Talk:Dublin City F.C.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the image-needed parameter once the image is added. Football Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Persistently and unduly negative edits and reverts by User:Jdorney despite numerous appeals to desist (now deleted from his talk page.) User is a noted supporter of rival club Shamrock Rovers (quoted in at least one volume concerning that entity) and regards that club's page as his personal fiefdom. Bias is apparent throughout his contributions to this page.

For example:

Their owner Ronan Seery spent a lot of money on players

No citation, completely unverified and unverifiable and (as it happens) factually inaccurate. Dublin City were not among the heaviest spenders in the First Division during either promotion season; the club's wage budget in both top-flight seasons was comfortably the lowest in the division.

but the club failed to cultivate a significant fan-base.

Pretty much indisputable, although my edit of 14 Jan was, in my opinion, more neutrally articulated and informative. This was reverted.

Galway United director Nial O'Reilly claimed to have seen "52 spectators at the match" when his club played away to Dublin City

This is both superfluous and irrelevant (and again erroneous, whatever Nial O'Reilly's immaterial opinion), given the above. It's a known fact that fewer than 1,000 spectators attended Shamrock Rovers' coronation as league champions against Athlone in the 80s, but something tells me this snippet of information would enjoy a very short life expectancy on the club's page. Additionally, it's important to note the context in which O'Reilly's comments appeared; at the time, Galway United were conducting a PR campaign (eventually successful) designed to earn them a berth in the new FAI National League of Ireland Premier Division.

I'd like to greatly expand this article beyond stub status, but with the threat of Jdorney's arbitrary and tendentious edits ever-present, this is sadly unfeasible. I'd be grateful if a third party could attempt to resolve this dispute, and also cast an critical eye over the Shamrock Rovers page.

DublinDilettante 00:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually contribute to serious articles so for me this is a bit of light relief. However, if you feel that the fact that DC couldn't even get 100 people to go to their games has nothing to do with why they went out of business, then you're wrong! So keep reverting away, DD, inform the moderators if you like. Jdorney 09:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Most of your edits seems to relate to obscure minutiae of Irish military history. I guess everyone has a different conception of what constitutes a "serious article", although the term would seem singularly inapposite, if not meaningless, within the context of a publicly-editable encyclopaedia. I'm sorry to hear, as a committed proponent of Wikipedia, that you get your kicks from hindering the project with partisan vandalism. I'm referring this dispute to the Third Opinion process before I conduct a major expansion of this page, as it's simply impossible for me to justify the effort thus expended while one user remains prepared to revert any edit which doesn't accord with his own prejudice at a stroke. DublinDilettante 15:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Muppet Jdorney 00:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in my third opinion. Try to be at least minimally civil. --Scott Wilson 00:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to give a third opinion on this page. First of all, I'd like to remind both of your to keep cool. Try to focus on the article and your problems with it, rather than the other user editing it. With regards to the content, the snippet about fifty-two spectators should stay. It's cited from a reliable source, and it's in a neutral tone - Wikipedia isn't saying that there were fifty-two spectators; Wikipedia is saying that Nial O'Reilly is saying that there were fifty-two spectators at the match - bear in mind that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not fact. On the other hand, the portion about the owner spending a lot of money on players may be removed for now, because the burden of truth lies on the person who wants to include it, and Jdorney has not provided a citation. Nonetheless, it's not a case of either or with much of the disputed paragraph. Although O'Reilly's comments can stay, the mention of having to move away from Whitehall Stadium is very relevant, and could also be included. Try to find something good in other people's edits, and reserve reverts for blatant vandalism. --Scott Wilson 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is subject to an orchestrated campaign of vandalism by Shamrock Rovers supporters. The section indicated is riddled with uncited, tendentious, malicious and inaccurate statements. I have often attempted to correct these and expand the article but the aforementioned campaign makes this impossible. Therefore the NPOV tag is necessary to inform readers that the information contained in this article is unreliable. DublinDilettante 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're a bit paranoid there. If something is uncited, malicious etc, then get rid of it and the tag. If it is cited etc, then get rid of the tag, but you can't just leave the page with the tag forever. 213.202.168.106 21:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dublin City F.C.. 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/20101226125535/http://www.rte.ie/sport/2006/0719/dublincity.html to http://www.rte.ie/sport/2006/0719/dublincity.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a player called kibandwa pawuel 197.239.4.87 (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]