Jump to content

Talk:Ralph Friedgen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original Research added to article

[edit]

Regarding this edit by Omnibus, which user has inserted twice.

This is hardly original research... please see Wikipedia:No original research to refresh your mind about that topic.
"Embattled", all the talk about fighting for job, "hard times", the speculation about being fired... not crystal clear wp:or, but it is.

1. www.coacheshotseat.com is not a reliable source.

Removed this website as a source and added the University of Maryland newspaper, which also states Friedgen is rumored to be on the hot seat.
"Rumored to be on the hot seat" in the college newspaper does not support "fighting for his job". I understand your point about the Washington Times article, but I don't see that as "fighting for his job". Also, I don't see anything clear in the Post article about the subject possibly losing his job. Also, please do not edit my comments per WP:TPO (as said in the link, that includes strike outs)

2. None of the other refs your support your descriptions of "embattled", "widely considered to be fighting for his job" and the speculation "if he is retained". "hard times" is a stretch as well. The Wash Times article has speculation about after next season

Removed "embattled", changed "widely considered" to "considered by many sources" (3 so far). "Hard times" changed to "relatively hard times" as the winning percentage has fallen from .800 to .500. A NPOV must acknowledge that his results have declined over time. The Wash Times article actually says that if he lasts to next season it's because they can't afford his buyout. Read it over again and you'll understand. Finally I changed "if he is retained" to "if all goes according to contract".
Thank you for your changes.

3. I never said that the description shouldn't or can't be updated to reflect the 2009 season. Despite some poor results, The Terps have made bowls three consecutive seasons going into this one.

Yet you keep reverting all mention of the 2009 season? Please don't do that again. A 2009 season description is necessary in this article. Now. Today. Leave it in or edit it... do not remove the 2009 season altogether for a third time. I know you are editing in good faith, but that could be considered vandalism to delete entire sections in this way.
It is not vandalism to remove original research. You do not throw around a word like "embattled".

4. If you insist on reverting again, I'll be glad to get other users who have edited this article, WK project College football, third opinion, and other forms of dispute resolution to take a look at this. I look forward to working with you on this.

I think we could only benefit from a third pair of eyes if you continue to have the urge to delete all new edits instead of helping to edit them. I welcome any help you can provide outside of rash mass deletions... please review Wikipedia:Ownership of articles... you can't expect to revert everyone else's edits and keep the article exactly as you wrote it forever. That is not the spirit of Wikipedia!
I am not deleting all new edits, I'm deleting original research. It is very curious that after I clearly said that I'm not against updating the outlook to reflect the 2009 season [1] and after I talk about the many ways to gain consensus here, you bring up ownership of articles and tell me how the 2009 season is necessary in the article. I am sorry if I reverted updating the coaching record.

Thank You --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, let's remind ourselves of the editing process here at Wikipedia. Unless there was vandalism, you should not revert entire edits because you disagree with specific small points. You should simply edit the other person's changes in good faith. I'll restore my edit now and remove what you have problems with, and work with you on them. That's what you should have done here instead of reverting the entire 2009 season, for example. I know you didn't do this to purposefully vandalize the article. I look forward to working with you as well. Omnibus (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not small points. You made Friedgen's status seem much worse than it actually is. Until you find reliable sources, it is original research. For example, if you could find articles from reliable sources such as the following [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], then it would certainly support your edits.
I am fine with the future outlook paragraph as it is now. Thank You. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ralph Friedgen. 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:

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) 21:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ralph Friedgen. 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:

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) 17:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ralph_Friedgen&oldid=1207310841"