User talk:Iggy the Swan/Archive/Chilly 2018

Not sure. But it was the way the whole time, so you may want to start a discussion at the Footy project if you feel it should be changed. Kante4 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested in your thoughts about the use on premierleague.com height data on articles, I started a conversation on the footy project. Govvy (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the barnstar, it's much appreciated. You do a fine job of maintaining football articles yourself. Kosack (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... for the appreciation. At the moment, updating the appearances is rather more fun than watching the players make them...

Thing you probably weren't aware of, club logos are copyright so we can't use them anywhere apart from on the club articles. So I'll change the logo on your message to a different BCFC-related image, if that's OK, one that's free to use and that brings back better memories. Thanks again, Struway2 (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struway2, yes I wasn't aware of the copyright policy on logos on clubs and will not happen again. I will find the other talk page which used the club logo and amend it. Iggy (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has removed the non-free club logo (Liverpool 445 on Swansea City logo used). Iggy (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this edit. Can you let me know what is an "accessible source" and where this is specified in Wikipedia? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameboy: - yes, accessible sources (that's what I called in the edit summary) are ones found from websites, the one you gave was some Match of the Day episode on 4 November 2017. I don't know the policy on citing episodes. The reference you gave appeared to link to the Match of the Day wikipage. I'll find some detailed history on Huddersfield and if I find some, it will be re-added. One thing you've did do correctly was that the reference policy does not include Wikipedia as a source and removed it with helpful explanation. Iggy (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have reverted my edit unless you had strong reason to believe that I was adding false information or unless you believe the BBC to be an unreliable source. WP:SOURCEACCESS says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." I do agree that supplementing it with a web-based source helps others to verify the information, however the particular web page you cited does not mention the information in question, as it only shows that they have played in all four divisions. Thanks for restoring my edit though, that is appreciated. --Jameboy (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That part of the content has been restored with the ref you added, thanks for WP:SOURCEACCESS. Iggy (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting and correcting my typo! 78.147.171.154 (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 59 December 2017 is certainly an impossible date to have anywhere. Iggy (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your note. Some people (me, for instance) do rename long reference names or remove long names from refs that are only likely to be used once, but usually it's something I'd do as part of a general cleanup of an article.

I'm surprised you didn't notice all the big red Cite errors in the references section when you previewed your edits: please see e.g. George Boyd (footballer) refs ##41, 78, 118, 123, 145 and 190 for what I mean. I'm guessing you're going to go back and fix those errors that haven't already been fixed by other people or by AnomieBot? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the George Boyd page, thanks Iggy (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, fixed errors to any other pages I have edited similar to the George Boyd errors. Moral: Do the whole page. Iggy (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there IGGY, a belated thanks for the happy new year wishes (even though i marked your edit with a "thanks" note),

a polite question, seeing you have been doing that in a few articles: does the wikilinking of publishers/newspapers/other in refs constitute overlinking even if it's done only ONCE? Also, seeing what i saw in Carlos Carvalhal, why some are OK to link and others not?

Man, WP does have some weird technicalities (assuming this is indeed another and not your personal editing style), can't get used to most of them even after 11 years... Cheers, continue the good work --Quite A Character (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember both of us talking with Mattythewhite about it a couple of months ago now that I have seen the page again. I have noticed we may use them if relevant but yes, what gives? Iggy (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind (and i hope you did not take offence to the "what gives", it was a minor outburst as can be), question still not answered. Still taking Mr. Carvalhal as an example, why is Correio da Manhã or The Independent relevant and BBC Sport and The Daily Telegraph not?

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I will say they are relevant in their own way. Mr. Carvalhal will have the links back the way it was. Iggy (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can write my reply here, since now you are the one having doubts :) As far as i'm concerned, several users pipe ALL clubs in box and storyline. Me, for aesthetic reasons, choose to leave them in full in storyline and, 99,99999999999999999% of the time, encounter no "resistance" whatsoever while doing so.

On a related note, I'll leave you with this situation: there is this article called CD Numancia. "Numancia" is not the name of any city, it being the old Roman name for the city of Soria. Thus, if the article is named with the "CD", why are we forbidden to display it in full in storyline (just remembered now, same goes for CA Osasuna, from the city of Pamplona).

Regards, enjoy the rest of your Saturday --Quite A Character (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think different country team names may use pipes or no pipes - in England, they always pipe the abbreviations, the FC would usually be piped as well, American soccer teams don't and German team names are used differently in the same article as PeeJay discovered. Iggy (Swan) 21:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And so, you go to Jefferson Montero's page again and pipe ONLY Getafe. Fair enough (i have already helped out and provided a coherent display - not that i agree with it, but still)... --Quite A Character (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at this as pipe linking Spanish teams would be alright... Iggy (Swan) 22:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You should show @Quite A Character: how you make your script-assisted reference fixes, he loves fixing references. ;-) Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that Quite A Character should use to copy and paste into the commons.js file would be importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/Sources.js'); // [[User:Ohconfucius/script/Sources.js]]. That will fix up references but watch out for {{Primary source inline}, that shows the primary source is inside the website domain which is usually not the one listed in the cite web template. Click on the 'Fix SOURCES' in the tool on the left of the editing window and it will take around 10-20 seconds to run the whole item. Happy editing Robby, Iggy (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. :-D Thanks, Robby.is.on (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source inline tags say 'this needs claims references to reliable secondary sources' as AnomieBOT tags them with the month and year I have noticed to some pages. I don't know much about this... Iggy (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the information you updated regarding Mark Sampson.

Thanks

I'm not sure what you mean here... Iggy (Swan) 21:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iggy.

I have a big suspicion that the user Rr126 is a sockpuppet of banned user Efc1878. Same posting pattern across a multitude of Everton FC-related articles. What do you reckon?

Cheers. 92.251.178.119 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@92.251.178.119: - For a minute there, I though my talk page was vandalised by an LTA (My Royal Young). I was dealing with the mass vandalism there first before moving on to this.

having a look at this, I can probably deduce that this Rr126 account is a sock of the indefinitely blocked Efc1878 - the articles listed there are all to do with Everton FC (past or present). I have some idea as to how the Efc1878 was blocked in the first place (by GiantSnowman), the edit warring and timestamps. I noticed that on a small amount of articles, timed in May 2017, the anonymous IP's from SE China/Hong Kong were updating timestamps which the likes of User:GiantSnowman and User:Qed237 (who has probably left Wikipedia) reverted (presumably, they reverted due to the sock puppet policy that the edits may be reverted or removed), claiming they were the sock puppet of Efc1878. Thedixies were spotted quickly by Qed237 on 21 May 2017, and on November, via a heated discussion on the timestamp confusion (from me) on Séamus Coleman's talk page, TonyBallioni deduced that Davekgoodnight was a sock with the findings. User:Quite A Character may have suspected that Rr126 might have been a previous user, "(again?)" was displayed on Rr126's talk page.

I will open up an investigation - I can see that you (92.251.178.119) can't open it because the page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations) is protected. Having a few users mentioned as well, they may deduce it from my talk page.

Thanks and wish the suspicion is correct. Iggy (Swan) 11:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless the editor mentioned is the latest incarnation of Efc1878, and I'm not condoning block evasion. However, there's nothing wrong with the way they're editing. When they update the timestamps, e.g. at Seamus Coleman now he's back playing, they're updating both |club-update= and |nationalteam-update= to the current date/time. There's nothing wrong with that. I do that, with articles I regularly edit, and so do plenty of others. The anon is insisting that |nationalteam-update= must remain how it was back when the original edit-war got both parties blocked, and must never change until and unless Mr Coleman makes another international appearance. You'll see from the template documentation that the parameter should show "A timestamp at which the player's infobox national team statistics are correct", and not "the first timestamp added after the player last played an international match". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TWO things: 1 - yes, User:Struway2, 100% correct to have that editing pattern per guidelines it seems (update both parameters even though player has not appeared for NT in ages, I don't see the point in that but the guidelines state differently). However, I think I read somewhere (and I also think User:Mattythewhite concurred when I discussed that topic with him) that it's not wrong to leave the NT field blank if player is not appearing for country (pretty much like the timeframe(s), we can remove dash and reinstate it if/when a player returns), am I more or less correct in this assumption?

2 - yes Iggy, 99,999999999999999999999999999999999% correct it's a sock of the account, the editing pattern (for lack of a better wording, "type of pages edited" would be better) is glaringly similar.

Attentively, happy weekend --Quite A Character (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User reverted and blocked per WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 12:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There will be plenty of users who are keeping an eye on the Everton FC related articles - any similar editing 'waves' by a same user name would be looked at closely. Iggy (Swan) 14:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per WP:SO, the same person has evaded blocks less than six months after the original indefinite block was timed at 265 days ago (13 May 2017). I'm guessing that the six month countdown has now been reset due to the recent block evasion. If there are no edits from the person within that time, promises that the disruptive editing would stop and obey step 3, the sock master may have the block lifted. Same thing with PenguinsElite, The Almightey Drill etc. though the chances of that is not 100% successful. Iggy (Swan) 23:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting" (or not...), just visited their talkpage for reasons that elude me, only to find out they did reply me after nearly one month after my original message (and you as well) and with insults for (some of) our actions regarding these latest developments (as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rr126&diff=823670735&oldid=823670647). I left them another message, thus (not hoping for much, but still). I see no point in having a NT update in the infobox for a player that: 1 - is OVER playing youth football due to age; 2 - has NEVER appeared (not as much as a single callup) for the A team of his country, do you retire from something you've NEVER been a part of?

I can see why you'd lose it because of vandals (i often do, even though i know it's against the guidelines), but what did we do in order to merit this? They have been blocked to and fro, and we are the hypocrites and the dotards? Oh well... --Quite A Character (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I asked they both be vanished (WP:VANISH) because i had the intention (LOL, TWICE!) of leaving forever and never return, guess i cannot, i'm hooked... --Quite A Character (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you notice references #30/#31 in his article you will see Leeds bought him outright on 9 JANUARY and not 9 MAY as Soccerbase says.

Enjoy the new week, continue the good work --Quite A Character (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :-) Yeah, I've got your Talk page on my watchlist since our exchange earlier this year so I've been seeing the spam. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing, Iggy (Swan) 19:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You might want to tell the owner of whatever script it is that you used here that it shouldn't be changing double hyphens in template parameters to emdashes, as it did when it changed <ref>{{soccerway|massimo--luongo/209637}}</ref> to <ref>{{soccerway|massimo—luongo/209637}}</ref>

I'm guessing you didn't think that was an unlikely change to make? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely change there, fixed to one dash. Iggy (Swan) 18:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When adding time stamps to articles please take care to use 3 ~ instead of 4 as you did here or here. You're siging articles which is not appropriate--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jac16888: - I have thought of a solution to that - I will word document the three ~ from now on to avoid signatures or use the ~~~~ button and take off one. The ~ key has been used a lot on updating timestamps in association football articles and it might not be working as it should. Sorry about that, Iggy (Swan) 18:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chris Wood (footballer, born 1991) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chris Wood (footballer, born 1991) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Chris Wood (footballer, born 1991) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the heads up, there I was typing it out each time! SBFCEdit (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Sorry mate, can't help you with the squad template, i'm as dumb as they come regarding technicalities; 2 - thanks for the kind message, continue the great work!

Cheers --Quite A Character (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, "The" Saturdays is correct, If some policy here says it's not then you need to seek consensus for the changes, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010:- I've seen in the MOS saying the Beatles has the 't' not capitalized (the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.:

Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.). I have noticed The Saturdays are written out both ways though in one or two of the band members' articles... Iggy (Swan) 22:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Admittingly I have no idea what the MOS is on this but as I said without sounding condescending it might be best to seek consensus, Apologies for reverting all of your edits to begin with - Stupid error on my part so sorry for that, Happy editing anyway :), –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]