User talk:Blethering Scot/2014/1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Rocky the Musical

 Done GiantSnowman 18:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678


—cyberpower OnlineHappy 2014 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower OnlineHappy 2014 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Rocky the Musical

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the first Germany-related DYK in 2014 that I encounter, thank you, featured in Portal:Germany. I was a bit blind so far, sorry. Now he beats innocent cows again is a raving review. Part of it is translated in Broadway World. The nose can take it reviewed the Vorpremiere and is not too excited about the music. Never before - so spectacular is the Rocky stage reviews the opening and has links to pics and four more articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

Adam King

 Done GiantSnowman 12:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

West End theatre

Removing valid references is vandalism. I advise you revert, warn using {{uw-delete}}, and then report at WP:AIV. GiantSnowman 12:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Precious

heart of Midlothian
Thank you for quality articles such as Rocky the Musical, for keeping track of the Heart of Midlothian history, for trust, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Matic

I've reverted it before reading your message.

Rocky

You archived Rocky, didn't you want to do reception? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

Season Articles

I can bring the page in question up to date midweek if that helps. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

For trust

I translated, duck attack on the German Main page ;) - thank you for your trust, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Back to the Future (musical)

 Done GiantSnowman 12:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok

On Gaelic football was right peile is Irish for Gaelic football and just recently I found out. Peil is too ,and their is know need for ghealach on it because association football is soccer ,so in Irish it's saccair ,so please understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupolevjet (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

Care to point me to the bot instructions?

That would specifically prevent it from re-adding the tag? Whitelisting is not an option. Some admins feel strongly that because cbronline spammed their links at one point they should be forever blacklisted, even if they are a RS and numerous editors chose to cite CBR (for lack of comparable on-line sources). Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It won't add it now, its been done per instructions. The parameter invisible says false, change it to true, See here Template:Blacklisted-links. If those pages will not be whitelisted then they must be removed, i have done so.Blethering Scot 14:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for removing reliable sources from the article [1]. You've made Wikipedia a lot better. Keep up the good work. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Ive no intention of apologising for doing the only option, if you have no intention of requesting whitelisting. If you had requested or shown any intention to whitelist then obviously would of left them, until process had been done. They are blacklisted and the burden is on you to request that, if as you say they are truly a reliable source.Blethering Scot 14:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Last Ship (musical)

Thank you from the DYK project and me Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of From Here to Eternity the Musical

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article From Here to Eternity the Musical 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 Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Input requested at DYK review

Hello, Blethering Scot. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Typhoon Thad (1981).
Message added 21:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Made in Dagenham (musical)

Materialscientist (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of From Here to Eternity the Musical

The article From Here to Eternity the Musical you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:From Here to Eternity the Musical for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

Orphaned non-free image File:From Here to Eternity Musical.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:From Here to Eternity Musical.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for From Here to Eternity the Musical

Orlady (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

You may be interested in this

[2]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Full Monty (play)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014 GA Thanks

Thank you for your editorial contributions to Kinky Boots (musical).

This user helped promote Kinky Boots (musical) to good article status.

.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Robbie Crawford

Oh, my mistake. Still, the Ayr player is borderline notable. Feel free to re-add him though, although I don't intend to create an article about him. Same goes for most Ayr players to be honest. GiantSnowman 19:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If they were still playing in the 2nd tier, then I'd probably go for it. 1 or 2 appearances in the old Division 1 is trickier, and I'd err on the side of caution and not bother (even though it is technically a WP:FPL). I certainly have more confidence in notability for SPFL Championship. GiantSnowman 19:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep, as soon as Rangers enter it should really shake things up. GiantSnowman 19:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Works and Publishers

I was looking at your recent edit here. My understanding is that 'The Daily Telegraph' is the published work and that 'Telegraph Media Group' are the publishers (and that 'publisher' is usually omitted when citing newspapers).

From the CS1 template documentation, 'work' is an alias of 'newspaper'. Additionally, the 'location' parameter is usually used where the location is not mentioned within the newspaper name and not otherwise obvious. However, for a UK-centric article this is probably not necessary.

Your thoughts? - 91.84.92.16 (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Its an interesting question but not one I overly concern myself about. First of all I never use the location parameter. Was this 100% printed in the telegraph newspaper or just published online, can we be certain of that?. If I'm citing a physical newspaper then i would use cite news and then I would go down the route you have, but if its web then I see nothing wrong really with how it was cited. At the end of the day as long as articles are well referenced and the citing contained within them is relatively consistent, then I don't see any harm really. This is the case in this article. Those are just my thoughts and I'm sure if you asked every editor you would get a fairly inconsistent answer.Blethering Scot 20:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Need help on the Ian Charleson Awards

As a Scot and a theatre-lover I thought you might possibly be a good person to inquire about enlisting help for this incomplete article. I've posted my help request here and on a couple of other projects, but should you not wish to click that I'll just reproduce it here:

These are very highly regarded, very prestigious theatre awards in the UK; however there is little publicity and no glitz (serious actors/theatre-goers actually prefer it that way and feel it adds to their greater legitimacy). Because of the low publicity, there is less information easily available about the awards as a whole (e.g., no official website). Also, the Sunday Times, which sponsors the awards, is behind a paywall. For all of these reasons, the Wikipedia article on the Ian Charleson Awards is greatly lacking -- much information is missing, and most of what is there is uncited. If anyone would like to help out with expanding the article, please help! Even just the basic information for many years is incomplete or missing. Any additions to the article would be greatly appreciated! It would also help if you have a subscription to The Times (I don't, currently), but it's not necessary because the award information is out there on the web in other more scattered places. I also just spent many hours cleaning up the format of the article, which was a mess. I'm not 100% convinced that the format I came up with is the best one, so other opinions on that are welcome, too. Also, if there is anywhere else I should post this help request, please let me know (I've posted it in the Wikiproject Awards). Thank you very much!

I'll put your Talk page on my watch list, in case you have a reply. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again B, thank you for your kind reply. I think I'm going to go with The Times's one-month trial subscription for one pound and then cancel after that. Thank you for the offer of individual articles ... however, it seems the only way to ensure accuracy of Wiki's data for every single year of the awards is to get every single year's articles on the awards, both the articles on the nominees and the articles on the winners/results. That's a lot of articles! I hadn't remembered that the Times has a one-pound one-month trial, so that's very convenient, and I'll just take advantage of that. (Hopefully the offer can be used by people like me who a couple of years ago had a subscription and then cancelled it after several months.) Anyway, thanks for all the great work you do here on Wikipedia, both in theatre areas and elsewhere! Cheers and best wishes, Softlavender (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Pressure (play)

 Done GiantSnowman 11:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Works and Publishers

I was looking at your recent edit here. My understanding is that 'The Daily Telegraph' is the published work and that 'Telegraph Media Group' are the publishers (and that 'publisher' is usually omitted when citing newspapers).

From the CS1 template documentation, 'work' is an alias of 'newspaper'. Additionally, the 'location' parameter is usually used where the location is not mentioned within the newspaper name and not otherwise obvious. However, for a UK-centric article this is probably not necessary.

Your thoughts? - 91.84.92.16 (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Its an interesting question but not one I overly concern myself about. First of all I never use the location parameter. Was this 100% printed in the telegraph newspaper or just published online, can we be certain of that?. If I'm citing a physical newspaper then i would use cite news and then I would go down the route you have, but if its web then I see nothing wrong really with how it was cited. At the end of the day as long as articles are well referenced and the citing contained within them is relatively consistent, then I don't see any harm really. This is the case in this article. Those are just my thoughts and I'm sure if you asked every editor you would get a fairly inconsistent answer.Blethering Scot 20:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the insights. I often find it's a bit tricky to work out which way is best. As you say, every editor seems to have their own way of doing things. - 91.85.48.114 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm commenting because of the request at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Work_or_publisher.3F_Specify_host_name.3F. In the case of the online edition of a newspaper, I would still cite the name of the newspaper as the |work=. Looking at it from another perspective, the name of the website is The Telegraph in the masthead at the top of the website, and that is the name of the published work. (And given the possibility for confusion, newspaper names/website versions of newspaper names should have a city of publication listed, even when electronic.) Imzadi 1979 → 18:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the IP asked for comment on my talkpage. I'm not really interested in the subject or a debate on it. To me if citing the web then the work is the website and the publisher is the newspaper. Blethering Scot 18:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I am also here in response to this request.
There is fundamental difference between a |work= and a |publisher=. A |work= is an object – which can be virtual – within which the the item was published (made available to numbers of people). For web based sources, this is often the website/domain name (without a preceding "www."). If the domain has a name under which it is called, it can be referred to as that name. In the case where the same name is given to a physical publication it can be helpful to also include the domain name to distinguish it from the physical version, or say something like "(online)". For something which is published in multiple places, you should clearly indicate where you saw it. In some instances this requires adding the domain name instead of just "(online)". An example of this is the BBC Online website which is published as both bbc.co.uk and bbc.com. If the content at the two domains was completely identical, then it would not be necessary to be specific. However, in this instance there are differences in what is displayed to the reader between the two domains. Because there are differences, a citation should be specific as to which was viewed by the person citing it either as the domain name alone, or in addition to, "[[BBC Online]]".
A |publisher= is a legal entity. Examples of legal entity types are people or companies. The publisher is the entity responsible for the actual publication. Usually this means they are the entity that pays for the object to be put into a form accessible by large numbers of people. Except in very limited situations (e.g. a tattoo), a publisher (legal entity) can not be a work (object). A work (object) can not be a publisher (legal entity). — Makyen (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

SPFL Premiership / Championship Play-Offs

Will someone be creating a page for the play-offs in the SPFL? If so, could someone please update Queen of the South's 2013-14 season page that I update after every match, as it looks like Queen of the South will be in the play-offs after yesterday's results. Many thanks, Rusty1111 : Talk 09:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014 disambig contest: let's do it again!

Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Bullets Over Broadway

 Done GiantSnowman 17:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

One swallow does not a summer make

Just because Wilson and Lawrence have played in a first-team game for Man Utd does not make them first-team players. They do not train with the first team, and are not considered as such on the club's official website. In fact, I have not seen any sources that explicitly list them as part of the first-team squad, only that they have been promoted for this one game. – PeeJay 22:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously use your common sense.Blethering Scot 22:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
You are in serious danger of falling foul of WP:POINT now. Stop reverting my edits, which you should know I am making in good faith. I'm not saying you're doing this just to be vindictive towards me, as that would not be an assumption of good faith, but you're certainly showing all the signs of a vendetta. – PeeJay 22:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Your showing signs of WP:OWN and edit warring after being advised by other editors not relevant. You cannot cite Bold revert after its already been cited. Im not making a point about anything, you are reverting several editors in both cases there is no point being made, I'm not following your edits only editing two pages I'm currently updating. Your edit history shows clear evidence of WP:Own when comes to Manchester United and edit warring is not the way.Blethering Scot 22:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I edit the pages that are active on my watchlist. It's not WP:OWN, it's making sure that others aren't making bad edits. I've been working on WP since 2005, I know how things work. Why don't you try having a good, long read of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, then come back and apologise for not keeping a civil tongue in your head when dealing with another editor with Wikipedia's best interests at heart. – PeeJay 22:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I will not apologise to you for anything, you are clearly displaying WP:OWN, on multiple man utd pages no ago needed here, and don't dare tell me I've been here since 2005 and i am better than you crap. We've both been around and I'm the one starting discussions on talk pages not you so that shows you have no wish to do so. You are deliberately ignoring the rules of BRD by in acting after already actioned to make sure your preferred version is in place. You are acting like a prat, thats a fact. You need to take a chill pill and discuss with other editors especially on James Wilson where you have been directed by two separate editors.Blethering Scot 22:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I never said I was better than you, but if you believe that, then perhaps you have some sort of inferiority complex that you should see a psychiatrist about. Second, do you even know how WP:BRD works? One editor adds content (that's the bold bit), another editor reverts (that's what I did) and then the original editor starts a discussion detailing why the information should be included, while the article itself remains in its original state. The discussion is not over yet, so by re-reverting you I am merely restoring the article to its original state. As for the James Wilson page, what possible reason is there for not including his place of birth in the lead. Everyone knows it's not supposed to go in the parentheses, so I took it out of there and put it with relevant content later in the lead. He was born in Biddulph, therefore he plays for England. That's basically the gist of what I wrote. Why are you so opposed to that? Or are you just opposed to me? – PeeJay 22:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't make this personal, your a good editor, but when it comes to anything related tn man utd its your way or the high way, thats displaying WP:OWN. No its should not be included in lead if not in main article, I've added that in which you had not done and nor was it supported by inline citation. You were advised prior to me that its not correct for that sentence, and i don't feel it is, where you were born is not a direct representation of who you play for. Something similar to how its worded in main article is more appropriate. However as long as the article is that short, its not correct to include in that sentence. We are saying the same thing in the following sentence. Thats not what you did, you reverted one editor and in turn were reverted by another editor advising you to discuss on talk page essentially per BRD. You then reverted citing BRD, you cant do that after discussion already started and under way against you. Blethering Scot 22:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I did not notice that you had added that, so I apologise for that. But it should be in both places. As I tried to explain to User:The Almightey Drill, Wilson's birth place is relevant to his playing for the England youth teams; noting his birth place substantiates his eligibility to play for those teams and gives a little more background to the article. I really don't see what the problem with that is. Disregarding WP:WAX, most other articles note a player's birth place early in the lead, so why not Wilson's? – PeeJay 22:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Not relevant as not a deletion discussion, however it should never be in lead if not in main article and sourced with inline citation. Also its going to be in the exact next sentence which is direct repetition and should be added to lead once the article has reached a certain size to bulk out lead and not in the context you are wanting it in or in direct sentence before in main article, the sentence is not appropriate use of nationality in my view. It needs worded better.Blethering Scot 22:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Queen of the South Season 2014-15

Could you set up next season's template, please? There are a few players left the club that I could update. Rusty1111 : Talk 15:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Orphaned non-free image File:Thriller – Live.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thriller – Live.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks an IP had changed the file name in the article to an invalid one. This has been rectified and image now used. Blethering Scot 08:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

Season articles

No, I have too much else on my plate to be creating / updating club season articles. I have kept the main Hibs article and Easter Road on my watchlist because I managed to improve them to GA status. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

Orphaned non-free image File:Let It Be Musical.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Let It Be Musical.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

InfoBox Queen of the South Season 2014-15 Page

I cannot seem to get the info box to appear with all the information showing up like last season. Could you sort this for me please?

I've managed to get all the other information on the page displayed okay. Rusty1111 : Talk 15:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

Orphaned non-free image File:Hands on a Hardbody Musical.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hands on a Hardbody Musical.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

Orphaned non-free image File:Soul Doctor.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Soul Doctor.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

Before removing flags, please review "GA" articles and see that they are always used for foreign opposition, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%9301_Arsenal_F.C._season — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.147.80.32 (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Football fixture copyright/licencing

Re this edit, presumably you are unaware that Football DataCo lost a court case in 2012 which ruled that they did not have copyright control over the fixture lists for English and Scottish football, and could no longer charge licence fees? More here. Number 57 09:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The only discussion I can find post-ruling does not appear to be aware of the ruling, so it's probably worth raising the topic again. Number 57 14:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

Active Efforts

Is there a group actively working to improve quality of content on older seasons? e.g. I have been doing this one 1996–97_Celtic_F.C._season — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyndigs (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Stallone credit for book of Rocky the Musical

Hi Blethering Scot,

Please forgive me if I've got this wrong, but I'd like to avoid an unnecessary revision war regarding Stallone's credit for the Rocky musical (unfortunately soon to be closing on Broadway). You reverted my correction despite my citing three ironclad sources (namely the play's official website, Playbill, and Variety). Look for example at the Playbill link at http://www.playbillvault.com/Show/Detail/14010/Rocky, which makes very clear that Stallone was co-credited for the book and co-nominated for the Outer Critics Circle award for "Outstanding Book of a Musical". That jarringly conflicts with the listing for this same award on the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_the_Musical prior to my correction. I understand that Meehan took the lead at adapting Stallone's film script, but every official source gives Stallone co-credit for the Book (e.g. http://rockybroadway.com), so I don't understand how Wiki can contradict these official citations.

Thanks in advance for your consideration of the above points.

Yours truly, Solmaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solmaker (talk • contribs) 09:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

Club season articles

Just wanted to bring up the changes you were making to the Dundee United season article. I've tried to make that article more consistent with other current season articles, rather than what has been used in previous season articles, and that's why I went for the wikitable with merged disciplinary records as that seems to be the common option. Especially if you consider the discussion at WikiProject Football on a new MOS for club seasons. I also don't see what adding in a management statistics section brings to the article if there hasn't been a managerial change during the season as the W-D-L record can just be read off the league table above so it just seems pretty unnecessary. These are just my opinions though. I'd like to hear your viewpoint so we can agree on what should be used rather than just constantly making changes back and forth. Username of a generic kind (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

My changes brought it inline with other Scottish football season articles including past United ones, personally I feel that's important so would argue all needs changed for consistency. I have no issues with well designed dual purpose tables, however that particular one is a very poor example and is very difficult to follow and in my opinion has accessibility issues with the icons. It only very narrowly ended up being used initially on the Celtic articles it was created for and whilst their was a discussion on it was left as no consensus whilst it was just being used there. Very much against it being used more widespread. The management stats are useful I feel and I certainly would include them as not everyone will be able to calculate win percentages themselves and it is source-able to a few places. I would concede on that no problem, but I see no reason to include the dual table in its current format. I wasn't aware of the new mos discussion and will raise points there as I have a few minor concerns about it. Blethering Scot 15:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll leave things as you have them just now. Although, depending on what consensus is reached for the new MOS, I may look to make changes in order to bring things in line with the expected format. Username of a generic kind (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
its pretty clear that it's not exactly going to be a set format at this stage more a list of what should & shouldn't be there, if you do make changes then you will need to make same changes to the others as consistency will still stand as an issue. As I've said no problem including a joint table but not that one. It's not in the mos & never will be. It's a wiki table developed without consensus. I would also suggest you discuss on the talk page of article prior to any changes as well. Blethering Scot 12:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I have coped this to the relevant talk page prior to archiving. Blethering Scot 01:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

2014–15 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season

I'm curious as to why you're going against the documentation that Template:Fc should always be substituted in articles, to the point where you're excluding the bot that automatically substs it. Anomie⚔ 00:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The template was added whilst in userspace when your bot constantly reverted the template, which I strongly feel if shouldn't be doing especially since there are valid reason why it should not be doing that in userspace. Your bot decided it was a great idea to carry out an edit war, which it should not be doing once reverted. I pinged you several times at the time but did not hear from you. As such I don't particularly trust your bot. Yesterday you removed the template saying its obsolete, can you advise what is obsolete about said template because to me if sound like you were providing a misleading edit summary as template is still a valid one. Blethering Scot 00:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The addition of the bot exclusion is obsolete because the article is no longer in userspace, which is the reason you stated for adding it in the first place. Anomie⚔ 01:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
that's a misleading summary clearly, which is why you were reverted. Unless you can address the fact your bot edit wars when reverted then I personally feel the tag is justified as your bot isn't fully compliant. It should not be edit warring. Blethering Scot 01:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The bot is merely editing according to consensus. You were edit warring with it. But I see you have WP:OWN issues there, so I'm going to leave you to it. Anomie⚔ 01:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I suggest you fix your bot before having a go at me. What own issues do i have with the Hearts season article and this template. Your bot reverted me several times. That is a non compliant bot and is edit warring. You failed to respond to several pings asking you to look into. You clearly have an unfit bot and if that's your attitude then maybe your not a fit operator. Blethering Scot 01:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm GimliDotNet. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Jack Hamilton (footballer born 1994), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

strange I never left this message, looks like it's a tool error, was working my way through the new articles for review from the back and this happens to be one on that list that I marked as reviewed. The tool must have left this message. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 16:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
not deliberately, it was on the page curation list so i clicked mark as reviewed. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 16:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

Orphaned non-free image File:Airdrieonians2013logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Airdrieonians2013logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Queen of the South 2014-15 Season page

Could you please change this to show as the current season, as last season is still appearing under current season. Many Thanks. Rusty1111 : Talk 11:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Rusty1111 : Talk 14:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Queen of the South League History page

For 2014-15 there is a link to R1 Scottish Challenge Cup which is okay but for the other two cups, Scottish Cup (TBC) and League Cup (R2) they are both still in red and do not link to their pages although they've both already been set up, as I can link to them from this season's QoS page. Could you sort this out for me please? Rusty1111 : Talk 08:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Rusty1111 : Talk 12:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

Queen of the South season 2014-15 page

I've got the references and the see also sections at the foot of the page mis-aligned. Could you please amend for me please? Rusty1111 : Talk 22:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

Nomination of Jamie Paterson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jamie Paterson 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/Jamie Paterson 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. GiantSnowman 20:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blethering_Scot/2014/1&oldid=1136204668"