Talk:Buriram United F.C.

Removed Tim Cahill and Harry Kewell because they do not play for this club — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckley002 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

bad faith editing

This edit states that we can't just remove references. But a close look shows that none were removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It does show that references were removed from the season and player articles...I can see them, i'm sure you can. Druryfire (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And if you had looked at the individual edits that removed them you would see why (hint: the "references" require interpretation or don't support the material they claim to reference). I will deal with those in later edits so you don't have a reason to remove all of the good edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

But they do deal with them...a page on the players that play for the club and a page to the statistics of the league itself....how do you not understand this other than having another agenda? Either way you removed them and then pretended you didn't but was caught out in the act. Druryfire (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree, but let's suppose that your claim that it supports the information is true, does that mean that removing other edits is merited? That includes removal of maintenance tags, restoration of unreferenced material and adding back bad formatting? All for one reference? It's using dynamite to remove a nail. The nail may be removed, but the entire structure is as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The information must be true since it came from the OFFICAL WEBSITE - only you doubt this, but then you have never edited a Thai article before...so why you editing now when you don't know what is fact or fiction. Druryfire (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have now made a series of edits to remove unreferenced material (again) and fix bad formatting. Each edit was explained. No references were removed even though some fail WP:V. I trust that this satisfies the concern. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And if there are concerns, individual edits should be removed, not the entire set reverted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you reverted the entire set earlier today!! You don't want this to happen but do it yourself!! Double standards my honorable friend! Druryfire (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Double standards indeed. You removed valid edits for one edit, as I showed above. So I just want to be clear why you shouldn't do that with this set of edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Valid edits??? You removed two years worth of data in one edit!! Not just today but days before....and in what cause? Because your on some kind of power surge?? Druryfire (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And why I believe your edits to be in bad faith. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If you call using edits referenced from the official Buriram United website to be in bad faith then I guess Wikipedia just isn't for me. You don't control the club or the website so your edits MUST be in bad faith if you remove against what this football club represents.Druryfire (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's take this section by section.

1. You restored incorrect bold formatting and removed a space in the infobox.
2. You removed a citation needed tag on the capcaity of the stadium.
3. You removed a citation needed tag the triple champions statement.
4. You restored the unreferenced 2009 season section.
5. You restored the whole 2010-2011 Season section and the paragraph that supported by http://www.rsssf.com/tablesa/ascup06-chldet.html . The reference does not support that the club "was excluded from the competition" as the club is not mentioned in the ref. But that's not on the club's site.
6. In the 2012 Season section, you restored two unreferenced paragraphs and the one reference, http://www.siamsport.co.th/football/afc-championsleague/view.php?code=120321194745, says nothing about "That match was the end of a 2 year unbeaten home record for Guangzhou Evergrande F.C.", only that there was a defeat. Again, not the club site though.
7. You restored the unreferenced 2013 Season.
8. You urestored the unreferenced Stadium section.
9. You restored the Season By Season record which is supported by http://www.rsssf.com/tablest/thaichamp.html. Unfortunately that is the "Thailand - List of Champions" not a season-by-season record for the club. Again, not the club site.
10. In the player table, you restored extra spaces along with http://www.buriramunited.co.th/th/player.php which supports the names and numbers of the players, not their positions or nationalities. Even clicking on the players does not support the positions or nationalities. So is this the one official source you're edit warring over?
11. You restored the Retired number(s) section, but the twelvth man is not a retired number but an unused number. Retiring it means that it will not be used because a player. It's also unreferenced.
12. You restored the incorrect MOS:CAPS on Reserves and Academy at least it's using see also rather than main (there's nothing in the section so main makes no sense).
13. You restored the unreferenced Performance in AFC competitions section.
14. In the honours section, you removed the maintenance template to state it was unreferenced. You restored second-place finishes. In short, you're glad to say "we're number 2".
15. You restored the unsupported double and Treble / Quadruple sections.
16. You also remove the use of the official website template in the EL section.

So if I understand this correctly, you reverted fifteen specific changes for one reference that points to the club article? You didn't bother to check that one reference though because, as I stated above, only the player name and number are supported. Did I miss other references from the "official Buriram United website" that were removed or was that it? Of course, that reference doesn't satisfy WP:V. If "data" isn't referenced, it should be removed according to both WP:V and WP:RS. You restored material that violated those guidelines. In short, if you felt that there was any valid section, you should have restored those few parts that were valid instead of all the invalid with it. So please stop your grandstanding and start speaking in specifics. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)