Jump to content

User talk:Blethering Scot/2016/1

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


The Signpost: 06 January 2016

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...
heart of Midlothian
... you were recipient
no. 717 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The Odd Life of Amy Letwis

Hey, good catch with finding the article for this. It looks like the film was a hoax. If it does exist, it certainly didn't accomplish the various things that were posted on the article at all and I actually found that it had been deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia as well. I can only guess that they moved here after that was deleted, in the hopes of avoiding detection. That they re-named the article and knew how to create templates and categories suggests that they likely know their way around Wikipedia, which unfortunately means that they may be back. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I had a hunch that it could be a hoax when all I could find was a blogspot, but felt I couldn't prove it. I was sure however that if it existed it did not meet our notability guidelines. Thats some effort though creating 4 pages, a category & a template all to back it up.Blethering Scot 14:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

dashes

Can you explain why you are reverting per WP:BRD, it is clear you knew a discussion was taking place and its clear you are ignoring. This was the edit where BRD came into effect. Your supposed to be an admin & a clearly involved one at that.Blethering Scot 23:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Your continued following of my edits is starting to border on Wikipedia:Harassment. That and your attitude towards me from our first encounter has been substandard. Your behaviour was noted to be substandard as much as mine. If this continues then we clearly need to go back to AN. I will not feel harassed by an Admin with a grudge.Blethering Scot 23:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Blethering Scot, my watchlist showed changes to one of those pages which seemed perverse, so I checked for more. That's not stalking and its not harassment.
You really should try to let go of your severe WP:OWNERSHIP issues, and of your apparent inability to WP:AGF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I believe it is harassment. You have followed my edits constantly since we first clashed at the St Mirren article & your watch list showed it because you added it to your watch list. At no point prior would you have had any reason to watch that patch. Your attitude towards me was unacceptable, you made false statements against me which I had to prevent evidence that you were wrong. You had to apologise yet still was adamant you were right. Tonight you edit warred on an article you knew was being discussed about clearly contrary to WP:BRD. You are harassing me and you are an admin. Its clear from this statement that its simply your opinion not based in fact and that simply because you don't like something doesn't make it policy. You keep sighting AGF, hard to even remotely consider this given your attitude from the word go. Its sad but if you continue to stalk my edits then we will be back at AN pretty quickly.Blethering Scot 23:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
And sorry wanting an article to be consistent is not an WP:OWNERSHIP issue. Its a Consistency issue. You know full well you are involved, you know full well the behaviour expected from an admin yet you display the opposite. You clearly felt like edit warring tonight and clearly knew a discussion was taking place. You need to seriously consider whether your involvement with me have shown the behaviour befitting an admin of this site. An admin does not edit war, they don't bring personal opinion into things, they follow policy not opinion and they don't harass or victimise editors because there opinion differs from theres, they dont constantly accuse them of arguing that F.C. should actually be FC & muddying waters when actually it was another editor entirely. Take a hard look at yourself and tell me that throughout this whole saga you have AGF with me.Blethering Scot 23:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


BS, I have had more than enough of your insistence that every time our paths cross (which is very rarely) that it is evidence of harassment.

I have had more than enough of your WP:OWNership of articles -- which has been noted by others too, most recently at WT:FOOTY.

I have had more than enough of your insistence on turning every small misunderstanding into an insistence that I am a liar. One example of that is when I confused your desire to remove "F.C." with another editors desire to change it to "FC". As I and other editors pointed out, both were proposals which could and should be considered separately from the dot in "St.", and that your use of that RM to raise that issue was muddying the waters. When you raised the "F.C." convention at WT:FOOTY, you got zero support.

Since you won't AGF, get off my talk page, and stay off it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirlOur paths never crossed, yet now they do very frequently since we first clashed. Its disappointing that you keep trying to evade things. DO we really need to take this to AN. I never raised the F.C. convention at WP:Footy i categorically did not. I was not interested in F.C. being FC at any point. Where is you assumption of good faith. Show me my ownership of articles, it doesn't exist. I want consistency & because you have taken a dislike to me you seem intent on being difficult. You did edit war tonight to retain your favoured opinion, regardless of anything you are an admin.Blethering Scot 12:05 am, Today (UTC+0)
User:BrownHairedGirl if you continue to make false statements about me such as I asked for comment about F.C. to F.C or even suggested it (Do you not remember having to apologise for that one already), stalk my edits or simply harass me in discussions then I will go to ANI. Your an admin and have shown signs of behaviour that no admin should. You need to take a long hard look at yourself.Blethering Scot 00:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl has now added to her page that I'm a Perma-angry editor who is unable to AGF doesn't seem to understand "get off my talk page, and stay off it". So maybe hatting the thread will convey the message more clearly.Blethering Scot 00:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl there is absolutely no need for you making such comments about me. I have asked you to take a look at yourself. Do you feel you have assumed good faith in anyway. Your edit notice say says do tell me when I've screwed up, yet you don't like it when people do. You also mention AGF a lot yet don't display it. Your an admin not a normal editor and should remember that.Blethering Scot 00:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Third time User:BrownHairedGirl has called me an angry editor tonight. No evidence of AGF.Blethering Scot 00:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl Seems i was furious about common name not being followed. User:BrownHairedGirl has provided no evidence to the effect of me being angry or furious. Seems she doesnt know me very well as I'm not either of these. Blethering Scot 00:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl Now i am angry and shouty. If anything this is funny, I'm so not angry. angry and shout.Blethering Scot 00:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl I have not called you or anyone malevolent liars. Please stop using such fragrant terms.Blethering Scot 01:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

WikiProject Football

I've added my name to the WikiProject Football but I'm unsure how to add the box to my user page? Also, I was wondering how to jazz up my user page? I'm still editing the Willie Watters (ex-Kilmarnock player et al) and I was also wondering if there was going to be a long list of articles to be created? Rusty1111 : Talk 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion involving you

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks by User:Blethering Scot. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Absolutely pathetic, especially from an admin. If you manned up and just admitted your lie, then you wouldn't be in this situation. You mislead the conversation and tried to cover it. To this point you still haven't admitted you were wrong. Im actually embarrassed for you.Blethering Scot 11:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

Re: Million Years Ago

Thanks for participating in the AfD discussion. I am curious if you have opinions re: "Send My Love (To Your New Lover)" and "River Lea" as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I would warn you posts like these could be seen as Forum Shopping. Wouldn't recommend it. However to answer you I don't really have much of an opinion, they clearly can be demonstrated to meet GNG, but do need improvement.Blethering Scot 21:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I only meant to invite you to participate in the other 2 discussions since you participated in one. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey. i know what you meant. I just wouldn't want you getting into any trouble. Blethering Scot 22:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. I posted links to the three AfD discussions on both the 25 talk page and Adele's talk page, so hopefully others will participate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

Re: Hello

Hey BScot, Thanks for the message although it will probably be a fleeting visit, not sure yet. Is there anything newish on Wiki or WP:Footy that I should know about? Hope all is well with you. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Queen of the South 2015-16 season page

I clicked in before reading both replies to see he had changed 38 items and nearly flipped, but I think I'm correct in saying everything has been reverted back as it was. Rusty1111 : Talk 21:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'd clicked into the history and read your comments. Regards. Rusty1111 : Talk 22:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Season Article Task Force

I've added my username to the task force listed above. I was wondering if you could add the box for this to my userpage? Regards, Rusty1111 : Talk 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Images & Tommy O'Hara

I was wondering what the rules on images were for uploading to football players' pages in particular. I have just updated former Queen of the South player, Tommy O'Hara's page after his untimely death during this week and was wondering how you went about uploading images in general. Rusty1111 : Talk 17:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Questions

I knew there was something with copyright for images, right enough. Rusty1111 : Talk 18:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Unicode

BS, as part of a long series of edits, the changes I am making include:

  • removing dots from "St." per the MOS
  • fixing date ranges, to use endashes
  • bypassing common redirects
  • replacing HTML entities with unicode -- to make the pages easier for humans to read, and easier for bots and scripts to parse

You have been reverting some such edits, with comments such as:

You might not want to type unicode, which is fine. But why on earth replace it with hard-to-read HTML entities?

Please can you stop doing these pointless reverts? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

They aren't pointless. They are correct. You claimed in your edit summaries that you were removing removing dots from "St." per the MOS, that is incorrect and should not be in your edit summary when not removing Saints, that is regardless of if you are using AWB or not. That is setting out to mislead. Secondly you introduced a redirect by changing a Saint in the only one you actually did what your edit summary said. You are pre empting a move discussion also doing the opposite of what your edit summary said in bypassing common redirects. Secondly the unicode creates an easier editing environment, creates less chance of inexperienced users using the wrong dash and is not any more difficult to read.Blethering Scot 17:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
BS, the edit summaries do not claim that every single change listed is done in every edit -- they just indicate that the changes made include some or all of those listed, and possibly others (that's the "etc" at the end)
As to unicode, are you seriously claiming that 2015–16 is easier to read than 2015–16? Seriously?
BTW, that move discussion would be long over if it wasn't for your insistence on introducing a red herring. Your desire to replace the "F.C." suffix with "FC" or no suffix could quite properly be left to a separate discussion -- as ~I suggested, and as other editors have also noted.
I note too that you wrote the common name per evidence provided is St Mirren, not St Mirren F.C..
So you agree that the dot should be removed from "St." ... it's just that you want another change as well.
When you asked[1] for guidance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Football#WP:Commonname, the reply[2] explained to you that consistency was a key policy goal of article names.
At this stage, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you are simply doing your best to be obstructive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Wow are you serious. I did not put forward the FC v F.C. argument i frankly don't care about that. I have not attempted to muddy the waters at all. You argued common name and created a false argument, you were nominating a name that was not the most common. Just as you are doing now. Sarcastic clap to the most misleading and argumentative admin out there.Blethering Scot 17:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
BS, I will ask again.
  1. If you are genuinely not attempting to muddy the waters, then why not separate the two issues of the dot in "St." from the "F.C." suffix?
  2. After screenfuls of abuse, you belatedly agreed[3] that the common name does not include the dot in "St.". So why try to hold up the fixing of that issue? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Are you serious. I have not asked for any change to F.C. as a disambig. You are muddying the waters for yourself. And don't you blame me for holding up the closure, as any admin could of closed by now if they wished. My argument is that your argument of common name has been false from the start. Common name does not include F.C. or FC.Blethering Scot 17:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl Im waiting for my apology.Blethering Scot 17:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Lets put this in terms you will understand User:BrownHairedGirl. You accused me of something I didn't do. You should apologise. The fact you are blaming other editors when you clearly above accused me, shows you have zero respect for me or the two other editors you are trying to blame. Also the fact that you are trying to bully me into separating the two issues looks even worse. A closing admin is more than capable of weighing up all comments, so I don't see why you are putting undue weight on an editor to withdraw their view. Really poor.Blethering Scot 20:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
(ec) BS, if I confused your desire to remove the suffix from another editor's desire to change it, then I'm happy to correct that. My point remains that whichever of those goals you any other editor seek, they are both separate from the removal of the dot from "St.", and should be considered separately.
I really don't understand why you appear so deeply offended that I mistook which of those goals was your idea, and which was that of another editor. But if it upset you, then I'm happy to apologise. Now can we get back to discussing substance?
As Number 57 has pointed out to you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Football#WP:Commonname, the naming convention is to include the "F.C." when it is part of the club's name. You apparently want to change that convention, which is a legitimate aim if you can win consensus for it ... but the way to change any convention is not by disregarding it on an individual article.
My point about common name has been from the start that the common name does not include a dot in "St.". The dot in "St." also clashes with the MoS. You do not appear to disagree with either of those points. Is that correct? Or do you disagree with either of them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Problem as i pointed out to Number 57 we are not consistent on that, we clearly use FC as well. By that means i don't see it as a convention like you do. Even if it was a convention, policy has to override that. If common name can be proven and there is no need for disam there is absolutely no reason to ignore that policy. WP:Footy is notorious for circumventing policy for its own means and i know that from previously being a member. I was hoping for rational conversation there to avoid need for a RFC at common name but it appears I will need to just in order to get enough of a consensus either for or against. Simply not enough editors.
:::::::::: Secondly no i agree common name does not include a dot in "St." However I cannot drop my point that common name doesn't include FC at all. As for mos, we will agree to disagree on that.Blethering Scot 21:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016


ANI notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Tuck Everlasting (musical) year

Hi Blethering Scot,

I noticed you changed the Category for this new musical from 2016, to 2015. While the show did have a limited, pre-Broadway run in Atlanta last year, with essentially the same cast and creatives, it doesn't open on Broadway until next month. It will also be eligible in 2016 for any Broadway season awards. So I believe 2016 is the accurate year to list. But I wanted to give you notice and an opportunity for your input before reverting it. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The cat should always be the year it was first performed in, so if it had a tryout then that is the year that should be listed. Whilst the Broadway run, is 2016 that's not accurate for the cat. The only reason 2016 could be included was if it was a significantly different piece, but it's not. Blethering Scot 07:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the response. However, when I checked the category, I discovered a large number of entries where the year corresponds to the B'way or West End opening year; not the pre-B tryouts or first productions. This is likely since no actual definition for "category year" exists and readers may reasonably expect their favorite musical to be listed under the year it opened on Broadway or the West End, not Poughkeepsie, Des Moines, Manchester or Lloyd Webber's prep school in Westminster. Not interested in warring over it, because I appreciate your input. But I'd like to hear from some other folks as well and build some consensus. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you raise at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre. A Broadway or west end production is not the bee all & end all. So say a play is first performed in 2013 regionally & then gets a West End production in 2016. The play is still a 2013 play, it hasn't been created on 2016. I suggest you opinion the Cat up & read the cat description. It says musicals written or first performed in. Blethering Scot 09:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Your example works if the production is a completely separate mounting of the exact same show. As you say, not every show goes to New York or London; and sometimes even when they do, they are not related to the original production. But in your example, it's still the same show, just a new production. However, if a show merely does its out of town runs with the intention of fine-tuning the new show it will open on Broadway or the West End, that's a totally different thing. Those early runs should not count, because then it could essentially be a totally different show. Plots change. Characters change. In the case of musicals, songs come and go. Members of the creative team get replaced and the new director/writer/lyricist/composer completely changes everything. So the play that opens in New York has virtually no resemblance to the play that opened on the road a year earlier. The history of theatre provides tons of examples where this is true. Shows often go through notoriously long workshops and/or pre-Broadway trials en route to becoming the show that finally opens on Broadway and/or the West End. But those early trial performances aren't counted in the show's run - just as previews are counted separately from a show's official run. But your interpretation treats all these examples as though there are no differences. I believe there are. And theatre organizations like the Internet Broadway Database, The Broadway League, the American Theatre Wing and The Society of London Theatre also acknowledge these distinctions. So if WP rules don't make a distinction between them, then those rules need to be revisited. Thanks again for your suggestion and input. Will look forward to our continued discussions. X4n6 (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Different productions do not make a show suddenly change the year it was first written or performed in. By your school of thought Gypsy which was written in 1959, would be a 2015 musical because it received a significant revival with all new creative team. Thats a new production but it doesnt change when it was created. The source in the article clearly states that the production was a world premiere. A world premiere that occurred in 2015. The cat description is pretty clear on this. Kinky boots received an out of town try out in 2012 and that is the year the cat is included, not 2013 when it premiered on Broadway. As I've already said the guidelines, whilst I firmly agree with them, are nothing to do with meBlethering Scot 22:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I've already noted that I accept that if the same show is mounted in different years the first production counts. So your "Gypsy" example misses the mark because that's obviously a revival, which is an entirely different kettle of fish that I never addressed. But a show like "A Chorus Line," which was famously workshopped forever, shouldn't have those early workshop performances count. "The Fantasticks" was originally produced as "Joy Comes to Deadhorse" in 1956, four years before it opened off-Broadway in 1960 under the new name. Matt, Maria and El Gallo, were the leading characters in both shows. But by your argument, the show opened in 1956. So perhaps the best solution is new sub-categories: "Broadway musicals by year" and "West End musicals by year." The same for plays. Those would be the only categories that accurately reflect the year-specific practices of the ruling theatre bodies I've pointed to. X4n6 (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Im not really wanting to debate this further, mainly because the cat and guideline were not created by me. I can see partially where your coming from, although I don't agree with it. If you want a wider discussion it will need to be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre, as any change would need to be discussed there.Blethering Scot 20:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed that we've "gone about as fer as we can go." Happy to get input from the project and other eds. X4n6 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

Hangmen (play)

I have done a history merge of your userspace draft into the article, so your earlier versions are there in the history behind the current article. Fortunately there was no overlap of dates. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Really appreciate it.Blethering Scot 18:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Chris Higgins (footballer)

I have been updating the Queen of the South captain's page tonight and their are two red errors under references that I cannot correct. Could you look at this for me please? I'm going to update his career box over the weekend, as this has not been updated since September 2012. Rusty1111 : Talk 20:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Rusty1111 thats it done for you.Blethering Scot 21:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this so quickly. Rusty1111 : Talk 07:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Queen of the South Season 2015-16

I have been editing this page this morning after yesterday's 6-0 win over Dumbarton that I was at and I'm using my Samsung Tab 4 to edit. I've clicked on the wiki mark up section below the edit box with the drop down menu and for some reason I cannot type anything now as if the keyboard is not recognised. Yet any other random wiki page I can edit with my Tab 4 device. I can also edit Queens season page with my phone or surface device without any problem. Have you any idea what I have done at all? Just curious. Rusty1111 : Talk 10:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Rock

I've got the sources downloaded and hope to have something for you this week. Sorry to be so slow.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Wehwalt Hey don't worry about it. Ive been working on Waitress.Blethering Scot 18:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I've added some, and will work more on the Rock article next week.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi Blethering Scot, sorry for the accidental revert. I was reading on my phone last night and I guess my fat fingers must have pressed revert by accident, I didn't notice this until I looked at my contributions page this morning. Fenix down (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits to American Psycho Musical

Scott,

I apologize if this is the wrong forum, or protocol, but wished to explain the reasons for edits. Obviously you are a major contributor in this space. It would be helpful for me to understand concerns you have.

The American Psycho Musical predates the cited sources. The evidence of that is via closed communications or platforms. There is nothing that would be of interest to the general public, but the timeline is important. It feels as if you have a particular issue over linguistics, sources or certain parties. There are other projects and information that will link to this page which cite the exact same sources that have not been disturbed. This affects other information and people. The author of the original underlying material. The director of the film of the same name. The creative elements involved. Other works in a similar vein. The genre history. Current projects, etc.

Before new pages are created, additions or corrections to this made, or financial information added- it would be helpful to understand your position. Why do you consider one source credible and another not? Why would a site that publishes the exact original press release be labeled unreliable? What do you recommend in order to avoid these types of situations?

After so much time and effort, you appear to be an excellent person to ask. I realize there are compliance standards and this may be annoying to you, but it is much appreciated.

Thank you for your time adding insight.

Mark SpitzMark Spitz (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Waitress Musical.jpeg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Waitress Musical.jpeg. 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. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Queen of the South season page 2015-16

Could you add a box into the management statistics for Gavin Skelton as he is in caretaker charge for the final two league games this season? Rusty1111 : Talk 08:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've managed to add the box for Gavin Skelton into the management statistics for season 2015-16. This is only going to be for the final two league matches of the season but I didn't want to include them in Fowler's stats as he has left the club. Rusty1111 : Talk 10:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Apologies I read your initial post wrong. I thought you wanted to add the management stats to the infobox on Skelton's own page and when I looked was already done. I have now realised you meant the season page. I'll take a look at tonight. Blethering Scot 11:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for merging the two management stats boxes on the season page. Rusty1111 : Talk 08:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Queen of the South Season 2016-17

Any chance of creating this template soon, as players have started moving around and I want to update the transfers list? Thanks...Rusty1111 : Talk 12:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you create the template page for Queen of the South for next season 2016-17, please? Rusty1111 : Talk 15:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I have started it but it will be a couple of days before I can finish it due to work.Blethering Scot 18:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the page and continuing to work on this. Could you let me know when you have finished and I will then add in some of the player transfers? Rusty1111 : Talk 08:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Everything that should be on the page, is now on the page. A lot of it is in hidden sections and you know you can just unhide them when required.Blethering Scot 17:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bertie Carvel Matilda.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bertie Carvel Matilda.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. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MatildaWhenIGrowUp.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MatildaWhenIGrowUp.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. --B-bot (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Queen of the South Season 2016-17

I've got a large boxed around Steven Rigg in the "players in" section. Could you get the box back in line with the "players out" section, please? Rusty1111 : Talk 15:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. Rusty1111 : Talk 17:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Queen of the South Season 2016-17 Kit

Would you be able to update the home and away kits for next season? There is no third kit for the new season. Link below:

www.qosfc.com/news-3217

Hi. Are the ones on Queen of the South correct? If not I'm afraid I don't have the knowledge to build the kits from scratch. You would be best to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and see if anyone there can help you.Blethering Scot 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Queen of the South Season 2016-17

I was wondering if you could post up this season's kit when you get a chance? Rusty1111 : Talk 11:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

http://www.qosfc.com/news-3176

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

New newsletter for Notifications

Hello

You are subscribing to the Notifications newsletter on English Wikipedia.

That newsletter is now replaced by the monthly and multilingual Collaboration team newsletter, which will include information and updates concerning Notifications but also concerning Flow and Edit Review Improvements.

Please subscribe!

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Blethering Scot. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Blethering Scot. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blethering_Scot/2016/1&oldid=1136204653"