Talk:Portadown F.C.

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: Ireland Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Irish football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

NPOV please

From Northern Ireland is factually correct and neutral, Northern Irish isn't. BigDunc 12:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Northern Irish" is factually correct and neutral. Your personal opinion to the contrary isn't relevant. Your edit is part of a groundless campaign by you and other like-minded editors against the term. The template for these articles is to use the country demonym in the opening line. Mooretwin (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism

I removed the opening paragraph of the "Problems" section as it is WP:RECENTISM. The LVF was founded in the mid-1990s and disappeared around a decade later. How can vocal support which lasted only for a few years be considered part of an established pattern? The opening sentence was also being used to try to imply there was an established pattern for the rest of the paragraph to detail and to avoid claims of recentism.

The 1999 fued bit i think passes though as we aren't trying to imply there was a pattern - i think. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it was written about years later shoots your argument down in flames, and your entire argument is as bogus as the 3RR warning you misplaced. O Fenian (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guys broke the 3RR rule so its hardly bogus. Years later? That is am more bogus arguement. The book was written in 2001 - when the LVF was still in existence and boviously with support. Since they where founded in the mid-1990s how can you prove its not recentism? Especially as the source is from the contemporary time? Mabuska ^(talk) 23:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not, try reading it. When you have apologised for making false and malicious claims this discussion can proceed. O Fenian (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologise for what? You breaking 3RR which is clear in the edit history? Answer the question on the source - its very contemporary to the time so could qualify as recentism using examples at time of writing thus given them a bloated weight. Is there more recent sources that aren't drawing on contemporary incidents of the time? Mabuska ^(talk) 23:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding your abject failure to understand the policy you are talking about, exactly when you do falsely believe I "broke the 3RR rule" by making 4 reverts in 24 hours? Diffs or apology, nothing less is acceptable. O Fenian (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are blatantly abusing the "24 hour" limit to continually revert by waiting until several hours have passed the 24 hour mark, so i think the warning is fully justified. You have reverted the same thing about 7 times in the space of within 3 days. I have seen editors warned by admins and others for such "slow edit-warring" which is reverting over and over over a longer period than just 24 hours. Is that not a slow edit-war? Slow edit-wars are not uncommon, with some even being strung out over 2 months. Anyways you performed 3 reverts today at 11:47, 11 April 2011, 11:40, 11 April 2011, and 23:27, 11 April 2011 - 3RR warnings can be and are dished when an editor is on the verge of breeching 3RR as you are. In fact before your latest revert you had also did three reverts from 15:01, 10 April 2011 to 11:47, 11 April 2011 - just because you leave it several hours after the 24 hour limit has passed doesn't mean you aren't breaking the spirit of what 3RR is about - and thus i determined that you have breeched 3RR on the abuse of the 24 hour limit. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So care to discuss the issue at hand then? Or are you just going to ignore the question altogether? Mabuska ^(talk) 00:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He basically wants to remove any recent incidents of loyalist terrorist association with soccer clubs or supporters because he thinks that WP:RECENTISM gives him the right to arbitrarily remove anything recent without resorting to WP:IDL. What he doesn't seem to realise is that recentism is writing without a long term historical context. Recent incidents of loyalist violence or examples of support for loyalist terror groups associated with Northern Ireland soccer clubs and fans, including very recent ones, are part of a long term pattern in Northern Ireland soccer that goes back for decades. It is not recentism and should be included. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order for me to have "broke[n] the 3RR rule" (as opposed to simple edit warring) that would entail 4 reverts in a 24 hour period, which did not happen. Since you still have not even read the policy, you will find that reverting vandalism is exempt from 3RR anyway. Should you wish to claim it was not vandalism, I recommend reading that policy. I also note you failed to warn your fellow loyalist editor who has been edit warring, unlike me who was simply reverting vandalism, that speaks volumes about your motives. And finally I agree with Eamonnca1, if the threshold for sources and recentism is that sources about the LVF that were written while the LVF were still active cannot be used, I am going to apply the same standard to countless other sources used in countless other articles about countless other organisations. O Fenian (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What proof is there that i am a so called "loyalist"? If i am a so-called loyalist editor then how come i got involved in an edit-war with Factocop who kept trying to remove the Gaelic version of Eglinton from that article? Why did i argue at length with him about it? Then there was the time i reverted an editors addition of unsourced bias loyalist propaganda. Yes very loyalist actions. No point warning an editor who you already warned and blocked. Though having noticed there is another IP at play, i've warned them.

Regardless, Eamonnca1 your opening statement is bogus and extremely misleading. If you notice i said the incident in the bar is okay, though i had to reword it from the biased slant you gave it. So how does that qualify as me wishing to remove all instances of terrorist association or incidents from football articles? GAA fans sectarian abusing a Protestant player is not very different from Portadown F.C. fans shouting terrorist slogans in the mid-1990s - yet one is okay for you. IDL works both ways, though who said IDL it?

Though having examined the statement more closely, it isn't worded that badly or imply there is a pattern in regards to Portadown F.C. so i may have gone off on one for no real reason then - however there should be more than one source used for the opening sentence as only one source doesn't provide it with a great amount of weight. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Portadown F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018081929/http://home.online.no/~smogols/ifcp/clubs/portadown/clubportadown.htm to http://home.online.no/~smogols/ifcp/clubs/portadown/clubportadown.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Portadownfc.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]