Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

I never really kept up with the NFOOTY stuff you got yourself in, but I just freaking wasted so much of my time because of it.

I was going through Category:Orphaned articles from February 2009 and discovered Nikolai Gromov. Gromov played in a single friendly match for Russia national football team/Russian Empire national football team as a last second replacement against Norway on 14 September 1913.^[1][2][3] I said to myself, there is no way that this could qualify as a Tier 1 match... It was a friendly game. It didn't mean anything! I checked the rules, and yeah... it counts. I figure, Well FIFA is an old organization.. they gotta keep records somewhere about this. I just spent a half hour looking and all I found was a single 2014 circular informing members of what the new rules are (without mentioning the old ones in detail..).^[4]

Why on Earth is this Russian soccer/football player who has only ever played in a single international friendly match against Norway that tied 1-1 because the team needed a halfway decent defender and the only passing mention of him in Russian-language newspapers is simply about how he wasn't as good as the other players -- considered notable???

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL,^{[you're welcome for the ping]} lol, thanks for introducing me to {{table flip}}, which is exactly how I feel about this issue. Of course it's not just NFOOTY, there are stand-alone perma-stub pages for non-notable actors and songs and politicians and all sorts of things. Even after months of discussing it, I still don't really understand why some folks think the benefit of having these stand-alone pages outweigh the costs. Hey, at least Gromov is not a BLP. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Levivich 00:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feelin' empty without being able to begin a reply with a template...* I mean, yeah; it's not a BLP, but it also means that there will never be new content to add to it. His soccer career is forever done.
Also, {{Table flip}} is the best! I'd make more emoticon/emoji templates like that if more people besides me started to use them. / –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and to think, I was t-banned for encouraging consensus, presenting valid arguments and being polite which was interpreted as disruptive. Perhaps we would be looked upon with greater respect if we'd partake in profanity, rabble rousing and calling admins jerks like the unblockable editors do?? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, seems every time I read AE my reaction is (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻. If only they extended the deal to every editor: for every FA, you can tell five editors to "fuck off"; three for a GA; one for a DYK. We'd have so much more quality content! – Levivich 04:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah hah! Productive use of one's potential. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 08:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You just wait until my FAC gets promoted, and then I'll tell you what I really think of you!!" – Levivich 15:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be sure you don't miss this [5]. EEng 07:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, thanks, I would have missed that, since it was so quickly reverted. It doesn't surprise me, though. "Whenever you see anger, you're looking at fear." The only reason someone would get that angry at anyone touching their article or questioning their sources is if they were afraid of something. – Levivich 15:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I never imagined this. I really though EC and that bunch are these meticulous researchers and article writers whose detailed sourcing would of course be unimpeachable if you wasted your time checking, and the differences between us were just about different writing-style sensibilities. I only went to get the sources when EC claimed (see Talk:Moors murders#Out on the moors) that my change from

Brady reappeared, alone and carrying a spade that he had hidden there earlier. When Hindley asked how he had killed Bennett, Brady said that he had sexually assaulted the boy and strangled him with a piece of string

to

Brady returned alone, carrying a spade that he had hidden there earlier, and told Hindley he had sexually assaulted Bennett and strangled him with a piece of string

"gives an altogether different impression, of Brady freely admitting to his crime unprompted, whereas the original quite clearly says that he did not offer the information on Bennett's murder until after Hindley had asked him. This is just one example of the kind of nuanced meaning." So I thought, well let me just see what nuance the source really has. So I went to the library and here we are. The really sad part is, there really is something worth telling the reader along these lines; Topping 96, relating prison interviews with H, tells us "He never volunteered any information, she said, never bragged about what he had done." That's something worth transmitting to the reader but if that's what the first of the two text versions above (the "nuanced" version) is meant to do that, it sure don't do a very good job of it. There's much more to say but I gotta get back to work. EEng 17:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]