Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Millwall F.C
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] View of Neutral Initiator
Alright, there's been a teeny tiny edit war at Millwall F.C. over the team that the article's named after.
Lion King (talk · contribs) thinks that the article is too tough on Millwall. SteveO (talk · contribs) thinks it isn't tough enough on Millwall. I think Tito was the most talented member of the Jackson 5 after Michael, but that's neither here nor there. karmafist 21:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Involved Parties
[edit] View of Lion King
SteveO wants to add one sentence to the Millwall article, namely, "though they didn't face any team from the Premiership on route." It is my contention that he has issues with Millwall F.C., and wants to include it, in an effort to diminish their achievement in reaching the FA cup final. Lion King 15:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC) It is also my contention, that he is manipulating this "statistic", to state his point of view, that if Millwall had met a Premiership side, they would have not have reached the final. Lion King
[edit] Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
[edit] View of Involved Party
[edit] Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
[edit] View of Redmunaza
the huddersfield reference is quite stupid i think when clearly everyone knows that the hooligan element, i stress element, of millwall fans, are, or some of them are, incredibly racist, and it is also quite clear that there are a lot of non-white people who live in huddersfield. in general though, yes one should consider the opponents of football teams as it adds to their history and character.
What are you on about? Do you know how many "non white" people live in south london? Do you know how many black players Millwall have? A lot more than Huddersfield! As for Millwall being racist - you don't know what your'e on about! you want Racist, try Everton, I was at one of their games and you would'nt believe the racist abuse coming from their suporters! As a Charlton fan i would never have thought I would be defending Millwall, but together with us, they have done more to stop racism in football then any team from up north! I live side by side with their fans, you could'nt pick one out of a line up! To you, they all are skinheads and wear Doc Martins, well guess what, you're 30 years out of date! I bet you don't even know they have to become members to get into the ground, or the work they do in all the schools to stop kids becoming racists in the first place. I may be Charlton, but I'm on Millwall's side.unsigned comment by redmunaza (talk · contribs) karmafist 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I have a very strong suspicion that redmunaza is a sockpuppet for Lion King. If so, pretty poor show. If not, apologies.Badgerpatrol 20:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above statement is unfounded nonsense. I ask that Badgerpatrol retract it forthwith. Lion King 21:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I now have good reason to suspect that Badgerpatrol is a sockpuppet for SteveO, this is not an accusation, merely a suspicion given voice.Lion King 00:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- If Lion King is intimating that he feels I ought to have provided some justification for this assertion, then he is of course quite correct and it was most remiss of me not to have done so- apologies for that. I'm not quite sure that this is the best place for a discussion of this nature, but Lion King seems to think that it is and the material can in any case be moved as necessary (by editors in good faith). The above comment (which was not intended to generate as much fuss as it evidently has, or indeed any fuss at all to be honest!) is based on several lines of evidence: 1) the salient fact that the one and only contribution of User: redmunaza (see here) was his/her comment on this page (see the hundred edit rule); 2) the unusually high level of knowledge regarding the club expressed by redmunaza, and the suspiciously high level of vehemence applied in the defence of Millwall FC on an issue seemingly distant from User: redmunaza's immediate interest and where the perceived 'injury' (if indeed it can be called such) was to an unrelated third-party; 3) the general style of the contribution, which shows several similarities to previous discussion contributions made by Lion King, particularly the use of a bombastic and some might say combative style (an example) (often including profanity, either actual or implied through colloquial rhyming slang), certain aspects of the punctuation and spelling, the somewhat rabid response to any criticism (real or implied) of Millwall FC (especially by invoking the behaviour of other clubs, e.g. here), the general overreaction to what seems at first sight to have been an innocently posed and factually accurate comment, the particular (entirely laudable) sensitivity to allegations of racism (see e.g. here) and the proclivity for launching unilateral personal attacks. Examples of Lion King's prose style can be found here, here , here, and here. The alternative is that a first time Wikipedian registered specifically to offer as their first and only contribution an aggressive comment on this (somewhat obscure) issue (not typical behaviour for wikipedians in my experience) in rabid defence of his/her own team's very strong local rivals (not typical behaviour for British football fans in my experience, who tend to nurture very strong local rivalries). I fully accept that all or most of this evidence is entirely circumstantial, and if unequivocal evidence is offered that this is not the case it will certainly put paid to my suspicion. Cheers, and apologies to all for initiating (however inadvertantly) such a fuss, Badgerpatrol 01:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I've asked you to check the history of this contribution, most of it has come from an IP in Leeds. Oh and by the way Badge me old china, SteveO like YOU says "Cheers" all the time and Charlton aren't our "strong local rivals" it's that "shower from over the other side", who unlike you and The Haddocks, are not devoid of a sense of humour! Lion King 02:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by 'most of it' since all I am talking about is the single contribution above. Also not too sure about tracing the IP.... However, I accept what you say in good faith. (I can confirm that I am not Steve O; my scrotum is intact, unadorned with any scarring, and I very much hope it will remain that way for ever...!) Cheers, Badgerpatrol 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
[edit] Outside Views
[edit] Outside view of
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
[edit] Outside view of
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
[edit] Proposed Solutions
[edit] Proposed Solution by Nach0king
To completely avoid making it POV, why not merely list the teams Millwall beat to get to the final? That way, we have a valid, NPOV historical record, and people who want to debase the achievement by saying "yeah, but none were Premier league teams" can then click on each team's name and find out where they were in the season in question?
For this reason, the 24 league placing thing should also be removed, as it is in danger of adding POV in the other direction. Users can, again, look at where Millwall were in the table and where their opponents were in the table and come to that conclusion themselves. I cannot rightly see how Lion King sees one as encyclopedic but not the other. Nach0king 17:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Users who endorse this solution (sign with ~~~~):
Badgerpatrol 02:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Solution by
Users who endorse this solution (sign with ~~~~):
[edit] Proposed Solution by
Users who endorse this solution (sign with ~~~~):
[edit] Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
