Talk:FC Universitatea Craiova

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The article on FC Universitatea Craiova is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of football (soccer) related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Wikipedia Guidelines

Hi there--

Please remember to consult Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not when editing. In particular:

• Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.... There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view.

Tim Pierce 19:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi, to the other person who's editing this article :-)

I'm open to discussion about the best way to edit the Universitatea Craiova article. If you feel that some of the forum discussions are particularly relevant then they should probably be left in. But having more links than text is usually not the right way to go. :-)

Some of the text is problematic because it doesn't have a neutral voice, like:

• "...and the most popular roumanian team."
• "The club's proud history includes ..."
• "...for several years one of the top Romanian clubs..."
• "Fans hate: Dinamo and Steaua Bucharest"

I'm completely willing to compromise on the text but I think it's important that an encyclopedia stick to verifiable facts, not to opinion -- even if it's a widely held opinion. -- Tim Pierce 19:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

ok Tim....Hi I'm "the other person" :D ...... maybe you're wright and I'm wrong... I do understand that it must be distressing :) you seem so convincted..... maybe you must find a better cause "Fans hate: Dinamo and Steaua Bucharest" ...belive me, it's true :D .....do what do you what.......bye Ah...Merry-Christmas and Happy new year! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.71.73.17 (talk • contribs) .

• Hi! Thanks for writing back. :-) The principles I'm trying to follow here are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Cite sources. It would be all right to say something like "The Romanian Football Quarterly has said that Universitatea Craiova is the most popular Romanian team," and include a link to an article that says so, for example. Or that "Fans posting to the UC message board have criticized Steaua Bucharest," and include a link to that posting. I believe you, but the important thing is not what you or I believe -- the important thing is whether it can be documented. :-) Does that help? Tim Pierce 15:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The newly created user User: Steel1 came right here & reverted the version I've formatted & from which I've removed the POV. I fear an edit war, because we're dealing with someone not familiar and not wanting to get familiar with NPOV. --Vlad 11:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POV

The editors that keep reverting my changes doesn't seem to have read the above. The phrase: "Over the last 41 years,even the others teams fans (Steaua or other team) can't deny our supremacy despite this sad moment for us(the club was relegated to the Second Division, this year, for the first time, after 41 years, and Ion Oblemenco stadium was suspended for three matches ).", besides being poorly formatted, cannot belong to the article. The article must speak from a neutral point of view. When someone reads it what should (s)he understand: that the team itself wrote it? For the record, because of somewhat same issues, the Romanian version of the article was highly disputed too (but the POV was not so blatant). --Vlad 12:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a side note: as soon as I've started expressing interest in this article, there are plenty of editors that seem to come from nowhere, struggling to keep the article like it was. I understood that this cannot be assimilated to sockpuppeting, because there is no voting involved. But as it gives the false impression that there are more users, I wonder if it's not the same user that keeps creating accounts & changing the article. What is to be done in this case? --Vlad 12:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

•  :D ce faci vlad? ai blocat asa si l-ai lasat de atunci blocat, doar ,doar nu mai intra nimeni sa modifice ceva? :D

ai preluat un articol excelent, munca altora iar tu ai venit sa distrugi, apoi ti-ai protejat distrugerea...dar nu ma astepam sa ramana asa pe sest blocata, de atunci ma? :D of, of, of mai, mai , mai :D ah sa nu uit, era in engleza pagina...get a life vlad :D

Please stick to English. Or your English is not good enough (see Talk:Oltenia). I'm no admin here. And the advice you gave me, well, you should apply to yourself. Starting again with your petty acuses? You must not see the evidence put it right under your nose: I did nothing but to format it & there were other people who agreed it was better formatted. So stop trolling. --Vlad 14:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please revise this article? It's horribly written and extremely biased, as well as littered with typical Romanian and regional Balkanisms "Bucharest teams represent poltical corruption, etc." Thanks.