User talk:Pbradbury/Archive 1

Vice-captain (football)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Captaincy in football for the discussion pertaining to the above article. I agree with User:Angelo.romano that Vice-captain (football) adds very little in terms of content to Captain (football) and that the two pages should be merged, with Vice-captain (football) becoming a redirect to Captain (football). If you have any further comments, please restrict them to the discussion at WP:FOOTY. – PeeJay 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Man City redirect

Hey there, I saw your note on Oldepaso's page and I have deleted the redirect for you. You can alert administrators by using one of the tags located at WP:CSD. Once a tag has been added to the page, an administrator will come along and delete them for you (if appropriate) Thanks for alerting people. Woody (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As you can see Woody beat me by a full 18 hours. {{db-attack}} would have been the tag for that particular case. Thanks for fixing the hidden Castillo comment, which in my haste I somehow managed to give completely the wrong meaning. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied/January 2008#Pbradbury. RFRBot (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have granted this - only use it to revert obvious vandalism.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nery Castillo

I noticed you put Castillo up as a good article nomination. Most of the article is solid enough, but as it is right now it will probably not pass, due to much of the Olympiacos section being unreferenced and the short lead section. However, your improvements have been good, and the length of the queue for good article reviews means there should be plenty of time to work on it. I'd be more than happy to help, but as this one is "your" nomination I wouldn't want to tread on your toes or anything. If you want any help, whether in direct contributions or a peer review type run through the article giving notes and advice, don't hesitate to ask. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a proper run through it tomorrow. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments left on the talk page, I'll try to do a bit of editing over the next few days. In terms of aims and inspiration, Gilberto Silva is by my reckoning Wikipedia's most comprehensive football biography, and a few other past and present City players are current good articles. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rhodesia: As you can see in the category of the country Rhodesia, it exsisted until 1979. Benjani was born in 1978. Therefore his correct place of birth is Rhodesia, not Zimbabwe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maracana (talk • contribs) 22:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maracana (talk • contribs) 22:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Maracana

Hey, that guy is an idiot. He also changes everything to USSR, while the Union consisted of 15 diffrent republics. He needs a wiki-editing detention.

re:Task Force City

Replied on the proposal page. Falastur2 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

City - Celtic friendly

Hey. Was just wondering the source of your information for the Celtic match. I can't see it on the City site, and newsnow.co.uk hasn't picked up any links about it. I'm not doubting the veracity of the edit, I was just wondering since it's rare that something like that slips through my net ;) Falastur2 (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Nice find. Curious how they're calling it Mark Hughes' first game as City manager. I make it his fifth :P Falastur2 (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Geovanni

Hi. The BBC source did say pending medical when originally published on Friday 4th. When I reverted your edit at 12:57 today it still said the same; it was updated at 13:03. However I then checked the Hull City OWS and saw that the transfer had gone through and 'undid' my edit. Regards Beve (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kaka12o

Hi. Despite you putting a warning on their talk page User:Kaka12o has undone all the formatting changes to the Club América article. Additionally, they removed the semi-protection, before someone else reinstated it. What do you think is the appropriate thing to do in this case? Dancarney (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

They're at it again, despite your second warning. Dancarney (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC) ...and doing more of the same at Club Deportivo Guadalajara‎ Dancarney (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

not superfluous?

I don't see why anyone would think that this is not superfluous. It's extra information that isn't needed for navigation, and already appears here, where it's relevant.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 22:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

...I've raised the issue here.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 02:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

football team - singular/plural

In British English collective nouns can take either singular or plural form - however when the team name has a proper noun, then in British English it should be treated as plural. ie. Manchester is a proper noun, therefore Manchester United should be treated as plural, hence the usage of "are" rather than "is"

If a team name does not use a proper noun - ie. Arsenal, then either choice is acceptable, it depends if you want to think about the team as a business - Arsenal has made a profit this season - or as a team Arsenal have won the double.

However, I did not change the Arsenal article, it already used the plural form.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits, however as an act of good faith, I have let the singular form remain on the Man City, article. If you wish to have what you consider to be the correct form of grammar on their article, feel free. I am confident that my edits are correct. Sennen goroshi (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement

Also, I found it interesting that you decided to lecture me on Wikipedia etiquette due to me reverting without first discussing the issue, would that not also apply to you? You saw my edits, and instead of discussing them, you went ahead and reverted them all. Sennen goroshi (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand by what I said about etiquette, but that is not really important, and should not stand in the way of us getting this issue resolved. Getting some more opinions regarding this was a good idea, and will help us solve this problem without having to put in too much time/effort. Sennen goroshi (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Club América

Hi there. I did not ignore you, I changed the source from a board to the CONSULTA MITOFSKY site (not yelling), just forgot to add the comment (CONSULTA MITOFSKY). Consulta Mitofsky is used as one of the most reliable consulter in Mexico. Please the article in Spanish. JC 19:55 23 July 2008 (PST)

Edit War at Club América

User Dedos07, did not make any comment nor explain his/her edits. The same popularity issue is present in the Spanish wiki, were more americanistas (Club america fans) are wikipedians, but as such info is sourced even them respect "most hated" and "second most loved/popular" sentences. Check up the 3rd paragraph in the Spanish version. JC 13:35 15 Aug 2008 (PST)

User Dedos07

No, no, I see. I didn't see the point in saying why I deleted that refernece because it's a poll on something that is a matter of opinions of selected people, but I see what you mean now. I'll stop all the re-edits on that. Thanks for the attempt to resolve that. Hopefully it works out. User:Dedos07 15 August 2008, 10:07PM (PST)

WP:ANI#User:Sennen goroshi's stalking and disruption

Hi, Pbradbury. I raise an issue on Sennen goroshi's behaviors, so I really appreciate if you leave your thought at WP:ANI. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Mexico Squad 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup

Template:Mexico Squad 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. BlueRed 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's actually all of them: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 1#CONCACAF Gold Cup templates. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Man City squad template

My memory must be failing me, because I always thought that the inclusion of the "(c)" symbol in squad templates was frowned upon. And rather than me "hiding" this action without mentioning it in my edit summary, I don't include it because it's more of a subconscious action. As I said, I always thought it was standard for them to not be included. Could you direct me to the relevant discussion at WP:FOOTY where this consensus was gained? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD Declined on reserve players

Hi. I thought I ought to explain why I did not delete the two footballer articles you nominated for deletion. CSD A7 is for articles where no notability has been given. If notability is given, even a small amount, then the article is to be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to stay. Despite what I said in the edit summary, PROD/AFD probably would work, as they are both reserve players, so they may not meet the requirments of WP:ATH. But as a small amount of notibility was stated, I cannot delete them as a CSD candidate. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for explaining, sorry for using the wrong tag Paul  Bradbury 11:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry. FWIW, lots of people make similar mistakes by using CSD when PROD or AFD should be used. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:The_One_&_Only_Fools_and_Horses#Manchester_City_Logo

Good that you are trying to help this user, but he can't use a copyrighted fair-use image on his talk page; WP:NFCC explicitly forbids that. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Manchester City logo

That was a really strange episode. However, re this, User:The One & Only Fools and Horses was not trying to solve the problem, he added to it by uploading a terrible jpeg file of the MCFC logo with the word "LONDON" photoshopped across the middle of it! pablo_hablo. 23:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I missed that bit, sorry, but yes a very strange episode. A user created the svg version, replaced the png version across all articles and then once the png had been removed by the bots requested speedy delete of there own logo which was duly done, and then the bots removed it from all the articles. Paul  Bradbury 23:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Manchester_City.svg is still tagged for speedy now it has been restored. This is just weird. pablo_hablo. 23:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

good spot, I removed the speedy since I am contesting it and therefore it doesn't qualify any more. It appears this user has done the same accross several football articles. Paul  Bradbury 23:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There are several mistakes on all of the file that I've requested for deletion. I've requested a user to correct them for me (and the correction work is still in progress). I've reuploaded some of them e.g. Charlton and West Ham United. Hope that the logos can be replaced with rasters (preferably PNG) for the time being (Sunderland, Stoke, Blackpool & MC). Thank you Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 22:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I remove the section? Please explain Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 18:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pbradbury. You have new messages at Arteyu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 18:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Manchester City Logo

All the images uploaded got mistakes (for MCFC only). At first, it should be deleted and be replaced with raster (preferably PNG), instead you asked for it to be restored (and I don't blame you for that because you doesn't know whether the file need to be corrected or not). I am the one who converted and made it, I don't take it from other sites or etc and I know whether it contains error or not. My aim is to upload the highest quality SVG logo for the club. The reason for the deletion request can be seen clearly - there are mistakes on the file. I don't want the wrong version of it to be seen on wikipedia, I wanted it to be deleted subsequently. And fyi the wrong version still can be downloaded if it is not deleted. Instead of helping me to resolve the situation, you make the matter worse by asking it to be deleted. Now it has been deleted and it is now quite hard for me to request it for fixing. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 21:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page where the discussion started please continue discussion there Paul  Bradbury 22:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new version of File:Manchester_City.svg as requested by Arteyu at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop#Manchester City FC. Certes (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Mistakes corrected (: Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 19:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys it looks good Paul  Bradbury 22:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Np pal (: Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 07:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tevez

Hey there. Just so you know, even Man City say that Tevez's transfer is not quite complete yet. Although the transfer has been ratified by the FA and the Premier League, and Tevez himself has agreed terms, he has not yet passed a medical or actually signed the contract. Please see this link for proof. Thanks. – PeeJay 22:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The MCFC web already have recognized the deal: please see this link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octa62 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Citeh have recognised that terms have been agreed and that the deal has been ratified by the FA and the Premier League, but they also note that Tevez has not yet passed a medical or signed the contract. Please read the source carefully. Also, you do realise that you just linked me to the same site that I linked User:Pbradbury to, right? – PeeJay 22:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry, Pbradbury, for invading your talk page with this minor conversation. – PeeJay 23:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey no problem, I re-read and you are correct I did miss that. Paul  Bradbury 22:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Brasil Template

No matter the actual shirt, are well known, use most of the shirts so. Are lusophone!

And I would not want to give explanations on the names of Brazilian players. You are not Portuguese and Brazilian much less! Paulo (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

City third strip

Hey Paul. Just wondering where you got the third kit shorts and socks from - I've been looking for images of them for ages ;) Falastur2 ^Talk 14:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I just took it from the version that was on the main article, smoeone else had added it there, I havn't seen the socks or shorts either yet. I have been searching too. Paul  Bradbury 10:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

GA stuff

Are you still working on those 4 articles on your user page? Only Petrov still plays for Man City Spiderone 16:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I havn't worked on them for some time (probably need to update my own page). Been swamped with workload so mostly just being doing vandal patrol. Although I got as far as I could with Nery. Still plan on working on Richard Dunne some more, Elano and Petrov probably less so. Paul  Bradbury 22:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Making old City season articles

Hey Paul. As you may, or probably haven't, seen I've started writing up the old City season articles. I got through a couple of the most recent ones working backwards but decided that a new approach was needed, and consequently I'm currently working on the season articles from City's first years in competitive football, starting with their time as Ardwick and the first FA Cup game in 1890 and going onwards year by year. Two of those articles have already gone live (and are linked to on the City seasons template at the bottom of all City articles) and I'm on the 1892-93 article at the moment in my userspace. My primary motivation is to give City season articles a better coverage than the United articles have, meaning putting more articles up than they have (preferably all but it's going to be a huge effort) and with more detail, but my second motivation is trying to give these articles a decent level of detail, unlike a lot of the season articles around for past years, even United ones, which basically give a list of games played and stop there. Consequently I'm trying to add some basic statistical season analysis, I'm putting in the kit templates, and doing a table for number of games played by players etc etc - basically I'm replicating the current City season article to the best of my ability. However, I'm lacking a fair amount of info - even down to players' first names, though the absolutely astounding mcfcstats.com has at least given me surnames, and I'm wondering if I shouldn't be looking at other stuff I can include instead - maybe prose descriptions of the events of the season, for instance, though I've never totally liked them. Anyway, to get to my point, I was wondering if you had any suggestions. Obviously I'm not trying to rope you into doing the work yourself, but I've been wondering if a little Read&Review isn't needed here, and I'd gladly appreciate any ideas you might have, whether they be to add something, to cut something, or if you know a source of info for anything I haven't been able to find info on. Either way, if you have the time it'd be great if you could cast a quick eye over my efforts and see whether you like them or not. I'm not 100% happy with them, but I'm not entirely sure what to do about it.

Thanks for your time, anyway. Falastur2 ^Talk 12:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

New, worthy City articles?

Hey Paul. I'd noticed that you haven't been editing on Wikipedia recently, but I'm sending you this in the hope that you still visiting every now and again, and would consider lending me your opinion.

As you probably know I've had a self-implemented underlying project to update Man City on Wikipedia in terms of article volume to bring us into line with other clubs as prestigious as us or more, for self-respect as much as anything. The bulk of my work has been on my set of City season articles, which now stretches from 1890 to 1915, and which I will not stop at until I've entirely finished. However, writing 25 of those things gets monotonous and I'd enjoy another project just for a few hours to let me have some fun drawing totally different tables and researching something other than match appearances. One thing I'd noticed recently is a quantity of "xxx F.C. in Europe" articles, a trend which I'm expecting to only continue until any self-respecting club has one, which set me thinking. Should we consider adding a page like this for City? And for that matter, are there any other pages it would be worthwhile to add, either to keep up with continuing trends or to be a trend-setter ourselves? At present, I don't really have any sources except Wikipedia and mcfcstats.com at present, so I'm personally limited to low-prose articles, but I'm happy to take on any challenge I have the information for. What I don't want to do, however, is jump two feet first into a project which is either entirely superfluous, or undesirable/unpopular with the other regular City fans on Wikipedia. Thus, I wanted to test the water for your opinion - I will also be consulting Oldelpaso on this, and I welcome other users getting involved if they have any comments to make, though to be honest I'm only aware of the three of us as regular City-supporting contributors (exception of a couple of guys who update the 2009-10 City season article, and whom I've never had any contact with). I'm not asking you to commit any effort yourself to such a project (wouldn't turn down the help, of course, but I quite enjoy something like this to focus my mind on), I simply want to know whether you think it's a good idea or not. In the meantime, I may well make a test page on my subspace, so check the revision history there to see if I've added such a page in the last few hours or days and you might get a taster of what I'm thinking of - unless I have a brainwave or someone else gives me some ideas, though, I'll just follow what most clubs have on their pages at present.

Anyway, thanks for your time. Would love to hear any ideas you might have. Falastur2 ^Talk 02:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Manchester City squad numbers

http://shop.mcfc.co.uk/stores/mancity/products/kit_selector.aspx?selectorid=531 .. when you choose the player to add his number to your order you will find the new numbers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AhMeD BoSS (talk • contribs) 21:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Transfermarkt

Since most of its content is user generated, Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. Please do not cite the website in articles, as you did with 2015–16 Manchester City F.C. season. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Apologies, I was not aware that it was user generated. Your response however seems a little heavy handed. I would say I have a reasonable track record of faithful editing with no vandalism, you do not appear to have assumed good faith in your response to this edit. Maybe a better course of action would have been to remove the citation and replace with a needs citation marker. A cursory search would find that Godsway is in fact on loan at Falkenberg FF so the edit did not warrant a revert. I have reinstated the edit with a new reference and removed the dates as I can't find one at the moment. Paul  Bradbury 17:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:COLOR

"Some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color-blind". You may not care about them, and you may think that your cute little team colors are important, but that's not how it works. See Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible." It does (and did before, but the new shade is better), you may not care about what the guidelines actually say but I do. SO please be WP:CIVIL and try and improve wikipedia instead of trying to destroy things. Paul  Bradbury 16:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You can be a jackass all you like, but I can't see your fucking scores. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Then how about having a civil conversation about it, or maybe posting on the talk page. Instead of quoting regulations and getting them wrong. Paul  Bradbury 16:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Advice

No problems; what do you need help with? GiantSnowman 17:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you @GiantSnowman:. Am I coming across as an asshole or something, recently I am getting editors throwing wikipolicies at me left right and center, I go and read them and try and engage in a discussion, but in a lot of cases I'm getting verbally abused. Also I am often not seeing anything wrong with the original article, based on my reading of the policy. I have not experienced this until recently, however I have taken a break from editing and since its not one editor I can only assume I am doing something wrong. It's quite disheartening so I'd like some honest advice/feedback. Paul  Bradbury 17:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No; from what I've seen you are more than able to properly engage in constructive discussion with other editors, which is exactly what we need. What I will say is that when numerous editors disagree with you (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Derby (MLS)) then it might be an idea to take a step back and reconsider your view. You are of course allowed to have your own opinion, and to be honest sometimes I can be as stubborn as the best of them, but maintaining a position which appears contrary to Wikipedia policy/guideline and/or community consensus simply does no good. Next time you come across a policy you are new to and/or don't fully understand just drop me a line and I'll happily walk through it with you. Regarding the Man City flag issue, this is a much wider issue (to use flags or not has been rumbling on for years, with no resolution, and with both sides of the argument firmly entrenched in the belief that they are correct) so please don't be disheartened by it. GiantSnowman 18:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @GiantSnowman: I Understad about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Derby (MLS) I guess I just had a bit of a bee in my bonnet that day, I'd read the AfD guidelines it said to try and improve it, so I did my best and thought I had done what was being requested (Although I understand putting it up for AfD in the first place). It's less that kind of thing and I understand the flags thing has very entrenched views. I tend to be on the side of more is more with that kind of thing unless it is causing a comprehension issue. It's more the fairly hostile nature of some of the comments from other editors (some who are admins). I don't think I am a particularly rude person, but I thought maybe I am pushing buttons with the way I am engaging. Paul  Bradbury 18:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you please redo the updates I have added to the pages of Enes Ünal and Manchester City F.C. which you have deleted in 1st July 14:50 --OnlyTheTruth 06:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantikadam (talk • contribs)

@Cantikadam: When it became official yesterday, I updated all the relevant articles so this should now be done. They were deleted originally because they were not yet official. Paul  Bradbury 08:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey!

Hi mate. Not a problem - everyone has their own life to live and it's absolutely fair that you focused on your own stuff for a while. I probably could've done with taking a break myself on a few occasions, though I've responded in my own way by becoming much more intermittent in my activity. Now that the season articles largely run themselves, and even the more stats-y articles like number of appearances and so on, I am a bit less active as I just work on a few niche things every now and again (ones I really need to get around to updating). Over a fair amount of time I've founded enough articles that City is now on a level with most major teams, so I'm content - the only major hole is the sheer number of missing season articles, but since we have about 60 to go and they each take 3-5 hours to write, I've struggled badly for the energy to do them for some time now.

Honestly, the thing I've found most drives me to activity on Wikipedia is having something new to work on, so if you come across a club-related article which could be adapted for City but which we don't have one of yet, give me a shout and I'll pitch in. That's my thing at the moment - every few months I will scan the categories of the scum, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal etc for anything they might have added which we haven't, and then I put it in. I've been toying with trying to introduce season articles for the EDS for a while, but there's no precedent for academy side season articles so I'm pretty sure it would get deleted. In the meantime, I've largely been busying myself with doing work on NYCFC and Melbourne City stuff.

Anyway, good to hear from you again. Don't hesitate to drop by if there's anything you ever want to discuss. Falastur2 ^Talk 22:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your signature

Your signature is unreadable. Could you use a darker blue? Alakzi (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Sure, I'll take a look at it. Paul  Bradbury 16:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

: @Alakzi: is this better or still not enough contrast? Paul  Bradbury 16:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a lot better (for me), but it still falls short of WCAG AA. Alakzi (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you need to insult me every time i do something wrong

Everytime i make a small error you feel the need to insult everything i do. Ok yes, it wasn't a great match report. It's not easy on a crappy phone that doesn't work or show what im writing properly.Thursby16 (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thursby16: I haven't insulted you once. In fact I have tried to help you on several occasions. However you continue to be a disruptive editor, you are not making any effort to learn from your mistakes. It is not OK to put in broken edits and then simply put in the edit summary 'needs fixing'. If you can't do it correctly don't do it or ask for help. I had to revert multiple of your edits simply because you can't be bothered to check your sources and the information in them. I am happy to help, but you have to want help. Only edit if you are 100% sure of the information (as in, you have checked it across multiple sources) and all the links you are adding work and that all the templates being amended by you are being done so correctly. If you continue to edit disruptively I'll report you this time since you evidently don't want my help. Paul  Bradbury 10:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying I don't want help, which I need. It just seemed to me a little insulting. But fair enough. Thursby16 (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links

Could a footballers official Facebook, Twitter, Instagram ect.. accounts be included in external links?Thursby16 (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to assume they are allowed because I just read WP:LINKSTOAVOID . Number 9 says social networking sites shouldn't be allowed. However, at the top it says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject" and a footballer's official social network page comes under that, right? Thursby16 (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thursby16:Probably not really. You are only really supposed to use one official link (and no more) per person and the preferred one is the official website (which is likely to have links to the other sites). See WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. However it may be worth bringing up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and if you get consensus there then go ahead. Paul  Bradbury 19:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've brought it up on that page now.Thursby16 (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Assistance?

User @Avdagicdennis: created James Horsfield earlier today and it got deleted. They then re-made the article. The player has never made a first team appearance for Manchester City so I have put it up for speedy deletion again. Have I done the right thing?Thursby16 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thursby16: if it has already been deleted and then simply recreated then yes speedy is fine, you should add a reason to the speedy templet though so an admin knows why. In this case it would be G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, you can use the {{Db-g4}} tag

Jason Deneyar

Jason is back from loan and sign new contract with mcfc, currently he is on pre season tour with mcfc , and play both matches ( against roma and madrid )

@Amnjoshi: Yes, and he is still listed as so, we don't add the team again to the infobox when the loan is over.Paul  Bradbury 15:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh well then thanx for correct me . #cheers 👍

Devante Cole

My opinion is that if they have a squad number, they should be in the squad template navbox. GiantSnowman 09:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: All players at a club with a professional contract have a squad number (with a few exceptions), they are not all part of the first team squad. He isn't listed in the squad on the Manchester City F.C. article. He plays for a different team (at the same club). The navboxes would become hugely unwieldy if you included all players on a pro contract Paul  Bradbury 09:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat - if they have a squad number, they should be in the squad template navbox. The point of a navbox is to link between related topics i.e. Manchester City's current players... GiantSnowman 09:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I heard you the first time, I don't really have a strong opinion here. However others do and long standing editing practices do. I was simply removing the template that he's not included in. As far as who and what goes in those boxes it seems to be widely held that that is the first team squad. If you think thats wrong maybe we should ask at WP:FOOTY. The first team squad is sourced by the way. Both at the template and the main article Paul  Bradbury 09:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) So has Manchester City given Devante Cole a squad number or not? JMHamo (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo:He had one, but I think he lost it when he went on loan to MK Dons. They haven't released this years squad numbers yet. Although while he was offered a new contract apparently he hasn't accepted it and has been on trial with West Ham (including playing in a friendly). So not sure haven't seen anything official, still listed at the web site but without a number.Paul  Bradbury 21:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Having done some digging it used to be 77 but the last reference to it that I can find is 13-14 season. Paul  Bradbury 21:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

More digging, squad numbers for last year are here. He did not have one, nothing updated for this year yet. Also no youth players listed with a squad number. Paul  Bradbury 21:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. ceradon (talk • edits) 14:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Article on Jean-Marie Speich

Despite the bulk of reference materials cited, it is observable that certain contributors are aggressively trying to place undue tags in this article.

Some claim that knowing (a close relationship with) the subject personally, would be tanamount to serious violation against being objective in writing about the person in question. This will be true if a contributor includes information that are unsubstantiated with suitable reference materials. However, it seems more biased if one deletes contirbutions of wikipedians without substantial support to contrary claims, at least by pointing out objective reference materials; or worse, to places tags for some kind of paranoid reason. It is an insult to sensibilities of contributors who include information substantiated by citations, when such presumptive tags and comments are stamped on wikipedia articles.

On the otherhand, contributors who know the subject personally are more knoweledgeable about this subject.

For this reason, I remove the tag you placed on 17 August 2015.--Northern Lights 2000 (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Northern Lights 2000: please go and read WP:COI you appear not to understand it and you are acting suspiciously like a WP:sockpuppet. I will bring this up at the relevant wiki project and ask for their opinion on the COI. In the meantime do not remove the template. Paul  Bradbury 11:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice and really sorry I completely forgot to do it. Btw you can easily find out on the web the news was rght. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emalas (talk • contribs) 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Emalas: No problem although you know it's just rumoured at the moment and hasn't actually happened right? Not announced by Chelsea who are the only reliable source in this case. Paul  Bradbury 23:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I listened the deal was done and Utd decided not to do another bid for the player; honestly I had no idea here we need the confirmation of the purchising team. No problem we can immediately change it back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emalas (talk • contribs) 23:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Man City colors

Sorry, at first I made a mistake, I confused th bgcolor with the text color. I used a program to determine the actual hashtag colors of the official logo. It should be:

• #ffffff (white) for text
• #5cbfeb (light blue) for background
• #000000 (black) for border

It would look like this:

8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@8Dodo8: No problem, I'm fine with that just gold on white was strange Paul  Bradbury 11:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks and thank you for your work. I hope we can put this behind us going on forward and improving wikipedia. Both of us have the same goals and I do understand where you are coming from. Do you want me to remove this warning, that was a bit impulsive after your sudden level 3 on me? Qed237 (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237:It would be appreciated if you think it is not necessary and I hope we can move forward as well. Cheers. Paul  Bradbury 17:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Have a nice day. Qed237 (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

2016 World Cup of Hockey

Hi, after our little dispute earlier I thought I should let you know that I have updated the 2016 World Cup of Hockey with groups and schedule. This after now after IIHF (see this) and NHL (see this) has now released the info. I hope this looks good enough now, but feel free to look through it. Qed237 (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A question

Can you help me to break this table in two tables ? 2008–09 Liga II, because all the editions of Liga II have two separate tables. Thank you !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

With your help, I have developped the french article and I mention you (fr:Discussion:Football aux Jeux olympiques d'été de 1948/Bon article); Thank you so much. Watch the article. Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pbradbury. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Pbradbury. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Pbradbury. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Manchester City F.C. squad

Your recent editing history at Template:Manchester City F.C. squad shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GiantSnowman 16:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

GiantSnowman I am a little confused about the warning template, I tried to discuss with the other editor, stopped reverting, in fact self reverted one of my revisions and brought it up as a discussion on WP Project Football talk page inviting the other editor. I guess I'll just stop editing on Wikipedia as the result of that is a warning template and no meaningful discussion about the issue? What more should I have done? Paul  Bradbury 17:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It also seems that the other user has simply reverted the warning you placed on his page, has refused to engage on WP Project Football and has reverted another users similar edit on the main Manchester City article. Paul  Bradbury 18:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

What an utterly bizarre chap you are, I gave my reasons for my edit and yet you rambled on in patronising tone on my talk page. Everything that was needed to be discussed from my side was done there, despite you telling me I was intent on not discussing it? I also stated that if within that further discussion it was decided that the criteria for inclusion would change then so be it, that's absolutely fine. I merely reverted an edit that was removing players who were listed on the main page. You've then cringingly harped on in that discussion and on this page like a child telling tales saying I have forced myself on all City pages? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, I am neither active on all City pages or have encountered any issues with other editors, had any conflicts or have tried to push home any other agendas. I keep myself to myself on Wikipedia and very rarely interact with anyone, and in all honesty if this peculiar exchange is anything to go by then it only strengthens my reasons for it. Thanks Footballgy (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Flexes with resolution

Hi there! I'm that guy from the Manchester City article that changed the size of the image. Can you please explain what it means by "flexes with resolution"? Thanks. JoshuaInWiki (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @JoshuaInWiki what I mean is exactly where the image sits and how much it compresses the table will vary depending on the width of the browser frame, someone viewing it on a phone will have a different experience to someone viewing it on a monitor with 1280 pixel width vs someone with a tablet etc. It isn't a fixed thing it changes based on the viewer and how they are viewing it. Paul  Bradbury 09:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)