Jump to content

Talk:John Carlaw

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

New Zealand Warriors

[edit]

Have reverted to a full name without the need for the nowrap fix following an unexplained reversion. Displaying fine without the need to use the nowrap.Fleets (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am avoiding edit-warring over what appears to be an insignificant issue. NZ Warriors is currently displayed, and I am seeking to display their full name of (the) New Zealand Warriors. This can be implemented without the use of the nowrap fix and thus does not change the width of the infobox. The text displays on the single line at the proper name. I fail to see the issue, but again I seek to discuss the matter here.Fleets (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't stalking and reverting each other's edits just the best? :D --Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I call it a watchlist, not sure what you call it, but I held off to let you put some of that grown up discussion in place, and that avenue still remains open today.Fleets (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There goes my self-imposed IBAN with your good self. 1/5 of it had previously gone out of the window anyway the other day, all for the sake of a very minor issue. But with this, I will talk to you as a fellow human being. The NZ Warriors issue was solved in 2017 by extending the white-space within the infobox template. This allowed longer names to appear in the infobox. It could conceivably be used to have extremely long names in the infobox, but it's limited usage is for the likes of small to medium names such as New Zealand Warriors displaying correctly, not the likes of FC Uralelektromed Verkhnyaya Pyshma. Given that you were not present for those conversations, it was not churlish to revert, but equally I had no great interest in talking to you due to previous. Please accept my coming out of my self-imposed interaction as further evidence of good faith.Fleets (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The NZ Warriors fix has not yet been reverted, unless New Zealand is offensive, or too confusing, creep, messing with the coding, etc but the fix does work and no objections were raised to my knowledge.Fleets (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, Londo06, I was very impressed when you said on my talk page a few weeks ago that you'd played devil's advocate and examined this question of abbreviated club names from the other side. There seemed to be evidence that you were speaking the truth then in this edit. So you do yourself no favours when you say here that you "fail to see the issue". To me it seems you're actually well aware that we differ only on whether use of an abbreviated version should extend to this article for the sake of consistency (I think it should, by the way), but rather than just saying this, you prefer starting these bizarre non-discussions.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above comment.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand your above comment from 2016 as part of the preceeding conversation.Fleets (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you do. While I understand why you might want to pretend that you don't (i.e. because your disruptive editing is actuallly indefensible), I'll do what you always end up forcing me to do and type out the self-evident: The first link I provided in the above comment was to a previous discussion between us in which you appeared to acknowledge arguments in favour the long-standing consensus to abbreviate longer team names within infoboxes (along the lines of North Queensland Cowboys → NQ Cowboys and New Zealand Warriors → NZ Warriors). The next link I provided was a diff of you therefore (and quite justifiably) changing the link in Manu Vatuvei's infobox from New Zealand Warriors to NZ Warriors, an improvement that I've also had to make on some articles, including this one, where you reverted it for some undisclosed reason. I then pointed out how nonsensical that reverting is, making mention of the need for consistency. You then chose to stop responding (and reverting), so the "discussion" ended, presumably because your own confusion (genuine or feigned)?/disruption?/incompetence?/mental illness?/whatever-it-is had been exposed.
Now all of this is obvious to any reader. Links to diffs are provided. Everything is time-stamped. So none of what I am typing here needs to be typed out at all. You're clearly trying to manufacture some "discussion" around an edit where no controversy actually exists, as is your habit: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, etc. After being given second chance after second chance by this community, I feel your entitlement to civility has been voided by your unfortunate and continued insistence on embracing Sock-puppetry, Edit warring and Wikihounding.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least you explained your incivility. The fact remains that the NZ Warriors issue was dealt with in your absence, with a positive outcome and a situation that is confirmed by both parties as non-controversial.Fleets (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently your version of "where no controversy exists" would be in a time-zone to mine. But hey, whatever floats your boat. Would you like me to direct you to the conversations relating to the infobox template that took place during your sabbatical.Fleets (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Carlaw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Carlaw&oldid=1257362202"