Talk:Phil Cantillon

Large addition of unsourced information

On three occasions in the past three weeks, an anonymous editor has added a large amount of unsourced information to the Phil Cantillon article. Each time, the information has been the same, but the IP address of the editor adding the text has been somewhat different. On each occasion, I have removed the claims added because they were unsourced. Here is that edit record:

• 2012-11-27T21:07:41‎ 137.111.13.203 (talk)‎ . . (4,471 bytes) (+1,902)‎ . . (Undid revision 524759193 by N2e (talk)) (undo)
• 2012-11-25T06:39:17‎ N2e (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,569 bytes) (-1,902)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by 122.148.176.247 (talk): Could be; but these claims need citations to stay in Wikipedia. (TW)) (undo)
• 2012-11-25T05:41:18‎ 122.148.176.247 (talk)‎ . . (4,471 bytes) (+1,902)‎ . . (undo)
• 2012-11-11T04:51:30‎ AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (2,569 bytes) (+76)‎ . . (Dating maintenance tags: {{Cn}}) (undo)
• 2012-11-11T04:30:36‎ N2e (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,493 bytes) (-2,272)‎ . . (removed unsourced assertions that had been fact-tagged for over two months; add back in if you have a verifiable source you can cite) (undo)
• 2012-11-11T04:27:49‎ N2e (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,765 bytes) (-1,811)‎ . . (Undid revision 522087715 by 122.148.176.247 (talk) revert large addition of unsourced information; add back in if you have a verifiable source you can cite) (undo)
• 2012-11-08T23:47:37‎ 122.148.176.247 (talk)‎ . . (6,576 bytes) (+1,811)‎ . . (undo)

Since this has happened for a third time, I will move to WP:BRD and take it to the Talk page for a bit of time, to avoid a WP:Revert war and allow time for the editor adding the information to discuss it on the Talk page.

Per Wikipedia core policy, WP:V and especially per one part of that policy, the "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material. Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. See Citing sources for details of how to do this. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed.

I have challenged the addition of the unsourced material. If it is backed up with reliable source \\WP:CS|citations]], it should remain in the article and the Wikipedia mainspace. If it is not, I will remove the material in a week or two. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Per suggested guidelines for WP:BRD, I have invited both anonymous editors (as mentioned above) to join the discussion, via notes left on their respective Talk pages. N2e (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It has been two weeks, neither anon editor has chosen to discuss the matter on this Talk page. Furthermore, one of those editors (137.111.13.203) has added even more unsourced claims on 10 Dec 2012. I have, again, added a comment to that editor's Talk page, and again invited them to this page for discussion.

So I have removed the unsourced material, and it will need to stay out of the article until a new consensus is developed on the Talk page. In the meantime, I am happy to help either of these editors learn how to add reliable source citations so that this material, if is it verifiable can be added to improve Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

First steps to improving the article

As you (anon editor 137.111.13.203) requested above , I will be happy to help you begin to improve this article.

First a couple of background notes:

• If we are going to interact/chat on how to improve the article, it will be best if you get a Wikipedia username, rather than contribute anonymously. With a username, you'll have a few more privileges (including the ability to upload photos to the Wikimedia server, which then, may be used in the Wikipedia article mainspace by various Wikipedia editors). This is not a requirement in order to edit on Wikipedia, but it will be helpful. (I can say more on why some other time.)

Thanks WN59, I think that will be helpful, and probably on balance, more helpful to you in seeing this article improved than continuing as an IP editor. N2e (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Be sure to sign your posts on this Talk page with four tildes, like this ~~~~

(Wikipedia will then automatically sign your comment with either your username (if you have a Wikipedia user account), or your IP address (if you don't). If you forget, you'll notice that oftentimes a "robot" or "bot" computer will notice, and then will sign your post for you, as it did in the past couple of hours over on the Talk page for the IP address: 137.111.13.203 where you left an unsigned comment.)

Thanks WN59 for adding the four tildes (~~~~) to the source list you added. One minor note, generally on Wikipedia, you'll probably want to sign at the bottom of your post, that is, under the text you've added on a Talk page. Or at least, that is the convention and will probably be best understood by other editors. No worries though, I just made a copy of the "signature" you left at the top and added it to the bottom of your comment.

Regarding the list of sources you provided, I've placed your text, in its entirety, down at the bottom of the growing Talk page, as that is the convention on Wikipedia Talk pages and will help other editors make the most sense out of the general time line and discussion. It will also make it easier for you to see my, and other editors, comments in response to that. N2e (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Now onto improving the article:

• Wikipedia intends to be a repository for a great deal of human knowledge, but there are limits (for example, I know what I had for dinner tonight, so it is human knowledge, but noone wants to read about it on Wikipedia). As a result, a few guidelines have been established. Three of the important ones are:
  • Notability—the playing career of Phil Cantillon appears to me, at first look, to likely be sufficiently notable to have some coverage on Wikipedia.
  • Consensus—Wikipedia operates on consensus. What I think, or what you think, by ourselves, is not determinative. But if several editors can agree on an approach for improving an article, and that approach is broadly within Wikipedia policy guidelines, then that's what goes down.
  • Verifiability—this policy, and its subparts reliable sources and citing sources are where I suspect most of the work will need to be to improve the article on Phil Cantillon
• I will help you improve this article. I'm willing to work with you on it. However, there are some things that will make this easy or hard. More on that some other time.
• The first step to improving this article will be to add a first reliable source citation, one that supports a few claims in even a single sentence or paragraph.
  • Writing citations in a way that works well can be a bit daunting for brand new Wikipedia editors. I will be happy to help you write up a citation in the appropriate format (I probably add 30 or 50 such citations to Wikipedia every week.)
  • But you will need to come up with the source. So to start with, can you provide me with a single web link (URL) to a good article that summarizes either a season, or a particularly big game, or even a portion of your career?
  • If you can, I will read it, and create a citation in the proper wiki-syntax, that can be added to the article to support some small set of claims in the article. (Let's start small, with a single source for a small set of assertions in the article text.)
• There is one more important matter of Wikipedia policy that is particularly applicable to you. But I think I've written enough for one nite, and so will hold off on discussing that item, until after some of the basics are underway, and after we've got our first source citation added to the article.

Remember that you can always talk to me directly, in a way I'm sure to notice, by adding something to my UserTalk page. You can even just leave a short note that you have written more substantively over here, on this Talk page. The link for getting to my Talk page will be added automatically at the end of this paragraph, as I sign this post. But I will also come back to this page to see if you've responded on any of this in the next few days. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Some potential sources

WN59 (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC): Please find references and citation as discussed which will cover the previous information and version from this IP address,altHough the style may need amending. Also be good to include an infobox so the appearance/tries can be included which can be confirmed, Cheers WN59 WN59 (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC) P 18/12/12

Phil Cantillon – reference http://www.reference.com/browse/Phil_Cantillon Widnes Viking Profile : http://rugby.widnes.tv/search.php?q=cantillon&Submit=Search Widnes legend - http://www.runcornandwidnesweeklynews.co.uk/widnes-vikings/widnes-vikings-news/2009/07/02/widnes-vikings-legends-mick-burke-and-phil-cantillon-donate-memorabilia Widnes Vikings Try Scoring Records : http://rugby.widnes.tv/clubrecords.php http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyleague/3031591/Cantillon-gunning-for-Wigan.html Captain of Ireland - http://www.rleague.com/content/article.php?id=18692 Most Tries in a match and for Ireland - http://www.rleague.com/content/article.php?id=26912

http://www.questia.com/library/1P2-1885520/rugby-league-cantillon-sparkles-as-irish-fell-scots

England International Super League World Nines : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League_World_Nines England International World Sevens  : http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804524275.html; Rochdale Hornets profile - http://www.onwardhornetsonward.co.uk/cgi-bin/story4/20060704133944.shtmlhttp://www.reference.com/browse/Phil_Cantillon Rochdale Signing http://menmedia.co.uk/rochdaleobserver/sport/s/345493_international_star_slots_into_jigsaw Rochdale retirement - http://menmedia.co.uk/rochdaleobserver/sport/rugby_league/rochdale_hornets/s/518443_cantillon_to_quit_as_skipper_signs Great Britain All Stars - http://allstarsrugby.co.uk/aboutus.php?2010results http://www.runcornandwidnesweeklynews.co.uk/widnes-vikings/widnes-vikings-news/2011/05/12/widnes-vikings-naughton-park-greats-turn-out-for-charity-match-this-satur Keighley Cougars - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Keighley_Cougars_players Leeds Rhinos players - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Leeds_Rhinos_players —WN59 (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks WN59, for providing a list of potential sources.

• As I had suggested I would, I took one of those sources, a 2002 Telegraph article, and added a citation to the article to support a small number of claims about Wigan, I then "reused" that same source to back up a second small set of claims about Widnes. This is only a start, but at least the article is no longer totally unsourced.
• You may note in the wikisyntax that when a source is used for a second time (or a third, or fourth, etc.) only the reference name needs to be used; the entire source need not be repeated.
• I recommend you not try to use any of the sources that are merely other Wikipedia sources. Those are not generally allowed as citations for article claims. See WP:CIRCULAR to understand why.
• Sources from newspapers, magazines, etc. are generally better sources than mere websites of the league you were playing in. This has to do with WP:secondary source and WP:primary source considerations, and the idea that Wikipedia policy does not support WP:original research. I can explain this more some other time if you are interested.
• I recommend you not try to go too fast on improving this article. Two reasons:
  • there are some subtleties in the use of citation templates and how to only make claims in the article that are clearly supported by the particular citation. Best to learn this stuff a little slowly, over time.
  • there is a whole 'nuther issue in Wikipedia that likely affects you, but only in working on this particular article. You can read about it here: WP:COI. However, none of that prevents you from providing a bang-up, good-quality set of potential sources that other editors might use to improve this article.

—Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by Gibbo136

Hey Gibbo136. I think we can improve this article better if you slow down a bit. As a new editor, it will be worth it for you to read a couple of things about Wikipedia. I've put a Welcome note on your Talk page that will provide you links to those things.

Relative to this article: While your first set of five edits did add a few (bare URL) citations, those same edits also removed two full (complete) citations that had already been in the article supporting other prose, and you also removed tags that had been in the article looking for citations to suppport several specific claims. In Wikipedia, that is generally considered bad form.

I would recommend you make edits a little less complicated, and with only one thing at a time, while you are a new editor and learning the ropes. If you allow a bit of time between edits, you will be able to learn from what other editors might have to say about each (smaller) edit. This would allow learning on your part, without throwing out good work that is already in the encyclopedia by other editors.

Since you had such a complex set of five edits, making both some improvements but also deleting material that should not have been deleted, I had initially reverted the entire set, and asked you to add back in to the encyclopedia only the part that you could cite without doing the deletions.

Since you did not do that, but rather reverted and added back the entire mess, I have gone along with your approach. I've now left ALL of the material that is sourced, and removed all the material that is not sourced.

My recommendation to you as a new editor, is to now add back only a little at a time, always with a citation that backs up all the claims you make in the article prose, to allow some amount of learning to occur between each set of edits. I'll try to watch the article, and help out, if you do just a little at a time. However, if you make major edits, and part are okay with Wikipedia policy, and part are not, it will make it much more difficult to improve the article. I'm really trying to help, and will if you want to work together to improve the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page, Gibbo. I appreciate your interest in learning to work together, and your intent to ensure that everything you add to the encyclopedia is backed up with citations.

I have added back into the article the two already-cited claims that you inadvertantly removed on 28 Dec and 30 Dec. I have also taken one of the "bare URL" citations in the article and turned it into a full citation, which is much better for keeping the encyclopedia in good shape over the long term, as URLs by themselves are subject to age away into the ether. I hope this is helpful in showing you how full citations can be written. N2e (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phil Cantillon. 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/20140202102934/http://rleague.com/news/Cantillon-fires-Widnes-to-Premiership_113776/ to http://rleague.com/news/Cantillon-fires-Widnes-to-Premiership_113776/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rleague.com/content/article.php?id=26912

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Cantillon of Kerry & France

Is there link to Cantillon of Kerry & France? 88.97.108.45 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)