User talk:RoyalBlueStuey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello royalbluestuey ive seen you on Tigers forum before good to know we have same interests if you've seen me on there before I am banbury tiger ! Go Tigers !!

Contents

[edit] Everton F.C.

Cheers mate I did the historic kits, best ever team and old crests. Nice to hear people like it. SenorKristobbal 19:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] alonsowhateverhisnamewas

you have a massively huge point but I like to take the moral high ground its the Everton way

"You'd expect more from the Liverpool manager" ...indeed you would SenorKristobbal 09:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everton F.C. FA of the day

I noticed you supported the Everton FA status I've now given it a specific date request here as its the date Everton won the Cup Winners Cup. Please comment on it if you agree! SenorKristobbal 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TheRugbyForum

Hey man, I thought I recognised your username from somewhere. I'm also on TRF as PeeJay :-) - PeeJay 09:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Rugby union

Hey, I'm not sure if you are a member, but if you are not you should consider joining WikiProject Rugby union. Just add your name to the list of participants. Thanks. - Shudde talk 05:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Rugby union

Hi, and welcome to the Rugby union WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to rugby union.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Shudde talk 23:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everton FC importance

The assessment group definition for high importance is: "Teams with international notability." One of the top 6 clubs in England? Well, in the past 5 years, they have finished 6th, 11th, 4th, 17th, and 7th. Either way, just because a team is top 6 in a major league doesn't mean it's "internationally notable" - for example that page I just linked to gives U.S. Città di Palermo as an example of a team that deserves "mid" notability and they finished 5th in the Serie A. Similarly, I would argue that the likes of Villarreal CF (who reached the Champions League semifinal two seasons ago and finished 5th last season) and AS Monaco FC (who reached the Champions League final a few years ago as well as winning the league twice in the past 10 years) don't deserve high importance either. ugen64 07:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Rugby union national team Improvement Drive

For the 2007 Rugby World Cup WikiProject Rugby union is launching an Improvement Drive for national rugby union teams; specifically those participating in the Rugby World Cup.

We need your help! Here is what you can do:

  • Adopt a national rugby union team article and collaborate with other members to improve it.
  • Find, create and upload free images that will help improve these articles.
  • Copy-edit, reference, and expand articles when and where you can.
  • Promote the project and encourage others to join.

The World Cup is fast approaching and these articles are going to get a lot more hits during the tournament. It would be great if we could have them at a high standard!

For more information see the discussion on the WikiProject Rugby union talk page here.

Shudde talk 05:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CL Runner-up

If the match report was about a league game or an early knock-out game, I would tend to agree with you, but since the CL final determines the winner and runner-up of the tournament, it just makes sense to me to use those terms in the infobox for that match. - PeeJay 10:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not the convention, but it is my opinion, and others seem to agree with me. - PeeJay 12:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Clattenburg

Hi. When deciding what to enter into a Wikipedia article, such as that above, please refer to the talk page for the article to gauge consensus on different matters. To merely change the information without doing so flies in the face of how the article has been shaped, by the editors who have posted to the article talk page. Further more, to introduce Point of View when Wikipedia expressly forbids it is also folly.

The format of the incident you altered has been agreed upon very recently, and you really need to post to the talk page yourself to change the consensus in order to successfully do this. For the reasons stated, your edit has been reverted. I hope to hear from you at Talk:Mark Clattenburg if this is problematic. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 00:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I am sorry to say that you have a conflict of interest in your edit. While the edit may appear to you to be perfectly balanced, to many others it will appear to lean towards the Everton view, and the feeling of injustice which has already been expressed in vandalistic edits since the match in question, and naturally so perhaps, as you are a self-confessed fan of the club. Your edit is clearly not vandalistic, but it is not a neutral point of view. By consensus, what is currently contained within the article relating to the Everton v. Liverpool game has been agreed upon by many contributing editors as a measured account of the match containing only that which is truly controversial. If you are still troubled by this, I would urge you to post towards a changed consensus at Talk:Mark Clattenburg, as that's the only place to get alterations made. Thanks and good editing. Ref (chew)(do) 09:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please use those tabs

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks  02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it -- there are a lot of experienced editors who aren't aware of that nuance. Cheers! -- But|seriously|folks  17:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Clattenburg (2)

Hi. When leaving an edit summary, please include absolutely correct details of your changes to an article, or no summary at all. In the above article, to say that you removed a superfluous line is misleading, when you actually added to the account at the same time. That addition went against the consensus which you will have seen on your last visit to the article talk page. As I have mentioned previously, it is essential that any changes to articles go with consensus (what the contributing editors want included or excluded, either unanimously or by majority). And absolutely crucial that any content, especially in biographical articles about living persons, remains neutral in fact and tone. I have therefore reverted your edit, and look forward to hearing from you at the talk page, or my own. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Of course I take your points as an individual, and I'm glad you posted to my user talk page. However, the only way to get your version adopted in the article is to post to the article talk page, setting out your reasoning, like you have on my talk page. All I'm doing is effectively policing the article to guard consensus (the vast majority of editors do exactly the same with their favourite articles too). And hopefully I'm policing it effectively and fairly.
As I say, the best way is to pop up at the article talk page and post a bold statement on there, then see what happens. If I get a response, I take it from there - I either back off or make the change if it suits everyone. Sometimes, editors will compromise, which means that they keep some of their editing intact, while I have to settle for fewer changes than I'd like. If no-one replies at all, I wait two days, then post again to say that I am taking the lack of resistance as a positive sign in my quest to change the consensual version, and then make the edit. I have to mention, though, that your all-or-nothing approach to the incident(s) may cause the match to be struck out all together, if I read the mood of the interested editors correctly (it has been put forward previously that the game be removed if Clattenburg received no disciplinary action from PGMOL/Keith Hackett).
Anyway, whatever happens, best wishes and good editing. Good luck to Everton F.C. too. Ref (chew)(do) 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Having posted to the Talk:Mark Clattenburg page more than three days ago, requesting interested editors to give their views on your proposed change to the consensual edit about Everton v. Liverpool in the Mark Clattenburg article, I have to tell you that no views were put forward. Therefore, I have made the change you asked for, as I am now in agreement with it, and we therefore alter the consensus as the only currently active interested parties. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 01:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wharfedale.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Wharfedale.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)