User talk:Standingfish

Jeffrey Archer[edit]

I saw your comments on SqueakBox's talk page, and decided to reply to you here as well.

If you check the Members of the House of Lords page, it has a full list of the members. A large number of them have the full title in the lead (I don't mean the page name, just the lead), for example:

While I fully agree Wikipedia articles should be consistent, it is possible that what you think is the correct format is incorrect so it's better to check first. The style manual states that Rule here is, "So-and-so, ordinal (if appropriate) title (of) place" for members of the hereditary Peerage, then goes on to state Life peers (ie, people who have peerages awarded exclusively for their lifetime but who neither inherit it nor pass it on to anyone else)¹ use the same standard as for hereditary peers. So by my understanding of it, we are supposed to include the place name. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 21:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gardner Is Under Contract[edit]

Hello mate,

I've noticed that you've removed Scott Gardner from the Leeds United squad, on the Leeds United page. Your explanation is that he's not officially signed yet.

He signed a new contract with the club at the end of last season, at the same time as Ben Parker and Gavin Rothery.

He signed this contract, a one-year deal, on June 19. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/leeds_united/6767085.stm

Kind Regards,

Standingfish.

Hi. The reason I removed these players is that they weren't part of the 17 players which leeds stated were under full contracts at the club towards the end of the administration period. This story confirms that the players have just signed and this article was put up on Leeds' web-site after I made the edit, making the edit legitimate. I was simply trying to keep the information on the page correct. The BBC (as did sky sports) after all did report that creswell's transfer to hull was complete only to report later that it in-fact hadn't theerefore they make have not kept the article you found up-to date. I hope this explains my reasoning. Chappy ^T_C 18:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't trust the squad page on the official website. As of the point I'm writing this message there two number 4s, 7s, 8s, 11s, 15s & 16s, plus I've seen players leave the club and then stay on there for weeks after. They don't seem amazingly bothered about keeping it up-to date, anyway was just a quick note. Chappy ^T_C 11:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds United Questions[edit]

Squad Numbers: If you look back through the history of Leeds' squad numbers (or at least since I can remember from back to 1993) the numbers 12 or 13 aren't always used. The number 12 has only been used for a couple of seasons by Leeds as far as I can remember with the number 13 not being used in one season. Unofficially the number 12 isn't usually used as the "fans are the 12th man" however this isn't usually confirmed by most clubs. Maybe Wise has got superstitious with the number 13. as for Lund not getting a number I don't know Wise's logic on that one since we need at least two keepers.

Players Released: Regarding the other 4 "released players" I will point out that these players were "Free Transfer Currently on Transfer List" which means that they will be on rolling contracts until they sign for other clubs, so technically still on Leeds' books.

Note on youngsters. Normally pages on footballers are only allowed on wikipedia once they have an appearance in a fully professional competition (i.e. in England this is the premiership, championship, league one, league two, the fa cup (not preliminary rounds), the league (carling) cup and the football league trophy (johnstones paint)), meaning all of the players currently on Farsley's books that haven't played above the conference should have their pages deleted. This means that players such as Liam Darville qualify for Deletion and should be listed as such on WP:Football, along with any of the farsley players that haven't made fully professional appearances.

Quick Note: You seem to be signing your comments manually. If you use the four tides ~~~~ it saves time, provides links to you user-page, making it easier for people to respond, and also provides the date and time you left the comment so people know how long ago you left the message. Chappy ^T_C 08:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Oldfield/Paul Tisdale[edit]

Hi and thank you! David Oldfield as you said dressed the English shirt so I consider him English. Paul Tisdale has been excluded 'cause in his article page is said he is a a former England youth international. However, I'm not mantaining the list anymore, Chanheigeorge is doing a great job but has changed many of my original criteria, as you can see in the talk page. So, if you want, you'd better discuss this two cases there! Thanks again! --necronudist (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Cup 1958-59[edit]

Greetings. Please forgive the lateness of my reply, but I've been on a wikibreak as you can see.

My edit was backed up (though I know I didn't indicate the source) by Romeo Ionescu's book on the European Cup. Normally quite thorough on every encounter, unfortunately it only had this to say about that match, and I quote:

Young Boys Bern v Manchester United 2-0 (1-0)
This game was played on 25.09.1958 but the match was not recognised by the English F.A.

Assumedly the game was played in Switzerland as BSC appears first in the listing, but unlike in any other match report, neither the stadium nor the city in which it was played are named. There is also no reference in the book to that other match of October 1st, or even to the Beşiktaş-Olympiakos matchups.

Seemingly UEFA does not recognise the match either, so I have no idea why the match (or matches) was played or even scheduled if United was not allowed to take part in the competition, if it was a friendly or intended to be part of the European Cup.

Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. _ZdS| talk 19:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of heavyweight boxing champions[edit]

Sorry, long answer coming up.

Ezzard Charles

“There had not a disagreement before 1949 in the Heavyweight ranks, but now the New York authorities decided not to recognize the winner of the Chicago bout (Charles-Walcott 22-6-49) as champion but instead give their approval to about between Lee Savold and Bruce Woodcock, to take place in London in summer 1949. The fight was also recognised by the BBBC and the EBU. Unfortunately the bout was delayed for a year because Woodcock was involved in a car accident” - from Encyclopedia of World Boxing by Peter Arnold.

Between the postponement of the Savold-Woodcock fight and it eventually taking place, Joe Louis made a comeback and the NYSAC decided that Charles-Louis would be for their vacant title instead of Savold-Woodcock. The phrase “Charles became universally recognized as the World Heavyweight Champion." should read “became universally recognized as the World Heavyweight champion in the USA”. The American boxing press tends to ignore EBU World champions.

To answer your two questions;

(a) who did the EBU recognize as their world heavyweight champion between September 27, 1950 and June 15/16, 1951?

A - Savold

(b) was the EBU title (like the NYSAC title) left vacant from Joe Lewis' retirement on March 1, 1949 all the way through to September 27, 1950?

A – No – The EBU title was vacant until 6th June 1950 when Savold defeated Woodcock. Savold held the title until he was stripped after losing a non-title fight against Louis in June 1951. After that fight, Charles was awarded the EBU title presumably because he had already beaten Louis. Charles was only truely the undisputed champion in June and July 1951.

Ali-Frazier.

From the foundation of the WBA until the NYSAC joined that organization in 1973, the NYSAC always recognized the WBA champion as their “world” champion with two exceptions, Hedgemon Lewis at welterweight in 1972 and Frazier.

The story goes like this; After the WBA (and the NYSAC) stripped Ali they arranged an eight-man tournament to decide their champion. Joe Frazier refused to take part because he felt he deserved a straight shot at the vacant title. The NYSAC agreed with him and decided that Frazier-Mathis should be for their version of the world title.

To answer your questions,

(a) The NYSAC title follows the WBA line between 1964 and 1967.

(b) “It mentions in the article that "The WBC and other organizations continued to recognize him"” Not 100% sure who the other organizations are, possibly some US state boxing commisions who were not members of either the WBA or WBC or even “The Ring” magazine.

Hope this is helpful - although I might have contradicted what I wrote in the article in some places.

All the best,Topcardi (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer some of your questions.

1) I changed a paragraph which read: "Savold lost the recognition he had as "world" champion in Europe and the British Commonwealth when he lost to Joe Louis in a non-title fight in June 1951."

There was/is a Empire/Commonwealth Boxing Council but looking further into this, I can’t find evidence that he was regarded as “world champion” anywhere outside Europe.

2) I decided not to edit this, but here goes: There is a sentence which reads: "In late 1934 the International Boxing Union ordered world champion Max Baer to defend his title against the reigning European champion, Pierre Charles of Belgium

This is the wording that appears in the book I referenced however, you’re right, it has to be wrong. My guess is Baer was ordered to defend against the European champion, which was Uzcudun. Uzcudun retired in early 1935, although he quickly made a comback. Looking at the timing of the fights it looks like the IBU delayed the “world title” fight until they had a European champion to contest it.

3) In the article, there is a line which reads: "Schmeling defeated Jack Sharkey to earn universal recognition as champion". I was particularly interested in the word 'universal' and presumed he may not have been recognized by all the organizations prior to his victory over Sharkey. I then started looking at the profiles on boxrec.com of Joe Louis, Max Schmeling, Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney. For some fights, these legends are not listed as being the world heavyweight champion despite being listed as the NBA/NYSAC world heavyweight champion and vice versa. There are also funny combinations of holding only one of the NBA/NYSAC titles (but not the other) at the same time as being world heavyweight champion. There is even one instance when Dempsey was the NYSAC champion but not the NBA champion or the world heavyweight champion. What do you make of this?

I’ll have a look at this when I have more time but a couple of possibilities occur to me.

a) Jack Dempsey was banned by the NYSAC from fighting in NY because he (or more likely, his management) refused to fight the black fighter, Harry Wills. This could have an effect on the NYSAC.

b) For the Louis –Schmeling problems. Some of the skullduggery is explained at:[1]

All the best, Topcardi (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Pepper straw poll[edit]

There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Anne Haddy[edit]

I don't understand how and why an established editor such as yourself would just rv sourced edits (an obituary in this case) regarding the subject's year of birth without even an edit summary. No edit summary could excuse this bizarrely indefensible edit, anyway. Did you even read the obit before deleting it?? Quis separabit? 19:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: You Can Make History (Young Again)[edit]

I suppose I just assumed it was released as a promotional recording to radio stations after seeing a disc stamped with something along the lines of "promo use only", but thanks, I'll add it to the article! (Which you were welcome to do as well -- it's on Wikipedia, after all!) I'm also unaware of what the other two cassette singles released are! Ss 112 17:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive rock[edit]

I'm doing a major edit on Progressive rock, so please hold off on those tweaks for a while. You're putting energy into things that might not be there tomorrow. Once June rolls around, you can make those edits, just keep wp:overlink in mind: each item should be linked no more than twice in the body of the article. Dementia13 (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, on List of progressive rock bands you removed a lot of references and referenced material with no rationale. I appreciate the cleanup you did on some of the other things, but you can't exercise your opinion on which bands you think belong when there are references that provide justification for their inclusion. It's also wrong of you to remove valid references. I can't undo that edit because of your intervening edits, and fixing that manually is a lot of work, so I'm politely but firmly requesting that you yourself go back and restore the material you removed. That includes the recent edits where a third party added Journey and Klaatu: those need to be tagged as needing citations, not removed. Journey did not begin life as the commercial outfit they developed into, and they probably belong here. Dementia13 (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: I was able to revert that section, but in the process any legitimate formatting edits you made were lost. Those efforts are valued, and I would encourage you to do those over. Deletion of referenced material is defined as "illegitimate blanking" vandalism under WP:VANDTYPES, so please don't do that again. If you disagree with an item's inclusion, then find a secondary reference that supports your position so that both sides of the argument may be presented. Under no circumstances should you delete a reference based on a reliable, published source from an article. Dementia13 (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing: I have to be official about it and place this warning: (removed) Dementia13 (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning removed per your comments on my talk page. I do appreciate your constructive edits. My attempts at doing those special characters have been futile. I picked up the progressive rock article as part of a Guild of Copy Editors drive, but it needed more than a copyedit. I chose to do the cleanup myself instead of just tagging it, and I'll be done by the end of the drive at month's end. Then would be a good time to polish the details. Dementia13 (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Standingfish. 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)[reply]

James Will[edit]

I based the years of his senior career from his profile on the Neil Brown site. It denotes his Arsenal senior career as being 91 to 94, although he didn't make a league (First Division or Premiership) appearance for Arsenal. I guess it must be based on other competitive appearances (League Cup?). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Standingfish. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Standingfish. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Substitutions[edit]

Hi mate. That was quite a missive! I think you're right to question it, and honestly, in the absence of any sources for the numbers of substitutes or even the duration of each game, whether or not there was going to be a replay, etc. I think we should delete all that content from the articles. – Pee Jay 15:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm GiantSnowman. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kyle Bartley have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Giant Snowman 18:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]