|
|
Post by mcscooby on Jun 17, 2009 12:54:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mcscooby on Jun 17, 2009 12:56:28 GMT
Oh, they deleted it  It said: Fayeism (Faye-ism) is a recent phenomenon which originated in Stoke-on-Trent during the 2008-2009 English Premier League football season. The term derives from the worship of Senegalese defender Abdoulaye Diagne-Faye by supporters of Stoke City Football club. Faye gained cult status after signing for the then newly promoted Stoke City from Newcastle United. He has been a constant rock at the heart of the Stoke City defence and his presence is undoubtledy one of the major factors in Stoke City's comfortable survival in their first top flight campaign for over twenty years. Faye has recently expressed his love for Stoke City and has pledged to remain at the club for the rest of his career, news which only enhanced the god-like status he has obtained. As the loudest supporters [1] in the English Premier League the Stoke City fans quickly dubbed a song in honour of their new favourite - "Abdoulaye my Lord, Abdoulaye" (to the tune of Kumbaya my lord). There is also a range of clothing created in reverence to him. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayeism" |
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Jun 17, 2009 13:01:23 GMT
How do they delete them so quick? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by mcscooby on Jun 17, 2009 13:06:56 GMT
I guess someone just sits and watches!
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 17, 2009 13:09:05 GMT
I bet they wouldn't have deleted GAYISM so fucking quickly!
H
|
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jun 17, 2009 13:23:30 GMT
Get it back on!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 14:33:44 GMT
I guess someone just sits and watches! that can't be true! if it was it would imply that wikipedia was accurate at least some of the time rather than being a pile of kak |
|
|
|
Post by Ron Jeremy on Jun 17, 2009 14:35:08 GMT
Hahahah ;D
Why did they delete it ??? its very true ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by crimesy on Jun 17, 2009 14:38:51 GMT
Why delete it? someone else start it again, i made up the term and am very proud  And by the way, yes some people do sit and watch but i think they have something like 30 volunteers and thats it, as Wikipedia is a charity. |
|
|
|
Post by nick_stoke on Jun 17, 2009 14:43:59 GMT
Its peer reviewd by the general population. read some article not long ago that the staff at wikipedia put in ten deliberate errors into completley random articles and within a matter of minutes they were all corrected.
Some people have too much time on their hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2009 14:58:01 GMT
Why delete it? someone else start it again, i made up the term and am very proud And by the way, yes some people do sit and watch but i think they have something like 30 volunteers and thats it, as Wikipedia is a charity. it's not a charity...it's a non-profitable organisation it doesn't give moeny to anyone, it just doesn't make any either (although it does have 2 full time staff, the owner/founder and his accountant) most of the information is contriburted to by member of the public and the rest of the work (i.e checking etc.) is done by volunteers which are again largely just members of the public which is why so much that's on there just isn't true! |
|
|
|
Post by stokelad84 on Jun 17, 2009 14:59:57 GMT
put it back on when theres 2000 members of the facebook group, it will be an official religion then!
|
|
|
|
Post by crimesy on Jun 17, 2009 15:00:20 GMT
Mickmills: Thats what i said  |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jun 17, 2009 16:34:15 GMT
Why delete it? someone else start it again, i made up the term and am very proud And by the way, yes some people do sit and watch but i think they have something like 30 volunteers and thats it, as Wikipedia is a charity. it's not a charity...it's a non-profitable organisation it doesn't give moeny to anyone, it just doesn't make any either (although it does have 2 full time staff, the owner/founder and his accountant) most of the information is contriburted to by member of the public and the rest of the work (i.e checking etc.) is done by volunteers which are again largely just members of the public which is why so much that's on there just isn't true! Mick Mills, the fact that it's user-made and edited is exactly the reason why it IS so reliable. Errors are eradicated in a matter of minutes, as shown above. |
|
|
|
Post by oatcakeeater on Jun 17, 2009 18:14:26 GMT
Do you suspect those two could be connected? |
|
|
|
Post by Rich Haynes on Jun 21, 2009 16:57:37 GMT
i used to be a wikipedia editor. its not so much having too much time on my hands, its just that as i looked through articles that im interested in, i corrrected errors as i went along. only took like two mins extra so wasnt really hard work and im surprised they deleted fayeism. as far as i can tell your article is perfectly legit. i would suggest you get more than one reference though. for example get the link to fayes statement off bbc site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/stoke_city/8054112.stm) and put a reference to stoketshirts.co.uk or wateva it is for the shirts part. also reference stoke city and faye himself with these links....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdoulaye_Diagne-Faye & en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke_City_F.C. if they delete it again, the just edit en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdoulaye_Diagne-Faye directly and add a separate section called fayeism to that article |
|
