Jump to content

Talk:Glen Johnson

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

Trivial Controversy

[edit]

The controversy section states things as though they are facts. It says that Glen John forgot his passport, whereas Glen Johnson says that Chelsea lost his passport. The Sun is not exactly the most reliable source, so I would say you put both sides of the story or make it more neutral. You can't go around saying things are fact if there is no solid proof. The same goes for the toilet seat story, while he did pay a fine, he claims he was not stealing anything. There was just a price mix-up. Why would he steal a toilet seat? Its senseless, but people think that's what outrageous footballers do. They don't. --82.30.11.76 (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Driving Ban Notability

[edit]

There is absolutely nothing notable about a driving ban. Millions of people receive driving bans or suspensions each year. It COULD be notable, if Johnson, as a result of his speeding, were involved in an accident which injured him, or something similar to that. If Tom Cruise got a speeding ticket we wouldn't print that, if Peyton Manning ended up having his license suspended we wouldn't print that. There is litearlly nothing encyclopedic about somebody getting a driving ban, unless there are numerous instances and they are widely reported on. Batman2005 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving a driving ban conviction is a noteworthy part of his life. His other run-in has little to with his career either, but you don't remove it. BestEditorEver 10:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I didn't see that point, you'll notice I removed it this time. Like I said, literally HUNDREDS of people get driving bans or suspended licenses EVERY DAY, yet we don't print all of those. Minor criminal acts that don't form a pattern of criminal behavior, are not inherently notable. Like I said, if he had received a driving ban because he got into an accident while drunk and killed somebody...it would be totally notable. But simply speeding....give me a break. It's not notable in the least, if it were we'd have to post EVERY time somebody got a speeding ticket, or got the license revoked for going too fast. Get real. Batman2005 19:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean to say you didn't read the stealing attempt the first two times you removed a sentence from this article? Excuse me for being cynical but it looks like you didn't even read this article and where just quickly scanning to find something to delete. Did you click on the reference link to see what exactly you were deleting? Your edit summary would imply not -- you thought it was just a speeding ticket. And instead of admitting that the sentencing should not have been deleted, you are now ridiculously claiming that a speeding ticket and a court-ordered driving ban are considered the same.
We don't add those hundreds of people receiving a driving ban because... they are not all public figures with a wikipedia article maybe?
'Minor criminal acts that don't form a pattern of criminal behavior'? What are you blabbing about. Any court sentencing is encyclopedic and noteworthy. Same goes for the attempt to steal and subsequent fine I would argue. Again, this should be obvious, but there is a great deal of difference between a speeding ticket and having your license revoked -- one is minor sort of, the other is a sentencing. BestEditorEver 05:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would implore you to assume good faith in ANY of your edits. It's non-notable, plain and simple. I did the read article, I did read the source, a driving ban isn't any more notable than any person of public note getting a license suspension. It's a ridiculous addition to an article. Like I said, if it was a PATTERN of criminal behavior (see Pacman Jones, Tank Johnson, Chris Henry) THEN it would be notable. One or two MINOR run-ins with the law, are not. If it were one or two MURDERS or DRUG CONVICTIONS then it is notable. A relatively minor fine for theft? A minor driving ban? Get serious. Batman2005 10:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Intent to steal and given a fine, breaking a speeding limit resulting in a four-week driving ban. Looks like a pattern to me. Not that there is a need for one -- a judge sentenced him. Notable enough. BestEditorEver 11:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, about your claim that a judge sentencing is notable only if there is a pattern of criminal behavior. Haven't been able to find this guideline yet. Could you direct me to it? Thanks. BestEditorEver 13:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about TRAFFIC OFFENSES! This is ridiculous. Do you know how many people, have license suspensions for 30 days? MILLIONS. Do you know how many people are sentenced for misdemeanor theft charge? MILLIONS. He was fined 80 pounds, 160 bucks. WHOA, what a big time criminal and how notable that is. Give me a break. Thre is no notability there. Like I said, if, as a result of his speeding, he had killed somebody...then it's notable. We don't list every drunk driving arrest, every suspended license, every traffic ticket and every shoplifting arrest that somebody has been a party to...and yes, a traffic citation and a driving ban are the same thing. People can get driving bans for traffic tickets. This is the most pointless argument i've ever seen on wikipedia and i can't imagine how you could possibly think that a person receiving a month long license suspension is at all notable. It's almost like you're arguing for the sake of arguing with somebody, nobody in their right mind can possibly think that somebody speeding is encyclopedic. In any case, WP:BRD clearly states that once something is insertered and then removed, it should remain removed until a discussion and consensus has been reached. That has not happened yet because you insist on reinserting the most unencyclopedic trivial information i've ever seen in my life. Batman2005 21:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding power hungry admins. I understand you have to exaggerate to make your point appear convincing, but I don't agree that a sentencing is trivial or unencyclopedic. Another thing I cannot comprehend is how you can equate a speeding ticket handed out by an officer with a license suspension imposed by a judge. A sentencing would become a notable part of anyone's life, regardless of the laws broken or crimes committed. -- BestEditorEver 13:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because, read carefully...it might have escaped you the first 10 times I said it, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE GET A LICENSE SUSPENSION EVERY YEAR. A month without driving is notable in the life of a professional footballer? Are you serious? There's absolutely NOTHING notable about a professional athlete losing his drivers license for a month. That's just flat out ridiculous. If he was dog fighting, or shooting somebody, or selling drugs, or taking steriods it would be notable. You're honestly saying that a guy losing his drivers license for a month, like millions of others around the world, is encyclopedic content? Is wikipedia REALLY reaching for material that badly? Me exagerrating? Give me a break man, it's a license suspension. If he tosses a napkin out of his car window and is fined for literring it's enyclopedic? Not hardly. Neither is going a month without driving. Give me a break, this is a joke right? Batman2005 21:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those millions of people having their license suspended is probably just another hyperbole. I don't take your arguments seriously either way. A speeding ticket does not equal a court sentencing no matter how much you exaggerate. -- BestEditorEver 11:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it does. When you pay your speeding ticket...you're convicted of the speeding offense. A driving ban can result from a speeding ticket. A fine, resultant from a speeding ticket, IS a court ordered sentencing. It doesn't matter if you take my argument seriously or not, on this topic I am right, and for you to try to argue that a speeding ticket does not equal a court sentence....is ridiculous. Batman2005 00:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you stop spouting the same nonsense already. If you're right (not) then to celebrate this unique moment why not give yourself yet another barnstar. No one else will. -- BestEditorEver 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am right, and you are clearly wrong. Batman2005 05:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

[edit]

I have protected the page for seven days so as to stop the ongoing edit war and instead encourage the editors involved in the dispute to seek a resolution through discussions. It is important to note that protection is not an endoresement of the current version, see meta:Wrong version for a humorous look at this issue.

Simply continuously reverting each others edits are disruptive to this process. WP:BRD is no excuse to ignore Wikipedia's core principles of resolving disputes through collaboration between editors. WP:BRD states, "Reverting doesn't help build consensus: Do not revert a revert." There is nothing on that page which permits constant reverting.

The two editors involved should use this time wisely, to discuss the article and seek a compromise solution with which they can both be happy whilst recognising that Wikipedia is of course a collaborative effort. It may be useful to seek the views of others who may be interested in this issue. I presume there will be a football WikiProject and there would be an appropriate place to highlight this ongoing dispute to try to build a consensus. Adambro 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please change the picture to a more modern one

[edit]

The picture of him look so horrible and makes the whole wikipedia page look unprofessional. I havn't got the skill to change it myself because I dont know how to use Wikipedia but Im begging for someone to please change it to a more appealing one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.218.152 (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Honours

[edit]

He was named in the 2008-2009 PFA Premier league team of the year, Whenever I keep adding it someone deletes it. STOP IT!! The proof is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFA_Team_of_the_Year#Premier_League

It even says in his Portsmouth section:
Johnson was included in the PFA team of the year for the 2008-09 season despite Portsmouth finishing in the bottom half of the Premier League, 7 points above the relegation zone.[22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaytonaMike (talk • contribs) 18:16, June 24, 2009

God sake there are some right idiots about today.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DaytonaMike (talk • contribs) 14:06, June 23, 2009

EDIT: OMG STOP DELETING IT FFS!—Preceding unsigned comment added by DaytonaMike (talk • contribs) 18:14, June 24, 2009

The SUN?

[edit]

In the references it has The Sun. People on this site are forever wanting reliable sources and The Sun is there. That's not a reliable source. 94.168.37.41 (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Goals Table

[edit]

Am i missing something, but what is the difference between score and result in this table? Result means what the score was at the end of the match and so in this instance is incorrect, the result was 3-1 not 3-3. If it is meant to be what score did his goal make it 3-1 in the match, fair enough, but that still makes the result wrong. I'll revisit in weeks' time and change it if no-one else has an explanation. Rimmer1993 (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. You were right, the final score was 3–1, not 3–3 as it said. Good spot! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 May 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. QEDK (T ☕ C) 08:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Only the boxer and footballer have any notability, as shown by Pageviews, and the footballer is ahead by almost 200%.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

but also this lot:
Exactly the kind of case where disabling the disambiguation bot and ambiguating one article doesn't help every reader. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"There are other things of the same name which are nowhere near as notable but I'm going to oppose this requested move anyway because they exist." Existence does not equate notablity, In ictu oculi - you are the only person on this website who disagrees with that. Unreal7 (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Gulangyu (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Egghead06 (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The very fact that the hit ratios swing wildly by what sports (or whatever) are in the press and on the public's mind at any given time is the very reason we have WP:PRIMARYTOPIC policy. This doesn't qualify. The primary topic is not what happens to be most popular this month. If this particular topic is not always and for the foreseeable future the overwhelmingly most-sought and -expected topic that shares this name, then it fails PRIMARYTOPIC. There's also a potential nationalistic element to this, since there are two footballers with this name, and this is a primary-topic "land grab" for the British one. Nevermind the "sports figures vs. everyone else" issue. It's perfectly normal and reasonable for more common human names shared by multiple topics to go to a disambiguation page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The English footballer's been the primary topic for years - this should've been done a long time ago. Unreal7 (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Glen Johnson. 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) 20:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glen Johnson. 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) 10:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glen Johnson. 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) 20:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glen_Johnson&oldid=1207841886"