User talk:Prince Philip of Greece

Welcome!

Hello Prince Philip of Greece, 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:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Fang Aili ^talk 13:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molesey Controversy

What I put with respect to the events at Molesey was not vandalism but an accurate statement of what happened.

"There was controversy after a recent away game at Molesey where Kingstonian fans abused the home goalkeeper to such a degree that the club's owners condemned their behaviour."

Anderson did condemn the fans behind the goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.17.100 (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I called it vandalism for a couple of reasons: you did not provide any context or other information on the subject (e.g. Ks fans are generally very welcome wherever they go) and you did not have the courage or courtesy to sign your name.Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly I do not need to put my name. I will re-submit it, although it is not vandalism you are deleting content you do not like and calling it vandalism to justify your actions. What happened at Molesey was controversial enough for the club to make a statement. As for a name, your name is hardly Prince Phillip of Greece, is it. I will resubmit it with a reference.

I cannot accept that what you're adding to the article is NPOV. There is no way that an incident like that warrants a mention in a 250 word section of a club with over 120 years of history. When I say "sign your name" I mean use a Wikipedia account that your actions can be logged. Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care what you do or do not accept. What happened was fact and serious enough for the clubs chairmen to condemn it. Pretty serious behaviour for a family club, I am sure you would agree and I am sure you would equally condemn the disgusting, moronic, behaviour of those idiots behind the goal ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.17.100 (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - what happened that day at Molesey was OTT. I have apologised for my part in it. No, I will not "condemn" other people - I am neither their judge nor their jury. Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, you seem to be a self-appointed judge and jury on most other things. Anyway in summary you have removed it because you were a part of it. Can you deny what I had added was factual ? I think the behaviour of that section of fans over the last two seasons has been getting progressively worse and worse and Molesey was a culmination of that. Perhaps if fans in general smoked less and drunk less it would be more pleasant. However we have to recognise we at K's are getting a poor reputation and we need to mend our ways, don't we ? It is worthy of mention as the clubs joint chairmen chose to criticise the fans behaviour over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.17.100 (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Hopandjump. The user that you suggest has a history of vandalism (213.48.46.141) is using a shared IP address and there is nothing in the recent posting history to suggest that s/he has any connection with the previous contributions labelled as vandalism. On the other hand, your recent edits are identical to the edits made from a cited IP address (57.67.17.100) and YOUR posting history has a long and very detailed history of vandalism, including some racist and homophobic remarks. For you to claim "I am a Kingstonian fan" is absurd - your real identity has been called into question unerous times on the Ks Web and not one person can vouch for you. Have you been banned from Ks Web? Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rex, I am posting from a shared IP address as well. I am a Kingstonian fan and was there Monday night when the usual suspects chose to call for Dowse to be sacked. How pathetic. Many of the edits on this IP address pre-date my joining this organisation. So it is not my posting history but the posting history of the people using this IP address. HTH. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopandjump (talk • contribs) 12:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which "usual suspects" are they? And, if you're a Ks fan, why are you ONLY interested in posting comments that disparage the club? Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you do not need me to tell you who they are. You KNOW who they are. It is fans like these whose behaviour disparages the club, not mine. Still it is typical of you to go crying to someone else as you are unable to resolve the issue yourself. I will scour the internet for verifiable information to get the link back. I won't rest until it is. There are problems at Kingstonian with the fans base that should be be swept under the carpet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopandjump (talk • contribs) 11:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're very wrong; I did NOT hear anyone calling for Dowse to be sacked, thus I do NOT know who was calling for Dowse to be sacked. If you do, why don't you tell me? Did you hear it yourself, or just pick it up second-hand from the forum? Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a minor incident that merited a lot lesx prominence than you seem to think. Those involved in the other side never seem to tak their own responsibility even though they posted that an apology was due. Other teams have hurled worse abuse at this level. In my opinion there is an issue with JumpandHop.Johnathon Livingstone Seagull (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All involved parties: please see my full evaluation on this issue, available on the article discussion page. JSpung (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khosla debt

I doubt that any interventions from Milton Keynes will be welcome at AFC Wimbledon#Khosla debt so I'll back off. But you might want to check the deletions made by an anon IP (.242) because he has a track record of vandalising articles. (see the history). --Concrete Cowboy 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from Wombledim. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you.

re the edits to AFC_Wimbledon#Ground purchase and the 'Khosla' debt. Kingstonian are not without a home ground as AFC Wimbledon's ground purchase has secured Kingsmeadow for both clubs. Kingstonian did not own Kingsmeadow prior to AFC Wimbledon's purchase of it - see explanation within revised article. Matt derry 14:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the changes you've made - thank you. The changes offer a far more balanced view of the situation and controversy, but to suggest that Ks did not own the ground prior to AFCW's purchase is (what my old mum would call) dancing on the head of a pin. AFCW did not buy the lease from Ks (fair enough) but Ks DID own the lease previously... Prince Philip of Greece 14:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Please see WP:WEB and make sure it fits the proper guidelines. --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 16:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher

Fair enough, but I don't believe your edits to the article are strictly necessary, and FaceBook isn't a reliable source. Paul20070 (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, I'm not trying to be critical just make sure the article is right. I've known about the party for a while (and that there's supposed to be a second party the week after for the benefit of us up north if she kicks the bucket late in the week) just didn't realise it could be reliably sourced till yesterday. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess it was all a false alarm then? Still, we only have to be lucky once.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Molesey controversy

Please see my full evaluation on this issue, available on the article discussion page. JSpung (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hayes and Yeading

Prince Philip, thanks for your message. I appreciate the tone and content of it and am more than happy to comply with your request re the profiles. A little immature of me perhaps. I would like to have a reasonable discussion with you which is all I asked Gark Ekins (Ekins is connected, do not delete his name) for when I was banned from the clubs forum for simply putting up a post about the Molesey controversy on Wikipedia. I found the clubs forum banning me for that very sinister indeed and offered to discuss it with Ekins to resolve the issue but he chose to ignore it. I must admit I objected to being labelled a vandal by you historically as if my input on the Molesey issue was a lie and that is the only reason I pushed it. However a clean slate in our online relationship AFAIC. I also thought your contributions to the debate on K's forum on the Hayes and Yeading issue were mature, well thought out and fair. I did not see what happened myself. I am just really concerned at how our club is gaining a bad reputation and want to make sure that the club acts against the perpetrators and the FA takes action against the Hayes and Yeading Manager if he is found to have done something wrong. I just think it is a real shame that travelling with K's has became a chore rather than a pleasure.

Thank you for agreeing that each other's profile pages are off limits; your edits went way beyond "immature". I labelled your edits on the Wiki/Ks site 'vandalism' because they only seek to denigrate the Club, and there was no attempt at NPOV. If our club does indeed have a bad reputation, I think your Wiki contributions are one of the reasons for that. Perhaps you should not comment on issues you have not seen with your own eyes? I continue to find supporting Ks a lot of fun, home and away. Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rex, firstly I think I should apologise as you are right, my edits went way beyond immature and for that I do apologise to you with all sincerity. It will not happen again. End of AFAIC and I hope that is the case with you. I think it is fair to comment about incidents that are factually rather than anecdotally reportedas it is not like I am reporting hearsay. My wiki comments simply relay factual events of which I had no part. The molesey thing and the Hayes and Yeading thing happened. The fact I reported them is neither here not there, surely ? I am glad you enjoy supporting K's but for some it is obvious on the forum last week that they were becoming disenchanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoppytroffy (talk • contribs) 11:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"rex"? Since you know who I am, I think it is only fair that you identify yourself.

That is fair enough Rex, my name is Dave Hoptroff. Now I have done that mate would you mind addressing my point. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoppytroffy (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this dance before, haven't we, "Mr Hoptroff"? Identify yourself - even if only to one single person who knows me, if not in person yourself - or this conversation is at an end. Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only because you obsessed over me and demanded I present myself to you at Kingstonian so you could then decide who I am. I am not sure why you would not understand why I would be rather offended at that. I am happy to speak to you here Rex, but I am not going to accede to your demand I meet you face to face. Given the comments aimed at me on the K's forum I fear for my safety from your thick mates rather than you who I think is well intentioned but ultimately wrong. I am perfectly happy to chat with you here and discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoppytroffy (talk • contribs) 18:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in eye-balling you. But I do want to know who I am REALLY talking to. [Edited to remove the names of possibly unconnected 3rd parties] Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you my name and you know me from other Interweb forums so you do actually know who I am. I am glad you no longer demand I present myself to you. Like I say I am happy to discuss with you but I am not going through this BS where you once again demand I prove something to you as if you are so fecking important. Talk if you want to, run along and hide like a spineless lefty if you want to. Your Choice.Hoppytroffy (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: vandalism

Hello. I apologize for not getting back to you quicker; I have been extremely busy and have not been on WP for some time. I will try to take a look at the Kingstonian page as time permits. As far as protecting profile page vandalism, there's not much you can do besides (obviously) reverting the changes, warning the user(s), and reporting them after a final warning. Unfortunately, user page vandalism is fairly common. My page has been vandalized numerous times. My only other advice is to remain professional; don't retaliate on their user page. Through warning and reporting, vandals will eventually either lose interest or be blocked. All the best, JSpung (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Don't take my edit war warning personally. I've warned both you and Hoppytroffy, because you both have broken the three-revert rule, and could be banned if this continues. JSpung (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kingstonian F.C.. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JSpung (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my remarks on this issue. JSpung (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher

Thanks for your valuable edits to the Thatcher article. I would be careful to ref each song and party mention, multiply if possible, not just the paragraphs. Best wishes and happy editing. Span (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the songs and party details to the article with refs. Not sure if it will stay up unchallenged. May need to dig up other solid refs. We'll see. Best wishes. Span (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Mail article sounds pretty definite to me: "‘What’s in place at the moment is a contingency plan for a State funeral." I haven't checked other sources. This lot is a tough crowd often at loggerheads over a GA. You will certainly need several strong sources for your last add, not too hard to find. Using a cite template is helpful too. It's all good stuff. It's hard to believe Spitting Image wasn't mentioned before. Hang on in there. All best wishes Span (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen your comment on the Thatcher talk page. I added songs to the article that were explicitly mentioned in the BBC piece. The BBC is a strong source. I expect Christian to try and shoot the whole idea down, as he dismisses the BBC and the Guardian as Commie, pinko mouthpieces of Bolshevism. Noting the 3rd opinion that was given, there was a suggested need to keep the section small re WP:UNDUE. We need to be careful to keep things Thatcher specific, rather than generally anti-conservative or bemoaning general urban decay. Bragg, Weller, Robinson and the Specials are mentioned. I thought it would be easier to reference 'the movement' as important and worthy of mention, than individual songs. Cheers. Span (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Cheers for your help; I'm not a very experienced Wikipedian!) It would seem Christian has friends! A thought: mebbe we could create a section within Protest songs dedicated to Thatch? Or even a page in its own right? Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, above, (for clarity) I hope that's alright. I suspect, as the Protest songs article refers to all protest songs of all sorts globally, it's not really in its scope to focus on songs of ire about one person, though a sourced mention might be in order. An article in its own right? I don't see why not. I am no expert at all in article creation. T is still living, so the (strict) Biography of Living People policies would have to followed. It could not attack her or be seen to be unduely critical - a balanced description of songs people have written. More info on writing an article is here Wikipedia:Your first article, with useful questions to consider. If you have the energy to write it, I am happy to support you, not as any kind of expert, but will share what I know and good places to look for help. I imagine that it would be a project over time, rather than one short blast to get it done.

626 people are currently monitoring the Thatcher article, (that's a frigging lot of people) though it seems very few of them ever comment or intervene. It's a GA so people will be trying to keep up the highest article standards - which are a lot higher now than, say 5 years ago.

John's on the level, it seems, and it's fair enough to want high quality sources, if they are challenged. He's not disputing the Spitting Image stuff, or party plans, I think, just the need to be rock solid about them. I had a half hour hunt for party refs, looking in most of the major newspapers, googlebooks, on Facebook for posted articles and on anti-Thatcher sites and couldn't turn up anything RS. That doesn't mean it isn't there. SI docs shouldn't be hard to find if you have the energy to look. As I say, it's a pretty big missing aspect, IMHO. Maybe talk to John on his talk page about what's needed, if you want to pursue it. But there was some good stuff you added today. Onwards and upwards, eh? Span (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers again. Very busy for next few days (work) but have found that IMDB lists 12 episodes of Spitting Image from 1984, here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0620575/filmoseries#tt0086807. That should be authoritative enough, yes? Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:RS/IMDb Span (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Span, I do not appreciate you making unfair and insulting comments about me on here. I have NOT dismissed the Guardian and BBC as 'commie' at all. I don't appreciate being insulted and patronised like this. I am entitled to scrutinise sources as many right-leaning articles are clearly dominated by left-wing editors. I am perfectly entitled to question the reliability of sources, that doesn't mean I am 'dismissing them'. But I have seen equal comments about the Daily Mail and Express. Left-wing editors dismiss them as 'biased' and 'unreliable' yet they happily use them when it says something they want to hear. Christian1985 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian, if you want to have an argument with Span (or anyone, for that matter) please don't do it on my Talk page. Thanks. "I am entitled to scrutinise sources as many right-leaning articles are clearly dominated by left-wing editors." Tin foil hat, much? Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]