User talk:Belegorn

According to these reports both seem to suggest (the Sky Sports one more than the BBC one) that Fletcher's "foul" on Fabregas was not a foul at all. While the referee's decision is always final, that does not mean that it is always right. The text in the 2009 UEFA Champions League Final article, therefore, attempts to reflect the situation, while taking the media and the coaches statements into account in a concise manner. – PeeJay 20:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Single table results at 2012 MLS season
The consensus has been reached at the discussion page of the article. However, Walter Görlitz has started one at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football. Please join the thread. — Khvmty (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

2009 UEFA Champions League Final
Ah, it would seem you and I have had dealings over this particular issue before. OK, my wording was poor; I meant to say your wording was a "less accurate" description of what happened, since Fletcher did actually win the ball for his team, rather than simply making contact with it. Furthermore, we clearly both have sources that respectively say that the referee did and did not make a mistake by a) awarding a penalty; and b) issuing a red card to Fletcher. As I have said to you before, the article text attempts to reflect on all reports of the incident, and it is my belief that the article does that effectively in its current state. – PeeJay 18:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because a former referee believes that it was a foul does not make that interpretation correct. Let us not forget that Graham Poll once showed a player three yellow cards before sending him off, so that proves that even he is fallible. To be honest, I don't think anyone is trying to argue that it was not a foul, only that it should possibly not have been a red card. As Poll admits, this is the element of the foul that is ambiguous; he admits, since Fletcher knocked the ball away FAIRLY, it could be said that it was no longer a clear goalscoring opportunity and that removed the option of a red card. This is clearly an ambiguous issue. – PeeJay 20:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of which of our points of view is correct, your wording does nothing to allay the reader's potential interpretation of the article's text as being a critique of the referee. Nevertheless, there were critiques of the referee's decision from many quarters and it would be inappropriate not to reflect that in some way. Perhaps there is a need to change the wording somehow, but your change was inconsequential. – PeeJay 22:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Belegorn

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Quake weapons" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Quake weapons. Since you had some involvement with the Quake weapons redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)