User talk:Fleets/Archive 1

Fleets, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Fleets!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre infobox edits

I'm fascinated to read your attempt to justify this edit (except the addition of the picture, and removal of "country" field). Go ahead.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

If I am doing something wrong, please approach me as an adult. I am more than happy to admit when I am wrong, so please point me in the direction of where it says the fullname field is not meant to be filled. I thought the country field was a non-displaying field and as such I cut it, but as before happy to admit when wrong, if indeed I am. I would re-read the tone of some of your recent words on your watchlist, and here as they could be perceived very differently upon rereading them. As stated, tell me where and I'm happy not to fill the field, despite the tone.Fleets (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You need me to tell you that on a webpage where the words "Daniel Foster" already appear more than three times (in such prominent places as the article title, the opening words of the first line, and again at the top of the infobox) it shouldn't be added yet again in the infobox's "fullname" field? You also failed to mention the removal of the "caption" field.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I tried civil, and I guess you are being less hostile, nonetheless I do understand your position, would've liked a link, but I'm happy to appease you.Fleets (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You failed to mention the removal of the "caption" field. Will this be stopping or continuing?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're having the other part of the conversation elsewhere, but I can again appease you in the hope the hostility dies down.Fleets (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The degree of what you call "hostility" has a direct correlation with what I call "obviously disruptive edits".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay well, you have not acknowledged the hostility, and doubled down with another barb. Not exactly sure why I am being civil, but I will carry on regardless. I would not in any way, shape or fashion label anything that I have done as "obviously disruptive edits", unless the inverted commas are sarcastic, or have some other meaning. I will try to work with you, and whilst I am amenable to proactively working with fellow wikipedians, hostility really is not the answer, regardless of how you perceive my edits.Fleets (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult for anyone to really be sure how you would characterise your edits, such as the unexplained removal of {{Infobox rugby league biography}}'s "caption" field from articles, despite having now been asked repeatedly here to explain them. You need to work on your ability to discuss edits rather than editors.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't answer due to the level of vitriol that I was receiving, and in part that it was feeling like an inquisition, and not a two way conversation between two people. If that was part of the root cause, then I will in future retain that field. Thankyou for the link, I was under the impression that I was trying to enter into discussions, being positive, specific, sharing, etc. But it is hard when hostility is all I seem to get for my troubles. If you could elaborate on your last point, as to my understanding of your phrase that I am fair game for characterisation through my edits, but that I should refrain from talking about you (or any other editor) on a talk page. I apologise if I have gone off on a tangent from the brief telling me what to do phrase.Fleets (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

So you've taken up your old mission of removing image captions from every rugby league player's infobox. But you're going to stop that now, aren't you?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Col Bentley

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello. A tag has been placed on Col Bentley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. MrQueeba (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll have the reversion so they inherent notability can be seen with the body text that will take but a minute to add.Fleets (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Done with assistance from elsewhere.Fleets (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Gary Hetherington

Hi, I'm Sadads. Fleets, thanks for creating Gary Hetherington!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The main source is closely tied to the person's business ventures: thus the neutrality and depth of its coverage is in question.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sadads (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Elaborate.Fleets (talk) 06:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Gibson Flying V. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Macauley Davies

added a link pointing to Billinge

Puna Rasaubale

added a link pointing to Gateshead Thunder

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Craig Simon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gateshead Thunder. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Championship players

Hi there,

I noticed you were creating a lot of new player articles recently. Just a word of warning that many Championship players aren't considered notable per WP:RLN, as it's mostly a part-time league, and might end up getting deleted. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, the rationale at WPRL sees them as wholly valid. The agreed rationale set some time ago has not been transferred across. Many thanks for the heads up.Fleets (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

That is because it was later changed through discussion, the guidelines are not set in stone. When they are found to be too loose they are often tightened up which is the case here from what I can see in the archives of the talk page of RLN. Most likely to restrict exactly the types of articles you are creating. -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems like the discussion did not see it transferred across and as you say they are guidelines, and as such not set in stone. Nothing wrong with the rationale being tightened up, and we believe that we have as a group have found an issue with Challenge Cup appearances. They should stipulate a player being from a Championship or Super League club. Not sure I follow you on the last bit though.Fleets (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The last bit I was just referring to the comment above, I have no comment on the articles as I do not follow Rugby enough to have an actual opinion on any of the articles. If there is a problem then yup discuss them on the talk page and they will end up in RLN if the community agrees. -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Cheers for that direction.Fleets (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joel Farrell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gateshead Thunder. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Sam Gee) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Sam Gee, Fleets!

Wikipedia editor Nadair5 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for your contribution and your work on this article. I have reviewed it, but keep working to make it even better :)

To reply, leave a comment on Nadair5's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adam Files, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salford. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Brad Delaney for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brad Delaney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Delaney until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ryan Millar (rugby league), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of David Andjelić for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Andjelić is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Andjelić until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Images

Hey mate, small articles like rugby league articles only really need one image, not two or three. It's about finding the best image, not finding as many images as you can. Massive articles like Jarryd Hayne or National Rugby League need many images, but not tiny articles like all the players you've been editing. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I've been trying to elevate those articles by adding an image that offers something a little different. My position would be that the more images there are, obviously within reason, the more likely others are to take interest in the article and invest their time in improving the article; perhaps flesh it out in areas that it might be lacking in, perhaps going away and finding a few sources to really add some meat to the bones.Fleets (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Josh the newcastle fan is right. This is quite obviously not an improvement on this.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps that is an example of where I haven't necessarily found an image that is different to the previous images. Regardless, the hope would be that there would be someone out there that add article text, for example to the single line that represents his Brisbane Broncos career. I would like to think that there would be someone out there who followed that club, or any his other clubs and add some meaningful text to the article.Fleets (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That isn't an isolated example and you know it. You're adding these pictures simply because you can. You're giving no thought whatsoever as to whether it improves the article or not. I'm sure your next post will be some poorly worded attempt to dispute this, but any observer can see what is happening. You can add the article title to the biography infobox's "full name" field, so you do it. You can create an article about a player which no one is likely to ever click on, so you do it. You edit for editing's sake, as though that were a good enough reason but it's not. We're just asking that you take a minute to think a little harder about whether your edits make this encyclopedia better or worse before clicking 'submit'.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I said exactly what I meant to say with regards to Dave Taylor. End of.Fleets (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Another thing that is a little concerning is the addition of national team squad templates. In the past, we've stuck to just making templates about the winners of things, NRL premiers, Four nations winners, Auckland Nines winners etc. And other notable things like teams of the year and World Cup squads. If we're going to make templates for every Four Nations squad, whether they won or not, my concern is test regulars like Cameron Smith and Johnathan Thurston are going to be way overpopulated with templates. Overpopulated with templates about squads that probably don't need to have a template made about it too. If you're going to make mass changes, you simply must bring it up with the project talk page before starting, to get other opinions on it, opinions of people who've been doing this for a long time. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I have added a hide function as seen with Greg Inglis where the navboxes can be collapsed as a group and opened up and still seen. To me that would allay any fears anyone may have with templates becoming too populous. I hadn't seen it as a problem because of the group collapse template, but I can understand where you are coming from with proliferation.Fleets (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)