User talk:Brududesom

A page you started (Nathan McGinley) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Nathan McGinley, Brududesom!

Wikipedia editor Babymissfortune just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for taking the time creating this page.

To reply, leave a comment on Babymissfortune's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

^{Babymissfortune} 16:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Luke Armstrong) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Luke Armstrong.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I have reviewed and approved this article, as Armstrong meets notability criteria for soccer/association football players.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Balon Greyjoy}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merging articles

I've noticed that you've recently moved Isaiah Jones from your user page to to it's current location despite there already being a page of the same name that had more content in the article. You've also done this before with another page I had created (Luke Armstrong). I request that you explain your reasoning. Brududesom (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a draft into mainspace is standard (that's the whole point of creating drafts!) - but the way that the history merge works is that it will display the version that was moved in (so, in this case, the one from my userspace). Feel free to restore 'your' version, the history has been retained. No need to be so aggressive. Giant Snowman 09:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is standard practice, that's not my complaint. My complaint is that you apparently didn't check before merging and I was unable to restore so I had to redo a lot of it. I also wasn't being aggressive, just frostily formal, which is different. It's just a little disheartening when your work gets wiped like that. I was hoping that you would understand my position and help me to understand yours. Brududesom (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I did check - and 'your' version was there in the history, so you could easily restore it (which you did). Giant Snowman 21:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you checked and still did it anyway, even though there was no reason to go through with it? And stop trying to deflect the focus here - even if I was able to fully restore the page without issue, it doesn't change anything, you've still seemingly maliciously merged the draft with the page which caused me to have to do even more work to get back parts of the page that should never have been overwritten. So, I will ask you once more to explain why you merged the draft with the page when there was no need to. Brududesom (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop throwing around words like "maliciously" and start WP:AGF. It's quite simple - I started a draft, you then later created an article on the same topic, so I merged the histories. What's the problem? Giant Snowman 22:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS you do not need to start a 'new' discussion every time you post on my page...and if you'd prefer to keep it all in one place (to save you replying here and there) just ping me here. Giant Snowman 22:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Like this? Sorry, I'm not entirely certain as to when exactly you get a notification!

I did initially assume WP:AGF, but you've said that you checked but merged over the page with less content anyway which indicates otherwise. What I'm worried about is that you're merging a lot of pages, which means that this is bound to be happening to pages that I'm not involved with and is therefore affecting a lot of editors who cumulatively will have to put in a lot of work to get their old edits back. It all just seems extremely counterproductive when the simple solution is just to not merge when the page is already to an adequate standard. Brududesom (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Travers

Hi there - Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. You didn't provide a source for your changes to the Mark Travers article, and I couldn't find one either. If you have a reliable source please let me know and we can change the article. Please let me know if you have any questions. Giant Snowman 14:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your concerns regarding my edit on Mark Travers as the only easy way to get that information is through Transfermarkt (which is apparently an unreliable source for some reason) but that information is available on a match by match basis on the Irish FA's website.

For example, here is the link to a match Travers played on 24 April 2017 for Ireland u-18s against Czechia u-18s from the FAI - https://www.fai.ie/ireland/match/55505/2017/999943486.

The issue is that I can't find anything that just outright states the number of apps - you have to go through every individual match report. It's all there, and you will find it all in order if you're willing to search for each individual match. It's just not really productive for me to provide a link to every single match report is all. ~~ Brududesom (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not ideal - there is always the risks of miscounting/missing a match report. Giant Snowman 16:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The negative implication that he may have played more matches doesn't seem much of a problem as most articles about footballers either need the apps updating or there are apps missing anyway.

I don't feel it prudent to reject an edit on the grounds that you don't trust an editor's diligence and don't want to search through each match report yourself. It's best to just give the benefit of the doubt here as the information is just as accurate as any other time someone has updated international youth apps on a player and any error (if there is one) would only be very minor. It is an edit in good faith after all. Brududesom (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All fair points - but the information (especially about BLPs) needs to be easily verified, and this is not. Giant Snowman 17:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose if that's the letter of the law I can't really do anything about it. It's a little frustrating personally but I can appreciate your position here and thank you for you for your time. I suppose we'll just have to hope that the FAI will provide something easily verifiable in the future. Brududesom (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]