Talk:Adam Chapman
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Copied from User talk:Dave.Dunford:
I see you have undone the comment about Adam Chapman returning to OUFC, but you were the person who appears to have originally posted the information in the first place. Presumably you had access to solid information or you would not have broken the code of conduct for Wikipedia in posting unverifiable information. Or are you just getting cold feet that you personally have revealed information that you should not have done, now that the link to the official site and the missing allocation of a number 7 has been identified? I see on Facebook that you are an OUFC supporter, presumably with inside knowledge and you don't want to be found out for posting inside knowledge, and you clearly read Rage Online. Either way I'm happy to respect your wish to not have this information revealed if you confirm this to be the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GodalmingY (talk • contribs) 09:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- You're mistaken, and I think we're on the same side. I wasn't "the person who appears to have originally posted the information in the first place" — that was 86.30.180.32 with this edit. My first revert was to remove the speculative information about Chapman's return and squad number; your revert meant the unverified information reappeared, so my second revert was to remove it again. I have no inside information on Adam Chapman's return, nor have I ever claimed to have: my edits were to keep this unverified speculation out of the Wikipedia article. I note your comment "now that the link to the official site and the missing allocation of a number 7 has been identified" — has his return and squad number been officially announced? If so, it should be mentioned in the article, but not until then. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks for the info Dave. Yes we are definitely on the same side and I appreciate the clarification. I must have mis-read the original posting. I won't adjust this until (unless) there is confirmation from a verifiable source. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GodalmingY (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Cheers - glad we got it sorted. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)