User talk:Hippo43

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Hippo43, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 01:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Jordan's vertical leap 2 Neoconservatism 3 Celtic Park 4 Celtic-first British team 5 Rangers' signing policy

[edit] Jordan's vertical leap

Sorry about that. I had restored that based on a secondhand reference from User:OCEAN...but I only put the source in the edit summary (as reported in Tim S. Grover's book "Jump Attack" per User:OCEAN)), which had long since scrolled off the history.

So, do you feel that is a valid source for the information? --Syrthiss 19:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Good call - I don't have a copy myself, but I intended to check that book - if anyone, Grover should know. Being cynical, he has a vested interest in talking up Jordan's vertical, but we're unlikely to find a better source. Hippo43 19:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neoconservatism

I've reverted Jacrosse's edits to Neoconservatism in the United States for the ninth time and protected the article. I also filed a request for comment on the edit conflict. He seems to have an aversion to discussing the concerns that you, I, Jmabel, and TDC raised on the talk page. What do you think can be done to bring him around? —thames 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the slow reply - I have no idea what to do with someone like that, other than somehow getting rid of them. Seems able to ruin an article single-handedly and I just don't have the time to watch out for it.Hippo43 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic Park

Hi, there. I reverted your edits as they appeared to be leading the reader to believe that Celtic Park is 5 star by giving more bias to one line on the UEFA news site. Whilst I would generally agree that the UEFA site is a better source for this type of information than the other link provided. The problem with the UEFA link is that at the time of publication the information was definitely incorrect.

[ http://www.celticfc.net/corporate/reports/2003_Report.pdf] - Celtic state that they need to do work to make their stadium 5 star.

[1] - Hampdens official site mentions Ibrox and Hampden as being 5 star. [2] - Evening Times article published after UEFA news article says Celtic were planning to do work. All of this, especially the first link, would confirm that Celtic Park was not a 5star stadium when the UEFA article was published, therefore it is inaccurate. --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither of your sources carry much weight - an Evening Times article dated 2003 about Celtic's plans for the next year and a POV piece about Hampden ["there is not a ground in Britain that has comparable facilities"??] are hardly reputable sources. While you may well be correct, until someone provides a genuine UEFA source for this, it will remain unresolved.

However, you removed a paragraph of detail about Celtic Park which had nothing to do with the 5-star issue, and gave no explanation of either change in your edit summary. Please do not edit my work without explanation and, especially concerning contentious Old Firm topics, without giving a credible source. Hippo43 11:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the source from Celtic that confirms that at the date of the UEFA magazine article, Celtic park was not 5 star. As for the source about Hampden, it comes from the official site for Hampden, Scotlands national stadium, it obviously will talk up its own facilities this does not make it POV, unless you are claiming that the SFA have a conspiracy to lead people to believe that Celtic park is not 5star? --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs )

You wrote:- "Please do not edit my work without explanation and, especially concerning contentious Old Firm topics, without giving a credible source. ", I only reverted your biased POV edits. You are missing the point of Wikipedia, anyone can edit it, you do not own articles. --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 15:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My edits were neither biased or POV - I have frequently stated that I want to get to the bottom of this with a current, reliable source, and that you may well be correct. Hampden's official website is clearly POV - it is intended to promote Hampden, contains obvious hype, and cannot be relied upon to provide accurate info on other stadia.

Giving no sources or edit summaries for your contributions on these sorts of topics can cause edit wars which can make this encyclopedia pretty useless. You removed a paragraph of info on the various parts of the stadium that had nothing to do with 5-star status, presumably because you didn't check everything that had been added after the edit that you disagreed with. I do understand the point of wikipedia - I don't claim to own articles, or my own contribution to them, but you have been arbitrarily removing people's work without explanation, which is definitely not the point. I only asked you (politely) to follow protocol here and use courtesy if you are editing my (or anyone else's) work.

Your first sentence above - "I would say that the source from Celtic that confirms that at the date of the UEFA magazine article, Celtic park was not 5 star." - doesn't make much sense. Can you clarify what you mean?Hippo43 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You do not view your edits as POV or biased, however I consider your changes that I reverted here:[3] were very biased and were deliberately misleading, reading the talk page would indicate that there were issues surrounding the UEFA magazine article. I really don't understand what your issue is about me accidently removing your other information, as you yourself added it back in 17 hours after it was accidently removed and I have left it in the article for what is now close on 2 weeks. You are wrong about the official Hampden site, unless you are paranoid and think that there is a conspiracy at the SFA to mislead people into thinking that Glasgow only has two 5star stadia. Obviously websites such as the official one about Hampden can be self promoting, but I do not think that any reasonable person would dispute the information given in a specific official site such as this one, unless it can be proven to be incorrect. Your attempt to discredit an official source as being POV is laughable.

You say: "Giving no sources or edit summaries for your contributions on these sorts of topics can cause edit wars which can make this encyclopedia pretty useless.", which seems a very strange accusation from you who obviously makes POV edits. Where have I not given sources, my only edit was to remove your POV and an accidental deletion of your content which you added back in unchallenged two weeks ago? You then state: "but you have been arbitrarily removing people's work without explanation", I have removed your POV from this article, where else has this alleged misconduct occurred, or are you simply making it up?

As for your question about the article from Celtic. The article from Celtic has a later date than the UEFA magazine article. The UEFA article says Celtic Park is a 5star stadium. The article from Celtic confirms that it is not 5star and that work needs to be done to attain that standard. These two articles prove that the earlier UEFA one was inaccurate. --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 22:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My issue with you removing my other edits is that you seem to have an attitude about me not knowing what "the point of wikipedia is" - I simply asked you to be careful about what you remove and give explanations for it. I note you have since edited the Donald Findlay article several times without explanation, so I'm obviously not making it up. Above, you wrote that I "obviously make POV edits" - which ones do you mean? You say you found my edits "deliberately misleading" but don't say why.

As for your conspiracy theory, I haven't said any such thing about the Hampden site - I said simply that its role is to promote Hampden, and not to give accurate info on any other stadia. The tone of the article is clearly promoting Hampden, and so is essentially an advert for Hampden, not a site which can be relied upon for accurate, up-to-date info on other facilities in Glasgow.

As for the Celtic report from 2003, it is clearly now out of date - the 2004 report from Celtic (http://www.celticfc.net/corporate/reports/2004_Report.pdf) also mentions work on stadium improvement, so I figure we need an up-to-date source from somewhere to confirm the status either way. Do you know of a source from the last 2 years which confirms the status of Celtic Park now? Again, you may be right, but arguing over sources from 2003 doesn't sort this out one way or the other.Hippo43 14:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No you suggested that I have a habit of removing information. You deliberately focused on the Donald Findlay article as you saw that I had made changes to it, then accuse me of changing information in it, when all I was doing was reverting your slightly controversial partizan edits. The only thing I can say about Celtic park is it was definetely not 5star in 2003, if you can find any new information change it. Good luck in finding it.--Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 18:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic-first British team

• I've restored your edit on Celtic FC- I agree that the fact it was the first British team to win should be mentioned. Northern European is too vague. Astrotrain 18:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• What is vague about Northern European - in fact it is further clarified by stating the countries that had teams that had won it before. Astro you are already under investigation for your conduct, do not try and drag other people into your POV disputes.--Vintagekits 23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rangers' signing policy

Hi Hippo43. I made reference to your excellent contributions on this subject at Talk:Graeme Souness recently. The current thread is at Talk:Rangers_F.C.#Signing_policy. Thanks if you are able to help. --Guinnog 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)