User talk:Fleets/Archive 3

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fleets. 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)

Ways to improve Will Oakes

Hi, I'm Robvanvee. Fleets, thanks for creating Will Oakes!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The article could use more sources. Otherwise, nice start!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Robvanvee 08:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll look into adding something to the page when I get a chance.Fleets (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Former

Hi Fleets, I have previously pondered about the addition of the word "Former" in the opening sentence of the rugby league biographies I've work on, but I decided against it, as it's usually followed by, e.g "of the 1960s and 1970s", indicating that they are a former player, I'm concerned that you might be creating a rod-for-your-own back, as there's 1000s of these rugby league biographies. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, yeah I guess although the former should be there, it is undermined by the Australian-English phrase "of the 1960s and 1970s". As you say a rod for my own back, so I'll probably leave them be. Cheers for the advice.Fleets (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

1958 Challenge Cup final

Hi Fleets, for the 1958 Challenge Cup, wigan.rlfans.com have Bernard McGurrin[1] at Loose forward/Lock in the final, rather than Roy Evans, could you please check your reference to make it's correct? Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I genuinely can't remember off the top of my head where I got that information, whether it was a web source, video or matchday programme. I would tend to say that the rlfans page would be the nearest thing to definitive, especially as I cannot remember how I sourced it atm.Fleets (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

1961 Challenge Cup final

Hi Fleets, the 1961 Challenge Cup was won by St Helens R.F.C., and I believe the template below identifies the Leeds team that won the Championship during the 1960–61 season. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC) {{St Helens - 1961 Challenge Cup Final Winners}}

Hi there. Yeah major mistake there. I've gone off the 1960–61_Northern_Rugby_Football_League_season#Championship_final Leeds team as the winners, rather than St Helens who are the winners as directly below that link. Cheers mate, wasn't concentrating properly.Fleets (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I've salavaged your earlier work and created…

Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That's cool. Glad it could be put to good use.Fleets (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

British rugby league squad navigational boxes

Hi Fleets, do you feel that the templates for Leeds, Widnes, and Wigan currently in the top-level of Category:British rugby league squad navigational boxes should actually reside in the club's corresponding subcategory? Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm honest, I can see it from both ways. I'm not sure if there's an MOS for this sort of thing?Fleets (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

1909 Challenge Cup

Hi Fleets, keep up your good work on the various Challenge Cup articles and templates. Interesting, I have the 1909 Challenge Cup in the 1908–09 season as being on Tuesday 20 April 1909, whereas you have it on Saturday 24 April 1909, I don't have the reference to hand (Hoole, Les (2004). Wakefield Trinity RLFC - FIFTY GREAT GAMES. Breedon Books. ISBN 1-85983-429-9), but when I get the chance I'll check what it says. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate that. RLP was the link I was using for the date.Fleets (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Your recent editing history at Arthur Summons shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please don't restore this image again without an appropriate article-specific rationale satisfying NFCC#8 and explaining why the nonfree image should be used when free images are available. Simply because an image, or the event it depicts, is mentioned in the article is by no means sufficient. This is a case of basic, uncontroversial NFCC enforcement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

No need to place a 3RR on your talk page as you were already aware of the 3RR rule.Fleets (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. I seriously recommend that you admit error at that board to avoid action being taken, since you are reverting an action unquestionably called for by the governing policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A lack of understanding, rather than a lack of respect for the system. Contact would have been preferrable to templates and reporting.Fleets (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Challenge Cup navigational boxes

Hi Fleets, I hope you don't think I'm treading on your toes by creating 'Challenge Cup navigational boxes'? The lack of coverage for the Challenge Cup has frustrated me since I started on Wikipedia 8+ years ago, but with 100 or so articles, it has always seemed too daunting for me. I was hoping that by creating some 'Challenge Cup navigational boxes', it might lighten the load of you creating all those Challenge Cup articles. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Andrew Heffernan (rugby league)

The article Andrew Heffernan (rugby league) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:RLN as has not played in an international, NRL or Super League match

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattlore (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the proposed deletion/dated per the template as he played in a professional game for Hull KR against Bradford at the weekend.Fleets (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have also added material to the admittedly bare bones article.Fleets (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fleets, I think the article has enough sources now to meet WP:GNG, regardless of WP:RLN. However, have a read of WP:RLN, as I still don't think League 1 players meet this requirement. Mattlore (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries and I reckon so too. I would agree that League 1 players would not and should not meet the RLN requirements, however recently relegated Hull KR now play in the Championship, it was Bradford who were under threat of being demoted to League One following their liquidation.Fleets (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Championship still fails WP:RLN though, so that wouldn't be enough to justify an article on its own. Mattlore (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't having a pop, merely pointing out that Hull KR play in the professional Championship and not the semi-pro League 1.Fleets (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fleets. You have new messages at Mattlore's talk page.
Message added 22:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mattlore (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC) x2 Mattlore (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Jesse Ramien) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Jesse Ramien, Fleets!

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

Thanks for creating this article - it's appreciated. It's just been reviewed. Could you please look it over and see if you can help address the improvement tags? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Learn more about page curation.

RLN

If you think WP:RLN needs updating to consider playing for a fully professional team notable in it's own right for an article, you may wanna start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league. For what it's worth, I'd support it. – skemcraig⊗ 21:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it is something that I am looking at, but it is a monster job to approach it properly. Trying to tick the boxes that suit professional players and international players, playing against good level teams. Basically resetting the bar more in line with other sports such as rugby union and cricket. Hopefully find some time to put a proposal in to WPRL.Fleets (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Callum Bustin

The article Callum Bustin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:RLN & WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Callum Bustin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Callum Bustin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callum Bustin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mattlore (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Pics

Hey, just in response to the multiple pics thing, I'm not sure if there's anything official, but it's generally accepted and just common sense that we don't clog up a small article with multiple pictures. The small articles only need the one pic. I thought we had already had this discussion before. Also a good amount of the time, the new pictures that you're adding are actually worse quality than the one that was already in use. You should only replace it if it's clearly a better photo. It's about quality contributions over quantity, by adding a lesser quality pic and clogging up a small article with sometimes up to three images, is that really improving the quality of the article? It's clear you're here for the right reasons and are helping out rugby league on Wikipedia, but with the pics issue, you are taking away from the quality rather than adding to it. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, and I do recall, but then another editor jumped in and hijacked any meaningful conversation. If you could point me towards the general acceptance themed conversation that would be greatly appreciated. I could agree with your sentiment with clogging of articles if the photos dominate, I however do not agree that two is too many for a decent sized article such as Joseph Tapine. I would say that yes, three would be too many, and yes perhaps an image of lesser quality could be downsized, or relocated, but it doesn't in my opinion make the same common sense that it should go. Were it to be two Newcastle photos, then maybe, but given that one illustrates him in action for the Knights and one for the Kiwis, then there is merit in both, and I'm sure that space can be found. That Kiwi photo might peak someone's interest and that might lead to his New Zealand career being given more attention. I can understand where you're coming from and will implement an ammendment that should fit my position and hopefully meet with your approval, you after all are the Newcastle fan.Fleets (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The tweak you did on Tapine is far better looking now. I can agree that Tapine is a more decent sized article so you can fit the two pics in there as long as they are sized properly, which they now are. Also try and make sure that the best image is the main photo, in Tapine's case, the Knights photo is a clear, still, close-up image of his face whereas the Kiwis one is further away and less clear in the motion of playing. Thanks for taking my words on board. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. Always happy to try find a compromise and will always listen to a fellow editor when they take the time out of their day to write a message.Fleets (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Article deletion

Hi.

I'm not sure what changes you are proposing, as there isn't a discussion on the project talk page unless I've missed it. The only fully pro leagues in the sport are the NRL & Super League. The second tier (aside from one or two clubs) has always been a semi-professional league. I believe RLN is already in line with other sports at WP:NSPORTS, where the inclusion criteria are generally either sportspeople who have played in a fully professional competition, or at the highest level of domestic competition, neither of which would apply to the Championship.

There's no reason why a player who has had a long, successful career in the Championship can't have an article by passing the GNG, but suggesting it's enough to make a single appearance in a second tier domestic league is setting the bar way too low, in my opinion. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, nothings been put up for discussion at the minute, but I've been pressed to put something in writing by a few editors and I thought it best to consult on both sides. Many thanks for your response, as I'm trying to put something together that is fit for purpose in the modern day game, addressing a few areas in greater deal such is the case at similar wikiprojects. Again many thanks for your ideas.Fleets (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, haven't been editing long but I think Championship players, or Super League players who have duel registration, should have their own article. The water is muddied by the fact a Championship player could play in the Qualifiers, which would surely be classified as a professional competition if all the teams in it were professional. There are now an increasing number of pro clubs in the Championship and this shoulde be recognised. Chocolatebareater (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, quite a few editors have voiced similar or the same concerns. I am working on a proposal, but trying to do it properly so that it is done properly and everyone does feel like it is a worthwile effort, rather than a hatchet job that parachutes championship players eligibility without sorting out the many and numerous concerns about a number of wide-ranging issues.Fleets (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sheffield Eagles / Jamie Acton

Apologies - I think I may have messed up your Sheffield template. Not at all intentional - I was just trying to remove it from Jamie Acton's profile and I am not exactly proficient at this! I did want to correct that statement that Jamie is a Sheffield player though. He is proud to have played for Sheffield and helped them beat Toulouse. Even more his uncle who is a Sheffield supporter is thrilled to have seen him play for his team but he remains a Leigh player first and foremost. His profile as modified implied that he was now a Sheffield player on full time DR, which is not the case and why I changed it back. The following helps to confirm my statement and if I had the skill I would put it on his profile myself! http://rugbyam.co.uk/articles/news/rugby-news/super-league-team-of-the-week/ Again apologies for messing up your Sheffield template - totally accidental and unintentional. Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowcoachwiki (talk • contribs) 18:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries, always good to see someone taking the time to keep rugby league articles up to date.Fleets (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Jamie Acton

I have no idea what your problem is but my edits are neither vandalism or disruptive. Quite the reverse. Your edits are unhelpful, unwanted and inaccurate. He is a Leigh player. If you want to add a player profile I would suggest adding his Leigh profile not a Sheffield one. Why add an incomplete profile for a club he does belong to? Why is that helpful and what possible value is that? He is also not a member of the Sheffield squad - he has played one game under DR. You could equally include every member of the Leigh Squad if you want to go down that route. No that Whitehaven have a DR scheme with Leigh maybe you want to add that too. Again it is confusing and unhelpful and I suggest my edits are adding value rather than being disruptive or vandalism. If you want to do something useful why not make the Leigh squad accurate? The current template is from last year and totally out of date. Concentrate on that if you want to do something useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowcoachwiki (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC) −

Please calm down. If his dual-registration has been cancelled then it would be appropriate to remove the Eagles template. The Sheffield profile neither implies ownership, nor current affiliation and as such could and potentially should remain there indefinitely.Fleets (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I will calm down when I stop receiving messages about vandalism and disruption and receiving threats about editing rights. If you want to be pedantic then I suggest you add every profile from every year and every club that he has played for going back to the Wigan Academy. I maintain that the correct profile to use is a fully completed version from Leigh - the club that pays his wages and not something that is only partially completed and does not even have a photo. As you know well DR is not "cancelled" it remains in place for the senior clubs to use to give their players game time when they are not selected or recovering from injury. All Leigh squad members are therefore eligible for Sheffield (and now Whitehaven) if (and only if) they are made available by the Leigh coach. That does not make them a member of the Championship (or league 1) club squad. To suggest that is wholly incorrect. They are not squad members available for selection or being paid by the junior club. If he were on loan to another club (As he was from Wigan to South Wales) that would be a different story and your edits would be valid but that is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowcoachwiki (talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid they are quite justified and they are in no way threats, more advice to comply with a set of rules that are in place. Please feel free to add any material that you wish for every year and every club. I'm afraid your position is going against the grain for the thousands of rugby league professionals here at wikipedia. I can only go by what is made public, and Acton has been detailed in the press. I can understand your speculation and perhaps it could be an issue that you raise at WPRL.Fleets (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"Vandalism" warnings

Hi Fleets. Please be careful about using user warning templates that use the word "vandalism" in them, e.g. at User talk:Slowcoachwiki. Vandalism on Wikipedia is defined as a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia. In this case, it looks to me that the other user thought in good faith that it would be best to remove the {{Sheffield Eagles squad}} template and even attempted to discuss the issue with you above. Please review WP:NOTVAND carefully before sending these kinds of warnings, as it can be very discouraging for editors to have their good faith edits labelled "vandalism". Mz7 (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I'll certainly take that on board, but having reviewed the other editors position you could certainly more than understand my position.Fleets (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, I see now that the user blanked a template. I can see now how you might have thought it was vandalism at first. Even so, I think that the best way forward for now is standard dispute resolution. Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been thinking. An WP:AGF explanation for the blanking might be that he wanted to remove the template from the Jamie Acton article only, but didn't realize that blanking removes it from every instance which the template is used. Mz7 (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it did smell a little rotten, but still gave them a bit of leeway because of the potential accident. It was a potential explanation, but the series of reversions made it seem a little queer. If I was looking to persecute, they would have been hit with a 3RR, but I am not that way inclined. Inivited them to take it to the the rugby league wikiproject, but dispute resolution could be a way to go too.Fleets (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Statistics Update?

Hey Fleets, first of all massive respect for what you do for the RL pages. I myself am a huge fan and player of the sport and it is fantastic to see someone as enthusiastic as I (if not more so) helping to create good RL articles! On your main user page you have a list of (a lot) of RL player pages you have created. Are their statistics (appearances, tries, etc) up to date as of the end of the 2016 season? Just want to make sure so I can update a few on a week to week basis. I already do Sam Hallas and Josh Jordan-Roberts as they play for the club I support on loan. There are also numerous players I do throughout Super League and the Championship, plus I am keeping up on the Toronto players too now.

However I also update the RL section of One club men. Now some players on your user page such as Phil Joy, Danny Langtree etc have 90+ appearances for one club. Hence why I am asking if they are up to date as of the end of 2016 as their 5 appearances this season may qualify them for the One club men page. Plus I enjoy keeping statistics up to date as well, that's what I seem to do on here haha! Sorry for 'waffling' I have always been terrible at getting to the point! Regards, Migitgem2009 (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Midgetgem. Thanks very much and right back at you. The player statistics would be accurate at their time of creation. The information is largely reliant on loverugbyleague. I haven't updated the stats too often, just hoping that their creation would spark a Sheffield fan, a Widnes fan, a rugby league fan or just the general reader to take an interest and spread the gospel through adding a little something of value to the player pages. I would use my article creation date as an anchor and go from there, else count them all up at loverugbyleague, which is a little time-consuming but at least accurate for what we're doing. Keep up the good work.Fleets (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect and R2

Please stop making Brad Delaney redirect to User:Fleets/Brad Delaney. You recreated it after it was already deleted. It will be deleted again per WP:CSD#R2 as a cross-namespace redirect. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You were asked to stop and you didn't listen, so I have protected the page. When you want to move your draft back you will need to request Admin permission--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't take kindly to the tone, and although I am in the wrong, it appears to be a theme here.Fleets (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything negative in Geoffreys comment, and regardless we have the criteria for a reason, his tone is of no relevance--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, well that reflects badly on us all then doesn't it. As stated I was of the opinion that I was in the wrong, and I have now rectified the situation by doing what I thought I was doing.Fleets (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Fleets/Brad Delaney

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Fleets/Brad Delaney, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Wayne Godwin

I've noticed your recently updated Wayne Godwin's Article and I have marked it as requiring an update as it says he is still on loan at Salford but this is not accuarate according to his twitter page and is unlikely due to his age. Could you help?? 109.155.84.76 (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed the infobox, to reflect his loan ending at Salford.Fleets (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You have not changed it to show when he left, please only edit the page to indicate when he left.109.155.84.76 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is the way the infobox works for rugby league players. It is different to the infoboxes of others sports such as football. The infobox was, and now is correct per the rugby league MOS, if you want it to change please feel free to bring it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league as your concerns are genuine and I'm sure people will listen.Fleets (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Fleets

Hi,

Please could you comment on the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league#

2.Could you stop this from being archived as I haves linked to it there.

Thanks,

109.155.84.76 (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jake Butler-Fleming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Penrith. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Cameron King

Hi Fleets, why do you want the navboxes to go current, oldest and then middle, rather than in chronological order - wouldn't either oldest to newest or newest to oldest make more sense? Mattlore (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The flow is current at the top, then chronological "first-grade" club rugby league from there. That is consistent with pretty much every rugby league article on wikipedia. I wouldn't agree that you have to weigh down an anchor and go from there. The current is what you would expect to find first, but then to flow backwards from there would be obtuse. To place the item most likely to be looked at first at the bottom would be equally odd and then flow upwards from there, doesn't sit well with me. If chronological order is in place at the simple wikipedia, then fine, but I wouldn't say that it was something that would improve the readers experience or the editors experience here.Fleets (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Why would flowing from current team to oldest be obtuse? Mattlore (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I would illustrate with years; 2017 (current), 2016, 2011. That backwards flow would appear obtuse to me, I returned the current team to oldest 2017, 2011, 2016. Hopefully that makes more sense with the years in place.Fleets (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess I just don't understand what your problem with 2017 (current), 2016, 2011 is and why you think it is obtuse? Is it just because you personally prefer the other style? Mattlore (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries and if you are better at counting backwards then forwards then you are a better person than me.Fleets (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, it seems you reverted due to it being your personal preference. Seeing as I don't agree for this article, I have started a discussion at the project page to get a consensus. Mattlore (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

As demonstrated above it would be logic over something illogical, but yes I would personally prefer logic.Fleets (talk) 09:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I would however agree that consensus should be sought, and I welcome a discussion to seek to maintain the uniform, or else create a new norm.Fleets (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean something is illogical or obtuse. Flowing from current to oldest is logical, it is just not your preference. Please be wary and make an effort to avoid personal attacks in discussions. Mattlore (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you really have lost me. I have not called you obtuse or illogical. I would also disagree that current to oldest is logical, for the reasons stated above. I have made no personal attacks, and furthermore you mischaracterised my position when taking this to the wider forum, so it should be myself asking you to be wary, but I'm not that kind of person and wouldn't do that. I don't agree with your position, I do think it is illogical, but if you think counting backwards is logical then I am happy to remove logic from any future interaction, but to state it as personal preference would be watering it down a little too far for my taste.Fleets (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Captions

Can you explain how putting infobox images into [[File:|||]] format "keeps the information that you feel needs to be available"? It removes the caption from displaying on the article, how is that keeping the information?

I'm not going to get into an argument over the importance of captions, because I don't think they're important, clearly you don't either, however you can't just remove information that was there, without having a reason.

The other question I have is why are you trying to put infobox images in the [[File:|||]] format in the first place? That is there to be able to place images within the article, it is not required in the infobox. I already know you're response is going to be "well it's optional", what I want to know is why change it? Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Joshua. That was me trying to retain the information that you added. If you hover over the picture it flashes up and shows the information that was added by yourself. I honestly was putting them there for you, to accomodate you, as I was under the impression that you thought they were important. Furthermore I was putting the picture size at the size you wanted, rather than a size I would like, as I was trying to keep you onside. Clearly through a lack of communication on my side I have failed to do that, but I see that addition as something that adds the same merit as a caption, something that doesn't need to be there for all of the tight-crop images I have taken or have uploaded. I wouldn't have added the alt-text myself, but was genuinely trying to meet you half-way.Fleets (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that the captions popped up after hovering the mouse over the photo, my apologies. However it doesn't explain why you want to put them into the [[File:|||]] format in the first place. The infobox has the image, imagesize and caption features there already. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries, and as before it was only put there as I was under the misapprehension that you were wed to having captions for every image. It was only there as the metaphorical olive branch, I wouldn't normally put it there otherwise and I would normally only say that the guidelines call for a caption for the current image within the infobox for one such as Cameron Ciraldo, and whilst I didn't add the caption I can see the benefit there. Yes his name is right there, and it is obviously him, but there are other parties in the picture, and in that instance that would add value to the infobox.Fleets (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

For sure, captions are definitely needed more on a photo like the Ciraldo one. I'm a believer in the more information added, the better, so when I create an article with a photo I will add a caption, or when someone removes one without a reason I will replace it. I also think it can be helpful for someone who is not familiar with the game so they can learn what team a player is playing for in the photo, or what type of tournament/year they might be playing in such as the WC. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

With Cameron Ciraldo, we both agree that it has merit, and per the guidelines a caption there is warranted as it is an inappropriate image, as it is more than just the person in the infobox. I can understand your angle of I've added and then they don't leave a note to say why they haven't added a caption to a new image within the infobox. This is over the top for effect and whilst I can understand your position of trying to educate the masses, I don't agree. It is the one place where a caption is not necessary and given that their name is right above and potentially also below in full form, it seems overkill, especially when their teams are detailed within the same box. The information can further be found by clicking on the photo and finding out about the image. We don't detail everything within the infobox and the caricature of an infobox in my sandbox was done to show that we treat people with enough respect to know or guess some information, but to state information about an image that says who it is, but leave out the highlighted others seems a little too far to Simple English wikipedia for my tastes. That's not a knock on you, that's just how I see it, that we are happy to let people (the uninitiated) guess what an FG is, but to ram home who the image is, and not state who he currently plays for, all seems a little out of kilter.Fleets (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If the caption under the photo of Mark Nicholls was just (Mark Nicholls.) then it is obviously pointless. My argument was that it helps a reader figure out the details of the photo, which team the player is playing for, whether that be a reserve grade team, under-20s state team, NRL team or national team, and then usually the year of the photo too. No different to any image within the article. It was never about the player's name, the only reason the name is there is because it sounds dumb if the caption was just, in Mark Nicholls case, (Playing for Mount Pritchard Mounties in 2013.) when you can just write (Nicholls playing for Mount Pritchard Mounties in 2013.) I don't think it's overkill just to simply say this is this player playing for this team in this year. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've come across this at any other external link profile, NRL, SL or WC, nor any other sports profiles that detail the photo of the player. It seems to be unique to wikipedia, and maybe overkill might be the wrong term, but you can understand where I'm coming from, we leave a hell of alot out, but a caption is something that we keep. It seems more that we give people credit in one aspect and then take it away elsewhere. I'm all for promoting the game, and I would wish to sell the game to a wider audience, I just don't see the equal sell across the fields of the infobox, and that one field being filled does not in my opinion add to the readers experience, especially when put up against the fact that we don't seek to educate throughout the infobox.Fleets (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Captions

Hi Fleets, before you start a large removal of captions from infoboxes - I suggest you seek a consensus to do so at the project page. The status quo is that the captions are useful to date a profile or describe a team that the player is playing for when it may be unclear. If you wish to change that you should discuss first. Mattlore (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed no captions; I have sought to find new images, having uploaded hundreds of my own and sourced material for others.Fleets (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tyrone Viiga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samoan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Hi! Just to let you know, "present" should not be used for the end-date of international appearances. There is no presumption that they will continue to play for the team. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hiya, I added those earlier today whilst the game was ongoing. It was to avoid the reader believing that they had retired mid game, or confuse a future editor about players with a year filled and no games filled. Much better to have a present and 1 (ongoing) game played rather than an area filled, but with no details filled and the end-date not filled. Half-way house but I made no presumption that they would continue that career or not.Fleets (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments

Your behaviour is bordering on harassment. Suggest you cease immediately. Do not post on my page again. LibStar (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me. I've been the embodiment of politeness.Fleets (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you didn't read the message before you removed it from your talk page. I will invite you to read it, and again consider it the olive branch that it was.Fleets (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

more evidence that you are simply following me and trying to wikihound. Wikipedia_talk:Red_link#appropriate_use_of_red_link.3F. you kept reverting my appropriate change purely to annoy me. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

That I chose to engage you is not following you. I have no interest in you, and certainly no interest in annoying you. I reverted because it was put there by another editor, it serves a purpose and I could not see anything on the redlink page that supported the removal. The talk page of said page would not be a sufficient justification for the removal.Fleets (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Dicky Goddard

😉 DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries mate.Fleets (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Fake President listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fake President. Since you had some involvement with the Fake President redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TimothyJosephWood 19:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Saint John's Eagles

Hi you recently removed the PROD from the above article with the comment that you added sources and citations and as far as I can see there is still nothing in the references section and just a link to the club's site. Do you have any other sources because at the moment the article fails GNG and NORG? Domdeparis (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Domdeparis (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't, I said (That it is and was) a Cited and sourced article. I was equally in error there though.Fleets (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah ok my mistake I thought it was "(I) cited and sourced (the) article..." I can't add the PROD on again would you be willing to revert your edit or if you have any sources to prove notability can you add them on? cheers Domdeparis (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries, and again on my side, also more than happy to cite a source.Fleets (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Trent Merrin

Hi Fleets; if you are going to restore disputed content to a BLP, could please ensure you also include a reliable source verifying the content per WP:BURDEN? Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring to restore the disputed content is really not a very good idea.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

There was no edit war, and certainly no dispute. I returned the correct information, and was in the process of adding a source. In the few seconds that it took to find a source someone had decided to revert and cause an edit conflict rather than seek the information that was readily available.Fleets (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Dewsbury Rams

Hi Fleets, regarding this edit [2] if both have retired mid-season can you update their articles, remove the template from their pages and provide a reliable source. Thanks Mattlore (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please feel free to make said changes yourself, else I will look to do that as and when I have the time and/or energy for such things.Fleets (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

NoWrap

So glad you were able to get that problem fixed. Many thanks. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries, but I can't take any credit as I only asked the question, the fixing was far beyond my limited expertise.Fleets (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

RFC

It's fine to request others to comment, as I see you've been doing, but please don't push your own opinion when doing so, as it's considered canvassing. Thanks. J Mo 101 (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll take that on board. I merely summarised both positions, with the best of intentions at heart. I thought a bit of meat on the bones would hopefully bring more to the table, even if it did add to the three voices on the other side of the aisle, so to speak.Fleets (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Harry Newman (rugby league)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Harry Newman (rugby league), Fleets!

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

A good start

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

Learn more about page curation.

— InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Harvey Whiteley) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Harvey Whiteley, Fleets!

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

A good start, could use additional refs

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

Learn more about page curation.

— InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Michael Hancock (rugby league), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Dealing_with_unsourced_material would be the link to work from out of the link that you provided. I believe that would be the best way to approach the removal of uncited material from biographies.Fleets (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

you have simply gone to your old habits of WP:WIKIHOUNDING and even reverted legitimate changes not about uncited material. It is clear that you are just editing my edits for WP:POINT. WP has stricter standards for uncited material for biographies. I'll request again you stop following me. This is your last warning LibStar (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not have habits relating to that. But moving on

If the article is a biography of a living person, then any contentious material must be removed immediately: see Biographies of living persons. If the unreferenced material is seriously inappropriate, it may need to be hidden from general view, in which case request admin assistance. If the material added appears to be false or an expression of opinion, remove it and inform the editor who added the unsourced material. The uw-unsourced1 template may be placed on their talk page. In any other case consider finding references yourself, or commenting on the article talk page or the talk page of the editor who added the unsourced material. You may place a or tag against the added text.

Hopefully that is a way to move things forwards.Fleets (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

read WP:BURDEN. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed' and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. you deliberately reverted all my edits and called it going back to good version. That included editorial and grammar changes. Clear wikihounding. Play the game of false innocence and expect an ANI. LibStar (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact the editor who added this has a huge problem of adding uncited material to rugby league articles and is currently heading to an indefinite block as discussed by admins. LibStar (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

in fact I've requested many a time this editor fix up his uncited edits. He never does . In fact as of today he has now been indefinitely blocked. Perhaps you would like to pick up his awful mess and find the citations for the hundreds of rugby league edits he made? It would be a better use of your time than following me. LibStar (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that you see it as a mission to follow up and clean up other peoples mess', but I would state that there is no time limit on that link you provided. I believe it would prudent of you to start a timeframe related conversation as more defined statements related to this topic would go against those statements in terms of tolerance.Fleets (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are you using dispute resolution when it is for discussing a specific article's content. You are just trying to change me even though I have not breached any WP policy. I reiterate WP:BURDEN. Please actually read. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid it would be a consistent trend. I have no interest in you, merely the article's themselves. I believe you are in the same boat, just rowing in the different direction. You want purity, and I want a progressive retention of material, with editors adding citations to articles. With your good self material is removed regardless of it's dubiousness, without any hint of conversations raised to query, without any talk pages seeing questions laid down, without anything brought to WPRL or an attempt to solve a systemic issue. Essentially destroying perfectly good material and hiding behind burden, knowing full well that there are other directives that countermand, supercede or are more directly related to the situation. I'm happy to be declared wrong, and have sought to bring this to a wider attention, and if every part of a sentence needs a citation then wikipedia varies very differently to academia.Fleets (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

"Essentially destroying perfectly good material ". Wikipedia particularly biographies requires citations. I severely question if all his material was perfectly good. In fact many of Holden's edits were exaggeration or unverifiable numbers. WP's reputation is destroyed by poorly cited material. Simply restoring large chunks of material and my other edits not related to uncited indicates you have a deeper motive than supposedly getting at me for removing uncited material. Perhaps you could contact Holden and set up your own rugby-league encyclopedia that requires little or no references. He'll be glad to help. LibStar (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Having previously stated that I have no interest in you, only the articles themselves, I'm not sure why you think I have motives for getting at you. I merely think you are following guidelines that produce a detrimental effect that far outweighs any benefit that you are currently bringing. You may well be a great editor with a scalpel, but currently the meat cleaver approach is producing highly contentious outcomes. I have alot more respect for someone adding, and perhaps a different approach may have seen them as your ally and not your enemy. I do feel any sense of good with HoldenV8 banned, if anything the direct opposite, and I would hope that you are not reveling in them being banned as that would not paint you in a good light.Fleets (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I have supplied evidence that you are simply reverting legitimate edits of mine that have nothing to do with removal of uncited content. It is plainly obvious your goal is to get back at all my edits not your stated objective regarding uncited content. You definitely have an interest in me , why else have you been following me and set up a dispute resolution against me (which bewilders me as the wrong forum). Nothing you say or do deters me, I have not breached any WP policy. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I tried to engage with you, tried to get you to look at a different way of looking at things. This hasn't helped. I have no interest in you, and thus have no goals relating to you, beyond trying to stop hacking away at rugby league articles. I have no objectives in relation to uncited content. To confirm I have no interest in you, please consider this care in the community at an end. You are quite possibly the most bizarre creation that I have ever encountered. I can only assume that you are a joke, because if else you are one strange mother.Fleets (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You know you can't take it further because you've deliberately reverted edits of mine that have nothing to do with uncited material. Why else did you consistently pop up at the same articles within minutes of logging in? no interest in me yet set up a dispute resolution for the specific objective of changing the way I edit. Too bad , you've failed miserably. LibStar (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have a watchlist of around 10,000 articles. I have no interest in you, and I specifically request you go about your business in a way that does not involve me.Fleets (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

then why specifically revert edits of mine that have nothing to do with uncited material? Why set up a dispute resolution against me? You have failed miserably. Well stop following me and setting up failed dispute resolutions against me. You're the one that is consistently looking to jump on my edits. I specifically request you cease . But thank you , you have given me renewed motivation to seek out uncited material. LibStar (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

If you don't have a watchlist then please look into it. Your revisions appeared to be almost vandalism as they were so extreme. If you did not read any of previous links I have provided, then you appear to not take even the slightest interest in seeing a chance that you may be wrong. I had previously said end of, and I've been nice in being your contact with the world, but it has to end. Goodbye.Fleets (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

if it's vandalism then report me. We know you won't. You've failed miserably in your objective to change me. Goodbye. LibStar (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Goodbye person of no interest.Fleets (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)