User talk:Fleets/Archive 4

Your edits to Adam Walker
Hi, I wonder if you could update Adam Walker's article as I noticed you had edited it recently. I've noticed a few things: 1. Please could you make sure the article's tense as I noticed a bit about his time at hull in the wrong tense. 2. Could you edit it to include his ban for cocaine as I'm not the best at editing the wiki. Source for 2 -

Thanks and happy improving, 2A00:23C4:9E0A:1400:542E:574E:B572:6E43 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All done, many thanks for the link.Fleets (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks 2A00:23C4:9E0A:1400:542E:574E:B572:6E43 (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Reversions
Hi there, what exactly are your reversions to my fixing up of incorrect infobox parameters achieving? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They are regarding rugby league players. Their nicknames have been removed and thus the information would be lost.Fleets (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no nickname being displayed, even after your reversion. In fact, if you now edit and preview the page, you're reintroducing a warning message. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry where was the discussion at the rugby league project to remove that parameter? Retaining the information merely allows for the data to be retained and transcluded into the better infobox.Fleets (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If all you want it for is "retention of information", feel free to add it as a comment. As it stands, it's an invalid parameter for the infobox in the article, that is not being displayed anywhere. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel free to maintain the information as a non-displaying field. Please take your demands elsewhere, or please engage in a less hostile manner.Fleets (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a non-displaying field, it's an invalid field, which raises a warning message. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I refer you to my previous statements.Fleets (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Might Peanut is correct here, Fleets. If the parameter is invalid by reason of not existing, it should not be used. That is standard practice. It can cause all sorts of problems that may not be immediately apparent, eg: what happens for people with screenreaders? It might be possible to use AWB or a bot to bulk-remove it from all pages where it is being incorrectly applied. - Sitush (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely she, he or they would be more wrong in removing a field that affects multiple sports. To do so was reckless and irresponsible. I am merely retaining the information with a view to incorporating it into the more modern infobox. The information is not shown, and a far lesser evil is the message shown, understood and moved on from. I probably haven't done myself any favours by not shining a light on the individual for removing a field from a multi-purpose infobox, but given their interactions, I didn't really feel taking my time helping them out in fixing their error. I do not know how to display a field in one sport, but not another. Perhaps that is a question to put to them.Fleets (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Fleets, not sure if you're referring to me there, but I never removed a field from a multi-purpose infobox template. All I did was to remove invalid parameters passed into said multi-purpose infobox template by various different articles. You were the one that brought rugby league into the conversation, my changes was never about that. It was a cleanup of invalid parameters in use by a template. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't, you are, I imagine, an innocent bystander, who sees the accident and gets hit by a car going the other way. My ire is directed by the person who cut the lights, not the person who is in their eyes cleaning up an created situation that didn't need to be created.Fleets (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Chad Townsend
Hi Fleets. I noticed you re-added the WikiProject New Zealand box for Chad Townsend. The NZ project has no interest in this person. He is an Australian who played one season for the Warriors. There was nothing notable or of interest about him in a NZ context. The projects he is linked to are sufficient. I will leave removing to project box for a few days in case you have some reason for retaining it that I am not aware of. NealeFamily (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there, merely re-added it as someone had put it there previously. Agree that one season may well not be enough to qualify for the NZ project, but was unaware of the criteria, and thus no reason in my eyes to retain.Fleets (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Its not really a rule but I couldn't find anything of interest from the NZ context. Thanks Fleets. NealeFamily (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I left you a message...
...on your Wikimedia Commons talk page, in case you haven't seen it. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: RfC
Please refrain from altering any rls to your point of view - you do realise you are doing the exact same thing? The difference is that there have now been two discussions on this at WP:RL, both in favour of having no flags, which support my edits. If an RfC eventually changes that, then fine, but this has been dragging on for months and the templates have been left in limbo, so in the meantime they should be reverted to what is accepted by the majority of the community. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that my point of view is currently in place, but that it is under question. Given that there is an ongoing discussion, my statement would be valid. The template in its existing form should not be confused, when seen as current, as being correct or wrong, merely the state of the rls template over the last few years for European rugby league clubs. I could only find the one previous discussion that support your position. If you could be so kind to point me in the direction of that second discussion, as perhaps there is a position, a thought, an angle, or even a goldmine that changes the no-consensus at the last discussion. I would find it churlish to revert. Your position would see us default to a previous consensus, but I am merely seeking to see what has pre-eminence; project or wider wikipedia consensus. I have committed to setting something up by the end of the week, and I stand by my word.Fleets (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see one of those links is the consensus link. I shall however still be putting something together this weekend, something that will no doubt draw a line under the whole situation.Fleets (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for responding. I have a lot going on IRL at the moment, but will amend the templates in a day or two unless someone else beats me to it. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting what flags of eligibility can achieve…
It's interesting what flags of eligibility can achieve… Best regards. 194.74.130.171 (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Huw Jones owes Scotland call-up to Wikipedia
 * Huw Jones Joins Scotland Squad
 * Appreciate that, goes to show that little actions, can lead to a player getting big action on the biggest stage.Fleets (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Matty Lees) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Matty Lees, Fleets!

Wikipedia editor Lineslarge just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Reviewed"

To reply, leave a comment on Lineslarge's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Lineslarge (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Sadio Mané
I have reverted your edits in the past as I don't consider that the image of Sadio Mané in a suit, taken from above, is a fair representation of him and that the infobox image ought to be a full face portrait. Having said that, I don't intend to enter into an edit war with you. However, your edit summary "tidy" is most disingenuous and probably deliberately misleading. Please don't accuse me of "unconstructive" edits again. Best wishes 78.147.171.172 (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read The pot calling the kettle black. 78.147.163.202 (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Taken under advisement Harambe.Fleets (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As you clearly want an edit war, let's have one. We will both end up getting banned. 78.147.163.202 (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in an edit war Harambe, and will not take it to a fourth reversion, even if the matter is still under discussion.Fleets (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits constitute vandalism and are plain wrong. The Liverpool image belongs in the Liverpool section. The infobox image needs a caption. 78.147.163.202 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I realise that communication is not your strongest point, but could you explain the logic of your recent edits. Why have you removed the caption from the infobox image? Why does the image in a suit, as a Liverpool player, belong in the Southampton section? Unless you can give a satisfactory explanation, I will continue to revert your vandalism. 78.147.172.107 (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * IPs.Fleets (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry - is that an answer? 78.147.172.107 (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology IP.Fleets (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Why did you not say so before, to stop all this aggro. Unfortunately, hovering doesn't work on a phone, so I'm not sure how user friendly your edit is. Let's see how long it lasts before someone else comes along & changes it. Try to be more co-operative and less hostile in future. 78.147.172.107 (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I had assumed that you had seen it tbh, hence the hostility that you saw.Fleets (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I have taken this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football for input from other users. 78.147.172.107 (talk) 09:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Aren't you a busy little banner editor, or is that me just reading too much into you being such a busy little IP.Fleets (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please try to be civil. Enter into a proper discussion, rather than being abusive. 78.147.172.107 (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That would not be abusive, it would be deductive, but lord knows why I am talking to whatever you are. GoodbyeFleets (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I have never been banned, I am not a sockpuppet and my IP is changed by my service provider without my control. As I say, stop the abuse and deal with the substance of the query. 78.147.172.107 (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Your recent editing history at Toronto Wolfpack shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
 * I have not violated the 3RR yet, and have no intention of. I have gone out of my way to accomodate you.Fleets (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Emerald Headingley Stadium
Hi, Could you please help me update the Headingley Stadium articles to include the new naming rights from today. 2A00:23C4:9E03:B200:35A0:299:2B73:E1B1 (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk Page Discussion : Talk: Headingley Stadium
 * Someone beat me to it.Fleets (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Weight
Hi Fleets, rather than little edits like this one, why don't you make a request to get the infobox coding changed and do them all in one go? Mattlore (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Tara-Jane Stanley
Hi Fleets, you removed the blpprod tag on this article, although there are still no references. Are you adding some today? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)