User talk:MorrisSar

Welcome!

Hello, MorrisSar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! MaenK.A._Talk 07:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Just a heads-up that I'll be pursuing a block on this account, too, in the likely event that you continue your tiresome crusade. The choice is yours. - Dudesleeper talk 22:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? The only one who seems to be on any kind of crusade is you! I'm not the one tiresomely changing little details when he's not supposed to be MorrisSar (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is your changes to info boxes regarding F.C. and A.F.C., this frequently done by Sarumio and eventually got him banned just in case you don't know. Bevo74 (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He knows, because... well... he is Sarumio. - Dudesleeper talk 12:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not the one adding or removing F.C. to infoboxes in this case - am I Dudesleeper? MorrisSar (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been removing them, and they ought to be there. Bevo74 (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats your opinion - last word on it was to leave things as they were so edits adding the F.C. to Salford City, Carlton Town , Luton Town and Colwyn Bay etc etc etc are as vandalistic as someone removing them! Please now go and berate Dudesleeper! MorrisSar (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look at [[1]], you might call it berating. Nothing about bolding former names. If I was being cynical I'd make a big point of putting Sarumio on your page. You have been removing F.C. often the name is ambigious without it, yet you leave AFC. Also look at AFC/A.F.C. own website for their name. Regards Bevo74 (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying and explaining your thoughts, it did seem at one time most clubs included F.C. on their names. I could have sworn Hucknall Town did have in the past. Personally again I think it looks better and is more meaningful when the name could be something else such as city, town or complany, then again the whole full name part of the template is rather pointless as the club title is at the top of the page. I admit I do not like bolding of former names. I find it distracts from what else is on the page. The MOS doesn't say to do it, I tend to have the attitude of keeping this simple. Fair enough on a club that changed its name recently, but for example on Man U, bolding Newton Heath seems pointless as what they've become means their 19th century passed is of little importance. OK, if clubs with AFC aren't really sure of their name what hope have we got? I think you are less likely to get people 'berating' you if you used the summary box regularly.

Reply on my talk page. No conspiracy Bevo74 (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have no reason to raise issues with you again. If you think I am not being reasonable please feel free to report me. Bevo74 (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll see at Hucknall Town F.C. , I've left F.C. alone I had been hoping that you would. I still cannot understand your reasoning as to why you're insistant on removing it apart from standardising (two years ago most had F.C.). You're updating league lists which is an important job so why worry about something trivial. And again I have not conspired, if people having concensus is a conspiracy then Wikipedia is a bad place to be. Regards Bevo74 (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bevo - Hi - your assumption that Hucknall Town originally had F.C. in the infobox header is erroneous - as quite simply, it didn't. Your assumption/dillusion that the majority originally contained the F.C. is also untrue, in fact it was the opposite - before I tried to standardise the way names were displayed in the infobox header I reviewed what was the most widely used version at the time was - in roughly 85% of cases it just displayed the simple name of the club without the F.C. (which with it included kind of makes the header pointless as it would be a repetition of the article title and a condensed form of the Full Title field just below it inside the infobox. I wouldn't make more work for myslef than neccesary by removing the F.C. in 85% of the cases - I opted for the smaller 15%. On top of this I personally prefer it without the F.C. - it looks tidier and more simplistic to see Wolverhampton Wanderers than Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. This is also how club names appear in league tables etc. I don;t mind that you don't understand the reasoning (if indeed you still don;t) but my edits are perfectly justifiable as can be seen. I've no problem with you - and your beef should not be with me - but with people like Dudesleeper who seem intent on 'disrupting' the now standardised version by applying the F.C. to what can only be described as random articles - most of whose infoboxes were created by other users without the F.C. in the first place and many (like Bootle, Little Common etc) that were created by yours truly! On the suface I may look to be the trouble maker, but do the research and the checking on edit histories of club articles and the story is altogether different. Hope that explains the history a little better, regards MorrisSar (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I could've sworn Hucknall Town had F.C. (as for my sins I've spent too much time on their article) on their info box, hence my edit summary when I added it. I genuinely thought that F.C. was more common, but I'm not going to trawl through to check, particularly as my interest in football has plumetted in the few months. If you have found otherwise, I'm not going to let it bother me. The time I really think it should be included is when there is more than one thing with the name eg Liverpool, Arsenal, Leicester City, cases where the meaning could be confused such as with a city, a building or a council respectively. Again I think you would help yourself by using the edit box to explain your thinking. I'm glad you are being reasonable. Regards Bevo74 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryman League team numbers

With the inclusion of Grays Athletic F.C., the Isthmian League One North will have 23 teams as opposed to 22, making the total teams in the Isthmian League 67. Thanks. --Half Price (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it won't - Ashford Town have resigned from the Isthmian League and Chatham Town have been moved back to Division One South! MorrisSar (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]