Talk:Clyde Best

message: I'll try on this talk page, but it did no good on my own talk page. To be able to claim that someone is the biggest flop in team history requires much better sources than a fan page and a little blurb in a magazine's top 10 list. I have explained this to the anonymous editor on my talk page and in my edit summaries, yet he refuses to even acknowledge that point and has violated 3RR today. I will not be violating 3RR today but tomorrow I will again revert this improperly sourced and non-NPOV addition to the article. DemonJuice (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think the information has merit - if worded properly. "The biggest failure in club history" is quite a statement to make, and implies that everyone thinks that, when it is clearly not the case. Some fans do, and the phrasing should reflect that. However, there are many more issues on the page, and it needs a massive overhaul, per WP:BLP. GiantSnowman 21:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I never said the information couldn't be there. In fact, I offered the editor advice on how to make it more NPOV and he simply decided to revert rather than take the advice. DemonJuice (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal of that particular text. If it is to be included, it needs much better quality sources and to be better worded. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, didn't take long for the IP-hopping anon to strike again. DemonJuice (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And the anon is at it again. I would refer any admins to the relevant discussion with this IP-hopper that is on my talk page. DemonJuice (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon editor has violated WP:3RR once again. I don't know what this guy's problem is. Several people have explained to him why the edit needs to be reworded. DemonJuice (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to ignore the discussion or just keep reverting? DemonJuice (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've once again requested semi-protection of the article. DemonJuice (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What DemonJuice just doesn't seem to want to accept, is that the statement, however blunt it seems, is true - as supported by the two references to reputable news sources in Dutch. Even now, thirty years later, he still tops the lists of most disappointing signings in club history. This contributes to painting a more complete picture of this unique player. Changing it to 'regarded by some as a disappointment' is meaningless, because that could be said about dozens of players. But Clyde Best is unique, and his failure at Feyenoord has made him almost legendary in the eyes of the Feyenoord fans.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.24.230 (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Your version, that his performance was viewed as a disappointment by some, is something that you could probably say about any player. What makes Clyde Best special, is that he is indeed remembered as one of the biggest disappointments of all. Even now, 30 years later, fans are still talking about it, as is shown from the newspaper articles that have been added as references, which date, not from the 70s, but are recent. Clyde Best has not been forgotten as 'just' a disappointment. He does have almost legendary status in Rotterdam. I read a blog from a fan just weeks ago, in which he says that, when he thinks back of the days that Clyde Best was walking on the pitch, he wonders whether it was all a dream of whether it actually happened. And this is 2011! I have seen another blog (or maybe it was the same) where the blogger even went as far as tracking down Clyde Best and calling him on the phone to ask about his view of his stint at Feyenoord. All in Dutch, however, so I suppose it won't do much to convince YOU. Anyway, just to explain why I have been so insistent on this addition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.159.96.163 (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the problem. Your sources are not good enough to say something like that. Blogs? Not good enough. Anecdotal evidence from other people in Rotterdam? Not good enough. The two sources I've left in there aren't either. They're just little blurbs on a fan page and in a top ten list. Either come up with a feature story about the subject in a reputable news source or I have the feeling it will keep getting reverted. I tried to compromise by allowing the info to stay with some NPOV language but that seems to have made things worse. I'm going to remove that part entirely now until it can be brought up to WP:BLP standards. DemonJuice (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that language entirely. It apparently can't be properly sourced and you say the information is meaningless without the POV language, I agree. Find a reliable source. DemonJuice (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd really like to end this. Find a story in a verifiable source that even mentions it so we can say something like, "so-and-so newspaper reported that Feyenoord fans still consider Clyde Best one of the worst blah blah blah." Do that, please? I think we'll all be happy. Caution, though, I'm still going to scrutinize WHO and HOW MANY people that source purports to speak for. DemonJuice (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So be it, then. One of the two references I had given is actually from the online edition of a major Dutch newspaper with half a million circulation. Not good enough for you, it seems. Your opinion counts more than that of a newspaper with 500,000+ circulation? Think about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.24.203 (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing that matters right now is my interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines, how they apply to the edit you keep trying to push through while taking no input from those who have tried to help you, and whether or not the community of editors agrees with my interpretation. DemonJuice (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits