User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gibson Flying V. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 1st year on Wikipedia
User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 2nd year on Wikipedia
User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 3rd year on Wikipedia
User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 4th year on Wikipedia
User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 5th year on Wikipedia
User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 6th year on Wikipedia
User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 7th year on Wikipedia
User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 8th year on Wikipedia
User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 9th year on Wikipedia
User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 10th year on Wikipedia
User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 11th year on Wikipedia
User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 12th year on Wikipedia
User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 13th year on Wikipedia

Non-free rationale for File:Clive Churchill (1953-06-22).JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Clive Churchill (1953-06-22).JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kel Coslett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loose forward. 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) 09:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The greatest game of all listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The greatest game of all. Since you had some involvement with the The greatest game of all redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Greatest Game of All listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Greatest Game of All. Since you had some involvement with the The Greatest Game of All redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Joel Clinton page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Golfers from Sydney has been nominated for discussion

Category:Golfers from Sydney, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ride the Lightning

Hey there, thanks for editing the article. If you have some free time, can you share your thoughts at the FAC page about whether you think the album satisfies the FA criteria. Comments about the prose would be welcomed. Thanks again and have a nice day.--Retrohead (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If you don't want to participate then don't. It would have been nice to respond to someone who subtly asked you something, but whatever. Just please don't start an edit war over some silly issue such as whether it should be "song" or "track". You obviously have no idea what you're objecting to, neither you're interested in improving the article. I appreciate your will to help and have a nice day.--Retrohead (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi there, sorry I've just seen the fix and put it in place. Cheers. Fleets (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what that means, Fleets (but using my talk page instead of edit-warring is appreciated).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a fix to stop club names going onto two lines as seen with Jeff Wittenberg that allows the full club name to be shown without going to two lines or displaying Sth Qld Crushers, SQ Crushers, South Queensland or any other derivation.Fleets (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, however it can also force the width of the entire infobox well outside Wikipedia norms. Other relevant discussions here and, more crcently, here.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheer, will give that a look through.Fleets (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Javid Bowen

If the Roosters aren't on the caption, then it might as well just go as it is just saying 2012 and that isn't adding to anything. On the width, if you were serious about things you would hold off and garner support, not revert to the pre-image version of Javid Bowen. I will revert and then leave until resolved elsewhere as we are walking each other into edit-warring.Fleets (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right about the caption. I don't need to garner support for the width issue as I'm defending the (long-standing) status quo which you would already know if you read the discussions to which I referred you above. You also seem to think my edits removed the image? Check again.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Well it looks that way from reading the logs. No I added the image, and that would be in the timeline, giving an example of when a hodge-podge abbreviation could have been legitimised, and post image when it was unnecessary and took away from the infobox. I shall not revert, regardless of right or wrong on either side, recent changes or long-held status quo. I would however ask you to play devils advocate, as I have and ask why someone might want the North Queensland Cowboys, rather than NQ Cowboys, Nth Qld Cowboys, North Queensland or any other derivation. I have examined it from the other side and can understand some of the old positions, but equally I ask you to see it from the other side too. An olive branch, and no reverts. Fleets (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: discussions, I have read some new and some old stuff and yes it is this. Regardless, no reverting.Fleets (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about why the image is coming up here at all, sorry. Despite how it may appear, I can well understand the reasons why someone might want an unpiped "North Queensland Cowboys" link to appear in the infobox (it is, after all, the title of the main article) but there seems to be general agreement that these 3 words appearing over two lines is unacceptable. As you know, this problem can be averted with {{Nowrap}}, however it introduces a new problem in that it pushes the whole infobox's width out beyond what appear to be established Wikipedia-wide norms. As yet, Wikiproject:Rugby league's members have not made a push to have these norms changed, so we need to try to stay within them as best we can.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The pic was just an indication of a timeline. I can understand that desire to stick with wikipedia norms. What issues are we as a sport creating, with our excessively wide names, we do like a good long name with all of the mergers and a few others with long names. If I understand the reasons that might help me understand, otherwise it seems that we are making a mockery of our club names for no good reason. Fleets (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

If I were really advocating anything like "making a mockery of our [sic] club names for no good reason" I should be dismissed as a vandal.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The forced shortening is making the mockery, and thus the mechanism and not the editor that is questioned with the above sentence.Fleets (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

Engagement is better than what we are doing now. I've probably pissed you off, as much as you have done me as per your edit notes and that's not a right or wrong, it is just a fact. Hopefully we can cut through to a happy solution as this is starting to get a little old. I will obviously leave you to revert as I do not wish to become embroiled in an edit war, with someone who is clearly passionate about the sport of rugby league.Theanonymousentry (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Theanonymousentry, in order to comply with the widely-held and long-standing consensus that infoboxes should only take up a reasonably small portion of a page's width, we've been abbreviating teams' names. Remember, these same names already appear in full (often more than once) elsewhere on the page.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello there. Perhaps I could invite you to add something at the project as there seems to impetus on the change side of things, but equally there is feeling for the stay as it was side of things. Perhaps the project is the place where you can add your feelings.Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Presumably you've been reading Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league#Width_on_infobox and my contributions there, which makes "Perhaps the project is the place where you can add your feelings" a very odd thing for you to say.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I was merely asking you to add to your points as I had previously offered that up, and got nothing but edits that fit with your position.Theanonymousentry (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I again ask you to return to the table and add your position on retaining the status quo for the infobox width, as I wouldn't want to have a consensus decided without every interested party having an input.Theanonymousentry (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Neil Henry

Your link appears to a conversation between a few people six years ago, hardly a legally binding ruling that sets your position in stone. Either raise to remove the line from all infoboxes or email the Gold Coast Titans and ask them to remove it from their site, as that is as concrete a standing on nicknames as your a likely to get.Fleets (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Judging by these comments, you looked at the age of the discussion I linked and nothing else. Try again.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I did and it appears to offer insight, but no standard rationale that would allow for removal of cited material from perfectly reputable sources. It appears to be a position, and were it to uncited, or a poor quality source then I'd say sure, mark it up and date it as uncited and remove it in a timely fashion, but to remove a cited source from the club that the guy works for seems ludicrous in the extreme.Fleets (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Giving you a chance to read the previous message.Fleets (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Notability and verifiability are the criteria for inclusion of nicknames, not verifiability alone. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I cannot see that as criteria and you would be laughed out of any room without the criteria being rationalized properly. I am in favour of that and will put my case against any you raise at the project, but at the minute a brief conversation six years ago is very far from being rationale.Fleets (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really sure what any of that means. Perhaps a read of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines would help?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] to give a few links that indicate the notoriety and notability of King as nickname for Neil Henry.Fleets (talk)

Bingo! They can be used to reference the inclusion of the nickname in his infobox and I won't object.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I will revert, now that there won't be any objections.Fleets (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I was very clear, Fleets. I said those sources you showed me in your post at 17:50, 13 August 2016 can be used to reference the inclusion of the nickname in his infobox and I won't object. Not the same as simply reverting.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry I will find the time to run them up as links and keep you appeased.Fleets (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Not just me, but any editors who have an interest in maintaining encyclopedic standards across Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Done for the greater good then.Fleets (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Indigenous All Stars

No revert coming you'll be pleased to hear. But this appears like the below.

2010 Indigenous All 1 1 0 0 100

       Stars

I have a big screen, smallish letters and a firefox browser. Just another spanner in the works for a potential solution for fitting things on one line as I tried to play by your rules and avoid the fix.Fleets (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for the use of the template fix in this instance.Fleets (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Stanley Waqa

If you have a look at Template:Convert I'm sure there is a solution. The output is distorted for st and lb when the lb is introduced as an extra.Fleets (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The output is (18 1⁄2 st; 260 lb). Please do the research and then implement.Fleets (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and what is wrong with "(18 1⁄2 st; 260 lb)" exactly?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It is inaccurate. It is not a defined number that should be there. Informally you can say eighteen and a half stone, but you would never see 18 1/2 stone on doctors notes for instance. 18 st 8 lb is his weight and with a stone being 14 pounds it is just wrong. I'm not anti pounds being on there for our American friends and those who choose to use that system, but its implementation must not be at the expense of others.Fleets (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. So your problem is with the "18 1⁄2 st". You want it to say "18 st 8 lb". This can be achieved using {{Convert}} as follows: 118 kg (18 st 8 lb; 260 lb)

However, I thought that displaying it as "18 1⁄2 st; 260 lb" was a lesser evil when compared with the doubling up on 'lb' here "8 st 8 lb; 260lb".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm more than happy for the 260lb to be there, and it is perhaps just your unfamiliarity with the antiquated sheep weighing based weight system that we still employ here in the UK. Half the people in the UK wouldn't know the difference between 18 and a half stone and 18 st 8 lb, but it is slightly different nonetheless.Fleets (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not know how the get there myself and fix it, and as such was not being belligerent in telling you to fix the issue that you did not see.Fleets (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

No need to speculate. I said quite clearly that the doubling up on 'lb' was the reason I went for the 1⁄2 st.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay then, as you previously said you thought one way and went with that. That was me offering up that I could not fix the problem that was thrown up, and wanted you to sort it. The speculation was a positive spin on things for your sake.Fleets (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Albert Hopoate

The Daily Telegraph is a perfectly reasonable source. Any removal of this cited source will leave me with very few options that are open to a reasonable person.Fleets (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Giving you a chance to read the previous message.Fleets (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of this means. You'll have to try again.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The cited source from the Daily Telegraph which was removed which showed 'Hoppa' being used in place of his full name.Fleets (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like that source is still there to me. You'll have to try again with regard to 'Hoppa' being used in place of his full name.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou. I waited for that until I reverted.Fleets (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Huh? You've lost me even more now. You really need to be clearer.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can make it any simpler than the above to be honest. I shall start to look elsewhere for alternative solutions if you are not amenable.Fleets (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, got a few sources sourced for the younger Hoppa with his nickname referenced in the article. Was hoping that a few good sources similar to the Neil Henry situation wouldn't cause any issues with your good self?Fleets (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

When "Hoppa" is used in headlines, it appears to always be an article about John, not Albert.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of Adelaide Rams

Adelaide Rams, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Conor Fitzsimmons

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Conor Fitzsimmons, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Fleets (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, User:Londo06. That is adorable.

As I thought was made clear to you in the discussions almost immediately above this one, for nicknames to be included in {{Infobox rugby league biography}} they must be shown to be notable, as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league/Archive_20#Nicknames. Your continued edit-warring in light of this makes you appear to be an erratic editor at the very least, maybe even an irrational or nonconstructive one.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Conor Fitzsimmons, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Fleets (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You must know how clear it is that you're the one refusing to discuss your edits. And deliberately mis-characterizing mine as vandalism will not be looked upon kindly. Please either explain why I'm wrong or self-revert. Or continue down this path you're on and see where it gets you. It doesn't matter to me.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You HAVE removed a cited source, one that was from the club to which the player is contracted. If you wish to establish a guideline that is better than the conversation to which you were a party to, then I am more than happy to be shouted down, supported or to work as a collective to iron out a guideline that is iron-clad, fit for purpose and one that is not open to abuse, in either direction.Fleets (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you are fully aware that my revisions retain the source,^[4][5][6] so it does beg the question of why you'd make the obviously false claim that I want to remove it. I think you are also fully aware that it's actually the infobox's non-notable nickname that I want to remove, yet something prevents you from discussing this. You seem to prefer just making edits in accordance with your unexplained preference and leaving it to some other editor/s (possibly more sock-puppets?) to justify them.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

If you remove the material, ie this individuals nickname, and then retask the source you are still removing the sources cited material. It has been justifiably cited at that point, to a specific place on the page. I have offered you the route of opening up the debate elsewhere, but currently you are removing, and quite unjustifiably removing materially that is linked to a specific point on the page. It can be linked multiple times, but in this instance you are quite wrong.Fleets (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyway. As discussed, until the nickname is shown to be notable it will be kept out of the infobox. And I trust there'll be no more edit-warring/spurious claims of bad faith.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No anyways about it, I have been clear with you; any further removals of cited materials, WILL be returned and you will have to deal with the consequences. Appeasement has not worked with you. There will be no further appeasement, just brutal use of facts, and the request that you learn to play nice with others.Fleets (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You may pretend in this thread not to understand that nicknames should be proven notable before being included in the infobox, but I'm going to assume that you actually do understand this just as you appeared to a few weeks ago at User_talk:Gibson_Flying_V#Neil_Henry above.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Bring it to the attention of someone who can decide which rule trumps which, but until that time the removal is a fact and the notability is a position. That position may well see that the removal was justified and that will be fine with me. However at this stage there is insufficient reason to remove a cited fact, and chasing down the notability over the cited source position may well see all nicknames being removed from infoboxes, that all depends on what kind of arbiter you arrange.Fleets (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Conor Fitzsimmons. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Fleets (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I once again suggest that you raise your issues with the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.Fleets (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

(Edit in question) Other users, including me, are not here to do your bidding and start processes that you're apparently unwilling or unable to start yourself, Londo06. Besides, the Arbitration Committee is for reaching "solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve." Apparently where you want to go is Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting route around, but I once again suggest that you raise your issues with the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.Fleets (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Still with this Conor Fitzsimmons fella, I have offered you a path to take, if you feel it is the wrong one then please take another one. The constant cycle of I'm right, no I'm right is not working and as it has become abundantly clear you do not want to play ball. Please escalate this to the people that you think can resolve this, else we will end up in 3RR purgatory.Fleets (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:First Utility Super League logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:First Utility Super League logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 NRL Grand Final

User ThatOneAussie has been vandalising the article 2016 NRL Grand Final. The two teams participating in the match are the Cronulla Sharks from New South Wales and the Melbourne Storm from Victoria. The match is being played in Sydney, NSW. ThatOneAussie is continually placing Melbourne as the home team with the excuse that 'because they have top billing'. A sporting team's home game is based on real world geographical location and not competition standings. I'm demanding that his account be banned for repeated vandalism as my account has been suspended for far lesser 'offenses' in the past. I am reverting his edits based on facts, not advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyCruickshank (talk • contribs) 11:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi CodyCruickshank. I moved this to my talk page. I hope that's OK. You have to be careful when labelling another user's edits as vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism is unreasoned destructiveness for its own sake. You have already said that they provided a rationale for their edits, so it seems like a content dispute to me. I'm guessing You probably were not blocked for vandalism, but for edit-warring, which you run the risk of again. It's best to open a discussion, perhaps under the heading "Home team" on the talk page, and provide Help:Diffs of the edits you find problematic.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

James Webster (rugby league)

added a link pointing to Scrum half

Luke Brooks

added a link pointing to NRL All Stars

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Playing dirty?

Don't never ever dare to edit someone else's opinion or vote in his name. Last warning.--Retrohead (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this a dream? Did you even look at the difference between revisions or the edit summary? If so, you have to tell me what you didn't like about it in more precise detail. And you surely must know by this stage that your threats and bombast are just comical.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad this nonsense with you finally ended. I hope I'll never cross paths with you ever again.--Retrohead (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As long as you continue to knee-jerk revert any improvements I make (complete with petty incivility), you'll continue to cross paths with me. So you either have nothing to worry about or you don't. Not up to me.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not my duty

If you do a wrong edit, it's not my job to spend time looking what you did wrong and what you didn't. It is your obligation to correct your mistakes, not mine. I corrected your errors in good faith, but you've also deleted some information about Lovecraft's book and ambiguously wrote "others" instead of "fans".--Retrohead (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

See previous comment.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gibson Flying V. 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)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Chris Troutman (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Template:Combined Brisbane - 1984 Panasonic Cup winners

I have protected this template for one week following a request at WP:RFPP. Blanking a template does not seem constructive. If you wish for it to be deleted, please list it at WP:TFD. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cover of From the Bush to Brookvale The Cliff Lyons Story.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cover of From the Bush to Brookvale The Cliff Lyons Story.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:George Piggins Never Say Die cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:George Piggins Never Say Die cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tries the limit garry schofield autobiography.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tries the limit garry schofield autobiography.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Raging Bull Gorden Tallis.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Raging Bull Gorden Tallis.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Iestyn Harris There and Back cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Iestyn Harris There and Back cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Brave Hearts Kevin Walters cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Brave Hearts Kevin Walters cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Laurie Always a Winner.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Laurie Always a Winner.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)