought I already explained why I removed it above? I explained why it was removed to in the edit summary. Also if your going to question my "courtesy" for not informing you about renoval of the pov, should I say- "having the courtesy of repling back to me in user talk page would be nice"? What I say wont matter or count as much as the fact or the what the professionals have to say. Be sure to find both sides of story, not just criticism but both criticism and counter-criticism.--Thugchildz


 * Here's my "courtesy"- 1st of who is Sir Ronald Sanders? If he isn't important enough, again you need criticism from more repectible personal related to cricket or the subject. 2nd how is it criticism of the tournament actually? It talks about the west indies not the tournament itself. Provided the section isn't improve it will be removed--Thugchildz


 * Sir Ronald Sanders is a very famous West Indian diplomat, and is on the Council of Commonwealth Broadcasting Association. The addition is very much related to the tournament, as it relates to the financial stress associated with hosting the event in a small island economy. The criticism from Sanders, therefore, is directly related to the West Indies' ability to host the event successfully. However, the counter-criticism which I offered came from Courtney Walsh, who as we all know is a CRICKETER. His comments showed that the West Indies was more than capable of hosting the event as they had the passion and desire to do so despite the financial problems. That is about cricket and the tournament. I will be severely disappointed if you again fail to listen to what I and other wikipedians have said and delete my work. It is consistently NPOV and relevant. Thatstheway 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh no other wikipeadian said anything to me. However, I have no problem if it stays. As you said it relates to the West Indies and IT'S ability to host such a event. It doesn't talk about the tournament itself though but more about the hosting ability of west indies and if they can host it successfully.--Thugchildz


 * I refer you to Gizza above and Vivenot in the article itself. They were a lot more accepting of the new idea. However, I am glad that this issue has been resolved and that the article has now been enhanced.Thatstheway 10:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

David Bergamini
He is not a historian, but a journalist. 77.175.64.145 (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)