User talk:Scientelensia
Add topicLatest comment: 14 days ago by Ser! in topic Please temper your superlatives
Your submission at Articles for creation: Patrick Roche (astronomer) has been accepted
[edit]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. Feel free to further improve your accepted article.
Future articles
- Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.
- Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Next steps
- Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
- Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
- You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
- The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
- For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2026 (UTC)- Thank you so much! Scientelensia (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
Please temper your superlatives
[edit]This ongoing addition of unsourced superlatives and plaudits to player articles by you is becoming an issue. First, we had this whole issue with Dominik Szoboslai's page where you used sources where he was ranked 38th in the world to claim he was "widely regarded as one of the best footballers in the world".
I now check my watchlist to see you're using sources for Phil Foden where as of the last two years the player was ranked.. 61st and 41st, where the only other sources (one of which has him 72nd) are all from three years ago or older. In what world does this somehow constitute a claim that Foden is "regarded as one of the world's elite footballers"? I'm not going to template you because you're well experienced enough by now to know what the problem is, but please stop with the addition of these plaudits where the sources plainly do not back it. â ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see your problem. He is ranked constantly as one of the best 100 in the world. This does merit the label of elite player! Never did I say that he is the best in the world, or the best midfielder. I simply said elite. That is a considerably less absolute claim than the superlatives you seem to be reading into it.
- More importantly, I think there is a broader issue here with treating your preferred level of description as though it is the only acceptable interpretation of the sources. If reliable sources support a reasonably restrained characterisation such as âelite footballerâ, there is no reason for it to be removed simply because you would personally prefer more cautious wording.
- You need to stop showing ownership over all these football pages (WP:OWN). Scientelensia (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Reliable sources don't support him being characterised as an elite footballer. That's the thing. They describe him as 61st best in a 2025 ranking and 41st best in a 2024 ranking. If they described him as "elite" that would be no problem, but your sources fail verification altogether, and they do not make this claim. You have no consensus for such a change and if you think that constitutes WP:OWNership I have no issue with you calling in a WP:3O on this. â ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Collins dictionary defines 'elite' (adj.) ... "Elite people or organizations are considered to be the best of their kind." Phil Foden is consistently ranked within the best of his kind (i.e. footballers) (... I have included year-end sources from 2022-5, which further shows that the claim is consistently true). I consider the term merited therefore. I will go ahead with an RFC. P.S. to be clear, your behaviour on this page only doesn't constitute Ownership â it's a wider pattern across various articles, with the same misguided principles (as found in various places here). Scientelensia (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Cool, I'll comment at the RfC when I get a chance. I reject your characterisation of my editing as ownership and will happily stand on my editing. Thanks, ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:11, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- I am simply unhappy about the way you refuse to accept other arguments, and I see that you apply this same principle on various other pages. We have interacted before on the issue.
- Also, as mentioned on the RFC, I think we should neither of us comment on the discussion until we have heard other voices. Do you agree with this plan? Regards, Scientelensia (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- On the topic of not engaging in the RfC; this wouldn't be standard. From what I've seen usually the filer leaves their comment and an argument for whatever option they want, followed by anyone else who wants to.
- But what I came here to say is; I don't think this is a valid RfC. Per WP:RfC#Before; "Before starting the process, make sure that any relevant alternatives to starting an RfC have been tried." This includes WP:3O and "Asking for input or assistance at a relevant content noticeboard". Also, per WP:RfC; "Include an initial brief, neutral statement or question about the issue in the section" - such a question is not present in the current one.
- I think you may be as well removing the RfC and either asking for a WP:3O or asking at WT:Football (the most relevant noticeboard for this topic) for further input, because as it stands this is an invalid RfC and would just get shut down fairly quickly, leaving us in the same situation. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oh ok, if it wouldn't be standard, I cede on that point. If you like I would be happy for you to edit my question so it appears more neutral? You are right to pull me up on that point. Shall we close the RFC and Strat a WP:3O? I am unfamiliar with the process as yet, so would you be happy to start it, citing this conversation and my original edit? Thanks, Scientelensia (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not hugely familiar with RfCs but I think you're best off just removing the RfC entirely and filing the other method of dispute resolution.
That being said, I do also think there is some amount of danger that the response will be "this hasn't been sufficiently discussed" as I note that at WP:3O it says "3O should not be requested until an issue has been thoroughly discussed" and while we've disagreed on other pages, there's only two edits each and one comment in terms of our rationale.
Would you consider filing something at WT:Football where relevant football editors would see it? Otherwise, I'm happy to continue making my arguments and listening to your arguments until we've reached the "sufficiently discussed" threshold for a 3O. â ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:27, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not hugely familiar with RfCs but I think you're best off just removing the RfC entirely and filing the other method of dispute resolution.
- Oh ok, if it wouldn't be standard, I cede on that point. If you like I would be happy for you to edit my question so it appears more neutral? You are right to pull me up on that point. Shall we close the RFC and Strat a WP:3O? I am unfamiliar with the process as yet, so would you be happy to start it, citing this conversation and my original edit? Thanks, Scientelensia (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Cool, I'll comment at the RfC when I get a chance. I reject your characterisation of my editing as ownership and will happily stand on my editing. Thanks, ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:11, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Collins dictionary defines 'elite' (adj.) ... "Elite people or organizations are considered to be the best of their kind." Phil Foden is consistently ranked within the best of his kind (i.e. footballers) (... I have included year-end sources from 2022-5, which further shows that the claim is consistently true). I consider the term merited therefore. I will go ahead with an RFC. P.S. to be clear, your behaviour on this page only doesn't constitute Ownership â it's a wider pattern across various articles, with the same misguided principles (as found in various places here). Scientelensia (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Reliable sources don't support him being characterised as an elite footballer. That's the thing. They describe him as 61st best in a 2025 ranking and 41st best in a 2024 ranking. If they described him as "elite" that would be no problem, but your sources fail verification altogether, and they do not make this claim. You have no consensus for such a change and if you think that constitutes WP:OWNership I have no issue with you calling in a WP:3O on this. â ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
