User talk:Iggy the Swan/Archive/Chilly 2018

Football messages

Bale

Not sure. But it was the way the whole time, so you may want to start a discussion at the Footy project if you feel it should be changed. Kante4 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

height citation

I was interested in your thoughts about the use on premierleague.com height data on articles, I started a conversation on the footy project. Govvy (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for the barnstar, it's much appreciated. You do a fine job of maintaining football articles yourself. Kosack (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

... for the appreciation. At the moment, updating the appearances is rather more fun than watching the players make them...

Thing you probably weren't aware of, club logos are copyright so we can't use them anywhere apart from on the club articles. So I'll change the logo on your message to a different BCFC-related image, if that's OK, one that's free to use and that brings back better memories. Thanks again, Struway2 (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Struway2, yes I wasn't aware of the copyright policy on logos on clubs and will not happen again. I will find the other talk page which used the club logo and amend it. Iggy (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone else has removed the non-free club logo (Liverpool 445 on Swansea City logo used). Iggy (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Huddersfield Town A.F.C.

Re: this edit. Can you let me know what is an "accessible source" and where this is specified in Wikipedia? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jameboy: - yes, accessible sources (that's what I called in the edit summary) are ones found from websites, the one you gave was some Match of the Day episode on 4 November 2017. I don't know the policy on citing episodes. The reference you gave appeared to link to the Match of the Day wikipage. I'll find some detailed history on Huddersfield and if I find some, it will be re-added. One thing you've did do correctly was that the reference policy does not include Wikipedia as a source and removed it with helpful explanation. Iggy (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You should not have reverted my edit unless you had strong reason to believe that I was adding false information or unless you believe the BBC to be an unreliable source. WP:SOURCEACCESS says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." I do agree that supplementing it with a web-based source helps others to verify the information, however the particular web page you cited does not mention the information in question, as it only shows that they have played in all four divisions. Thanks for restoring my edit though, that is appreciated. --Jameboy (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That part of the content has been restored with the ref you added, thanks for WP:SOURCEACCESS. Iggy (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Adam Lallana

Thanks for spotting and correcting my typo! 78.147.171.154 (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, 59 December 2017 is certainly an impossible date to have anywhere. Iggy (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Changing reference names

Hello, and thank you for your note. Some people (me, for instance) do rename long reference names or remove long names from refs that are only likely to be used once, but usually it's something I'd do as part of a general cleanup of an article.

I'm surprised you didn't notice all the big red Cite errors in the references section when you previewed your edits: please see e.g. George Boyd (footballer) refs ##41, 78, 118, 123, 145 and 190 for what I mean. I'm guessing you're going to go back and fix those errors that haven't already been fixed by other people or by AnomieBot? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed the George Boyd page, thanks Iggy (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Done, fixed errors to any other pages I have edited similar to the George Boyd errors. Moral: Do the whole page. Iggy (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Doubt

Hi there IGGY, a belated thanks for the happy new year wishes (even though i marked your edit with a "thanks" note),

a polite question, seeing you have been doing that in a few articles: does the wikilinking of publishers/newspapers/other in refs constitute overlinking even if it's done only ONCE? Also, seeing what i saw in Carlos Carvalhal, why some are OK to link and others not?

Man, WP does have some weird technicalities (assuming this is indeed another and not your personal editing style), can't get used to most of them even after 11 years... Cheers, continue the good work --Quite A Character (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I remember both of us talking with Mattythewhite about it a couple of months ago now that I have seen the page again. I have noticed we may use them if relevant but yes, what gives? Iggy (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If you don't mind (and i hope you did not take offence to the "what gives", it was a minor outburst as can be), question still not answered. Still taking Mr. Carvalhal as an example, why is Correio da Manhã or The Independent relevant and BBC Sport and The Daily Telegraph not?

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You know, I will say they are relevant in their own way. Mr. Carvalhal will have the links back the way it was. Iggy (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I can write my reply here, since now you are the one having doubts :) As far as i'm concerned, several users pipe ALL clubs in box and storyline. Me, for aesthetic reasons, choose to leave them in full in storyline and, 99,99999999999999999% of the time, encounter no "resistance" whatsoever while doing so.

On a related note, I'll leave you with this situation: there is this article called CD Numancia. "Numancia" is not the name of any city, it being the old Roman name for the city of Soria. Thus, if the article is named with the "CD", why are we forbidden to display it in full in storyline (just remembered now, same goes for CA Osasuna, from the city of Pamplona).

Regards, enjoy the rest of your Saturday --Quite A Character (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think different country team names may use pipes or no pipes - in England, they always pipe the abbreviations, the FC would usually be piped as well, American soccer teams don't and German team names are used differently in the same article as PeeJay discovered. Iggy (Swan) 21:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

And so, you go to Jefferson Montero's page again and pipe ONLY Getafe. Fair enough (i have already helped out and provided a coherent display - not that i agree with it, but still)... --Quite A Character (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I will look at this as pipe linking Spanish teams would be alright... Iggy (Swan) 22:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Script-assisted reference fixes

Hi there. You should show @Quite A Character: how you make your script-assisted reference fixes, he loves fixing references. ;-) Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The thing that Quite A Character should use to copy and paste into the commons.js file would be importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/Sources.js'); // [[User:Ohconfucius/script/Sources.js]]. That will fix up references but watch out for {{Primary source inline}, that shows the primary source is inside the website domain which is usually not the one listed in the cite web template. Click on the 'Fix SOURCES' in the tool on the left of the editing window and it will take around 10-20 seconds to run the whole item. Happy editing Robby, Iggy (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Good job. :-D Thanks, Robby.is.on (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Primary source inline tags say 'this needs claims references to reliable secondary sources' as AnomieBOT tags them with the month and year I have noticed to some pages. I don't know much about this... Iggy (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Mark Sampson

Please remove the information you updated regarding Mark Sampson.

Thanks

I'm not sure what you mean here... Iggy (Swan) 21:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet?

Hi Iggy.

I have a big suspicion that the user Rr126 is a sockpuppet of banned user Efc1878. Same posting pattern across a multitude of Everton FC-related articles. What do you reckon?

Cheers. 92.251.178.119 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@92.251.178.119: - For a minute there, I though my talk page was vandalised by an LTA (My Royal Young). I was dealing with the mass vandalism there first before moving on to this.

having a look at this, I can probably deduce that this Rr126 account is a sock of the indefinitely blocked Efc1878 - the articles listed there are all to do with Everton FC (past or present). I have some idea as to how the Efc1878 was blocked in the first place (by GiantSnowman), the edit warring and timestamps. I noticed that on a small amount of articles, timed in May 2017, the anonymous IP's from SE China/Hong Kong were updating timestamps which the likes of User:GiantSnowman and User:Qed237 (who has probably left Wikipedia) reverted (presumably, they reverted due to the sock puppet policy that the edits may be reverted or removed), claiming they were the sock puppet of Efc1878. Thedixies were spotted quickly by Qed237 on 21 May 2017, and on November, via a heated discussion on the timestamp confusion (from me) on Séamus Coleman's talk page, TonyBallioni deduced that Davekgoodnight was a sock with the findings. User:Quite A Character may have suspected that Rr126 might have been a previous user, "(again?)" was displayed on Rr126's talk page.

I will open up an investigation - I can see that you (92.251.178.119) can't open it because the page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations) is protected. Having a few users mentioned as well, they may deduce it from my talk page.

Thanks and wish the suspicion is correct. Iggy (Swan) 11:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Doubtless the editor mentioned is the latest incarnation of Efc1878, and I'm not condoning block evasion. However, there's nothing wrong with the way they're editing. When they update the timestamps, e.g. at Seamus Coleman now he's back playing, they're updating both |club-update= and |nationalteam-update= to the current date/time. There's nothing wrong with that. I do that, with articles I regularly edit, and so do plenty of others. The anon is insisting that |nationalteam-update= must remain how it was back when the original edit-war got both parties blocked, and must never change until and unless Mr Coleman makes another international appearance. You'll see from the template documentation that the parameter should show "A timestamp at which the player's infobox national team statistics are correct", and not "the first timestamp added after the player last played an international match". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

TWO things: 1 - yes, User:Struway2, 100% correct to have that editing pattern per guidelines it seems (update both parameters even though player has not appeared for NT in ages, I don't see the point in that but the guidelines state differently). However, I think I read somewhere (and I also think User:Mattythewhite concurred when I discussed that topic with him) that it's not wrong to leave the NT field blank if player is not appearing for country (pretty much like the timeframe(s), we can remove dash and reinstate it if/when a player returns), am I more or less correct in this assumption?

2 - yes Iggy, 99,999999999999999999999999999999999% correct it's a sock of the account, the editing pattern (for lack of a better wording, "type of pages edited" would be better) is glaringly similar.

Attentively, happy weekend --Quite A Character (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User reverted and blocked per WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 12:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

There will be plenty of users who are keeping an eye on the Everton FC related articles - any similar editing 'waves' by a same user name would be looked at closely. Iggy (Swan) 14:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, per WP:SO, the same person has evaded blocks less than six months after the original indefinite block was timed at 265 days ago (13 May 2017). I'm guessing that the six month countdown has now been reset due to the recent block evasion. If there are no edits from the person within that time, promises that the disruptive editing would stop and obey step 3, the sock master may have the block lifted. Same thing with PenguinsElite, The Almightey Drill etc. though the chances of that is not 100% successful. Iggy (Swan) 23:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

"Interesting" (or not...), just visited their talkpage for reasons that elude me, only to find out they did reply me after nearly one month after my original message (and you as well) and with insults for (some of) our actions regarding these latest developments (as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rr126&diff=823670735&oldid=823670647). I left them another message, thus (not hoping for much, but still). I see no point in having a NT update in the infobox for a player that: 1 - is OVER playing youth football due to age; 2 - has NEVER appeared (not as much as a single callup) for the A team of his country, do you retire from something you've NEVER been a part of?

I can see why you'd lose it because of vandals (i often do, even though i know it's against the guidelines), but what did we do in order to merit this? They have been blocked to and fro, and we are the hypocrites and the dotards? Oh well... --Quite A Character (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I asked they both be vanished (WP:VANISH) because i had the intention (LOL, TWICE!) of leaving forever and never return, guess i cannot, i'm hooked... --Quite A Character (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Pablo Hernández (footballer, born 1985) - Reply

Yes, if you notice references #30/#31 in his article you will see Leeds bought him outright on 9 JANUARY and not 9 MAY as Soccerbase says.

Enjoy the new week, continue the good work --Quite A Character (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Iggy the Swan

You're welcome. :-) Yeah, I've got your Talk page on my watchlist since our exchange earlier this year so I've been seeing the spam. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Happy editing, Iggy (Swan) 19:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Script editing

Hello. You might want to tell the owner of whatever script it is that you used here that it shouldn't be changing double hyphens in template parameters to emdashes, as it did when it changed <ref>{{soccerway|massimo--luongo/209637}}</ref> to <ref>{{soccerway|massimo—luongo/209637}}</ref>

I'm guessing you didn't think that was an unlikely change to make? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Unlikely change there, fixed to one dash. Iggy (Swan) 18:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Signing articles

When adding time stamps to articles please take care to use 3 ~ instead of 4 as you did here or here. You're siging articles which is not appropriate--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jac16888: - I have thought of a solution to that - I will word document the three ~ from now on to avoid signatures or use the ~~~~ button and take off one. The ~ key has been used a lot on updating timestamps in association football articles and it might not be working as it should. Sorry about that, Iggy (Swan) 18:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chris Wood (footballer, born 1991)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chris Wood (footballer, born 1991) 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 Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chris Wood (footballer, born 1991)

The article Chris Wood (footballer, born 1991) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Chris Wood (footballer, born 1991) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: –

Cheers for the heads up, there I was typing it out each time! SBFCEdit (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Miscellanouses

1 - Sorry mate, can't help you with the squad template, i'm as dumb as they come regarding technicalities; 2 - thanks for the kind message, continue the great work!

Cheers --Quite A Character (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Music messages

"The Saturdays"

Hi, "The" Saturdays is correct, If some policy here says it's not then you need to seek consensus for the changes, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010:- I've seen in the MOS saying the Beatles has the 't' not capitalized (the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.:

Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.). I have noticed The Saturdays are written out both ways though in one or two of the band members' articles... Iggy (Swan) 22:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Admittingly I have no idea what the MOS is on this but as I said without sounding condescending it might be best to seek consensus, Apologies for reverting all of your edits to begin with - Stupid error on my part so sorry for that, Happy editing anyway :), –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Film messages

Barnstars

A beer for you!

For your edit on Carlo Ancelotti. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC) In real life, I don't drink beer. Iggy (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC) That's one heavy looking beer with a great big head on it! I wouldn't drink that either!! Govvy (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Links

IABot

Are you saying we shouldn't archive something till it's dead? That seems very bizarre to me. Can you elaborate? This is Paul (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen the IABot console archiving a lot of links before - and many of them appears to be accessible (the original un-archived versions). However, I have seen an option on that so that would make some sense. This is Paul says we can do that if we wish. I will not revert it - thanks, Iggy (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, just checking at WP:HELPDESK in case we shouldn't be letting it do that. But I will say you're the first person to challenge this as far as I'm aware. This is Paul (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The Huffington Post -> HuffPost

FYI re [1][2]. Source name changes are not retroactive for our purposes. Cheers. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the HuffPost is seen on the top of the source, the mention that it was not call that until April 2017, I will keep an eye on that in the future. Iggy (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Date and year cite-web parameters

Hello. Changing |date= to |year= is, in most cases, the opposite of what the documentation says:

• year: Year of source being referenced. Use of |date= is recommended unless all of the following conditions are met:
  1. The template uses |ref=harv, or the template is {{citation}}, or |mode=cs2
  2. The |date= format is YYYY-MM-DD.
  3. The citation requires a CITEREF disambiguator.

In most cases, not all of those conditions are met. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I will also keep an eye on that as well @Struway2: - the script thinks the date parameters are 'misused', for instance 'date=2018' is changed to 'year=2018' if the year was only listed... Iggy (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marcos Alonso Mendoza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Community Shield. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Iggy (Swan) 09:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Access date

Hi,
Just thought I'd mention, as I've noticed you changing this a lot, it's access-date (with the hyphen) per Template:Cite web (and other templates). You may well have been drawn into this by noticing an Admin., active on footy articles, changing this frequently. It actually makes no difference as far as I can tell, but it may save you the effort! Having said that I usually write it without the hyphen myself, anyway! Cheers, Eagleash (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Alias - I have noticed that through cleanup by AWB. In some ways, this is written both ways... Iggy (Swan) 22:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Selsey and the IAbot rescue while under DRN

Hi Iggy the Swan. No doubt you're exited about the new wikt:twitcher hide at Pagham Harbour just to the north of Selsey. I know they'd really like Kate Humble to open it but it's likely to be someone else. More to the point your name is against the IAbot change which rescued a link on the Selsey article. The link was working previously and it continues to work afterwards. (The original explicitly specified a port 80 which is the http: default, the IAbot removed the superfluous :80). While this would normally be trivial I currently have the text under consideration at [[3]] and I have therefore reverted the change. You are welcome to repeat the change when the article is out of DRN or discuss at WP:DRN Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Iggy (Swan) 16:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Https

Hi, are you sure using https is correct for the BBC refs? It isn't automatically generated in the url, on my browser at least. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Https appears to be more secure than Http - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football and http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football are the same but the http version can be intercepted by some third party which has data passed between two systems.

I've also noticed that they work in https as well, my feeling is that it would be better as there is secure connection. Iggy (Swan) 16:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

But doesn't the BBC domain actually need a HTTPS certificate for it to work? TBH, I know very little about the technicalities. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The BBC domain works with both versions - other domains only allow the https version, I'd say https version uses secure connections. Iggy (Swan) 17:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I looked at Carly Rae Jepsen#2014–present: Emotion and other projects https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35119884 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35119884 with both Edge and Chrome. The BBC web server appeared to be redirecting the https: request to http:. The BBC will be aware of security issues. Rendering a read only page from their website probably isn't too much of a security issue in most cases. And my understanding is http can be rendered by the BBC more efficiently than https: including by making use of caches. Looking a page such as http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41269646 is more revealing ... if you hover over the send button you will see the response will be sent ssl via https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/ ... Should we be changing working http: references to https: links ... I'm not sure. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news, https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/, https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio, https://www.bbc.co.uk/arts, and https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/ appears not to use the https format yet (check to confirm) - news is one of them. If KolbertBot converts from http to https on the BBC domain, not all of them (the ones listed here) will use the https version. At least the content won't change, Iggy (Swan) 17:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I can confirm that KolbertBot doesn't perform changes to links from any BBC sites, is the proposal to have it start? If so, what specific domains are HTTPS-compatible? Thanks. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The following supports both http and https:- beginning with http://www.bbc.co.uk/...

sport, iplayer, tv, cbbc, cbeebies, music, tomorrowsworld, arts, makeitdigital and taster - the main source would be sport as news comes from there. Iggy (Swan) 18:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Cbeebies seems to have a lot of broken links (see here), tomorrowsworld and makeitdigital don't have any HTTP links, so I didn't include that either. Finally, taster didn't appear to work for me using HTTPS. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot does not fix the dead links. Iggy (Swan) 14:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if you've seen it already, but the following blog poster is perhaps relevant, even if a year old: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/f6f50d1f-a879-4999-bc6d-6634a71e2e60 Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC) .. Though I notice an update here http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/a6604322-99a9-4272-860c-f78e667e18e3 , more information here http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/eb4fdb3a-fa91-49ad-bb71-bbe82dab2bd3 and here http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/328e1b75-26f9-49e9-9ed1-5abd481f03f3 . Not really sure this is all is appropriate comments for User:Iggy the Swan's talk page but perhpas it is helpful. Best Wishes. 08:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I have seen them now, they appear to be useful. Iggy (Swan) 13:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Television

Wallace and Gromit

Hi, Thanks for the edit. I think I did put a source: Gromit's birthday is 12 February. In The Wrong Trousers, he is seen circling the date on a calendar. Please let me know what is wrong with this source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.209.162 (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Possible sockpuppet?

Hi Iggy. I have a big suspicion that the user Rr126 is a sockpuppet of banned user Efc1878. Same posting pattern across a multitude of Everton FC-related articles. What do you reckon? Cheers. 92.251.178.119 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@92.251.178.119: - For a minute there, I though my talk page was vandalised by an LTA (My Royal Young). I was dealing with the mass vandalism there first before moving on to this.

having a look at this, I can probably deduce that this Rr126 account is a sock of the indefinitely blocked Efc1878 - the articles listed there are all to do with Everton FC (past or present). I have some idea as to how the Efc1878 was blocked in the first place (by GiantSnowman), the edit warring and timestamps. I noticed that on a small amount of articles, timed in May 2017, the anonymous IP's from SE China/Hong Kong were updating timestamps which the likes of User:GiantSnowman and User:Qed237 (who has probably left Wikipedia) reverted (presumably, they reverted due to the sock puppet policy that the edits may be reverted or removed), claiming they were the sock puppet of Efc1878. Thedixies were spotted quickly by Qed237 on 21 May 2017, and on November, via a heated discussion on the timestamp confusion (from me) on Séamus Coleman's talk page, TonyBallioni deduced that Davekgoodnight was a sock with the findings. User:Quite A Character may have suspected that Rr126 might have been a previous user, "(again?)" was displayed on Rr126's talk page.

I will open up an investigation - I can see that you (92.251.178.119) can't open it because the page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations) is protected. Having a few users mentioned as well, they may deduce it from my talk page.

Thanks and wish the suspicion is correct. Iggy (Swan) 11:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Doubtless the editor mentioned is the latest incarnation of Efc1878, and I'm not condoning block evasion. However, there's nothing wrong with the way they're editing. When they update the timestamps, e.g. at Seamus Coleman now he's back playing, they're updating both |club-update= and |nationalteam-update= to the current date/time. There's nothing wrong with that. I do that, with articles I regularly edit, and so do plenty of others. The anon is insisting that |nationalteam-update= must remain how it was back when the original edit-war got both parties blocked, and must never change until and unless Mr Coleman makes another international appearance. You'll see from the template documentation that the parameter should show "A timestamp at which the player's infobox national team statistics are correct", and not "the first timestamp added after the player last played an international match". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

TWO things: 1 - yes, User:Struway2, 100% correct to have that editing pattern per guidelines it seems (update both parameters even though player has not appeared for NT in ages, I don't see the point in that but the guidelines state differently). However, I think I read somewhere (and I also think User:Mattythewhite concurred when I discussed that topic with him) that it's not wrong to leave the NT field blank if player is not appearing for country (pretty much like the timeframe(s), we can remove dash and reinstate it if/when a player returns), am I more or less correct in this assumption? 2 - yes Iggy, 99,999999999999999999999999999999999% correct it's a sock of the account, the editing pattern (for lack of a better wording, "type of pages edited" would be better) is glaringly similar. Attentively, happy weekend --Quite A Character (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User reverted and blocked per WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 12:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

There will be plenty of users who are keeping an eye on the Everton FC related articles - any similar editing 'waves' by a same user name would be looked at closely. Iggy (Swan) 14:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, per WP:SO, the same person has evaded blocks less than six months after the original indefinite block was timed at 265 days ago (13 May 2017). I'm guessing that the six month countdown has now been reset due to the recent block evasion. If there are no edits from the person within that time, promises that the disruptive editing would stop and obey step 3, the sock master may have the block lifted. Same thing with PenguinsElite, The Almightey Drill etc. though the chances of that is not 100% successful. Iggy (Swan) 23:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

"Interesting" (or not...), just visited their talkpage for reasons that elude me, only to find out they did reply me after nearly one month after my original message (and you as well) and with insults for (some of) our actions regarding these latest developments (as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rr126&diff=823670735&oldid=823670647). I left them another message, thus (not hoping for much, but still). I see no point in having a NT update in the infobox for a player that: 1 - is OVER playing youth football due to age; 2 - has NEVER appeared (not as much as a single callup) for the A team of his country, do you retire from something you've NEVER been a part of? I can see why you'd lose it because of vandals (i often do, even though i know it's against the guidelines), but what did we do in order to merit this? They have been blocked to and fro, and we are the hypocrites and the dotards? Oh well... --Quite A Character (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I asked they both be vanished (WP:VANISH) because i had the intention (LOL, TWICE!) of leaving forever and never return, guess i cannot, i'm hooked... --Quite A Character (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC) The link is WP:CBAN for ZestyLemonz. --Yamla (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia v. MRY socks

The MRY socks never stop creating ranges to bypass the indef block. Also, what is "unseen vandalism? 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:945C:527D:BBD6:528E (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Some MRY socks has abused the LTA, Fire Emblem Heroes and Paladin page with (auto)-confirmed access. Time to put 30/500 protection on these pages. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:5801:116F:415A:850 (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)