User talk:Beve/Archive2010

re: Michael Owen

Hi, regarding the international years for the Michael Owen infobox, there's been a long discussion about it in WP:FOOTY, but I haven't found a compelling reason to not include the year of the most recent cap. Saying he might win a cap again amounts to WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR, and in the event that he does win another cap, we can simply add to his cap total and remove "2008". I think it's understandable to assume the year is a permanent end date, but as the temporary international retirements of players like Edwin van der Sar, El Hadj Diouf and Zinedine Zidane have demonstrated, it's rather fluid. Rather than try to read tea leaves and try to figure out the likelihood of players ending international appearance droughts, I'd rather treat all players consistently and stick to the very easily verifiable year of the last cap. --Mosmof (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the discussion. In my opinion, putting an end date in the infobox looks like we are declaring his international career is over and that's blatant WP:OR. I don't think that saying he might win another cap is WP:CRYSTAL, saying he will or he won't is though. However, if there's a consensus that the date of the last cap should go in the infobox, then this would have to be applied to all players not just Michael Owen. BEVE (talk)  19:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can't really worry about how the reader might interpret the facts, as in, Michael Owen earned 89 caps from 1998 to 2008. That covers only what has happened in the past, which is Wikipedia is concerned about, and doesn't get into whether he will or won't earn another cap. The thing is, an international career is never officially over - voluntary retirements are often temporary - and players aren't under season-long contract the way they are with clubs, so the date of the last cap is the most verifiable thing we have. There isn't a consensus, which is a problem, but having looked at what's done for recent England, Brazil and Italy players, it does seem to be the norm. --Mosmof (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

re Daddy

Why don't you add information on Daddy to the Cesar Millan page - it would be a better fit under his biography than under the Dog Whisperer Program Format. Marj (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Already there. Why not both? BEVE (talk)  11:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Dog Whisperer

It quite possible there's an editor with a COI: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." 842U (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

League Date Change Discussion

Hi Beve, There's been some discussion lately about the "official" date of changing the league a promoted/relegated club play in, starting on the Hull City talk page with links to more discussion. As a regular and serious contributor, your input is welcome. Thanks, Northumbrian (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Association Football

Do you reckon there is any way we could ever stop the pointless arguments about the naming of the Association Football article or is it just one of those things that will make us laugh/tear our hair out every fews months? Let me know what you think on my talk page if you would. Ta. Cls14 (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice. BEVE (talk)  12:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Borderline case for semi-protection of Hull City article?

Hi Beve,

You think there's a case to be made for semi-protection of the Hull City article? edits like this, that you reverted, that rearrange content and introduce/remove material without sources or explanation, that have been recurring every few days for the past few weeks. Doesn't seem quite enough to constitute vandalism, but it's definitely discourteous editing and a pain to keep cleaning up after. There have been a couple of unrelated instances lately of clear-cut vandalism though too. What do you think? Northumbrian (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see flagged revisions protection on the article, but I'm not sure there's been heavy enough vandalism / unconstructive edits that the modmins will go for it. BEVE (talk)  20:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, after yet another attempt today that I reverted, I went ahead and requested semi-protection, after gathering a few blatant and subtle examples from the last few weeks. The most they can do is decline and we're no worse off, but I think from the examples that we have a fair case for SP for at least a while. Northumbrian (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)