User talk:Gnevin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:GnevinAWB)
Jump to: navigation, search

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

This basically means I no longer have any pages on my watch list, so I move from issue to issue without getting too bogged down anywhere





Proposed MoS guideline[edit]

Hi Gnevin, I noticed you re-categorized Wikipedia:Manual of Style (superscripts and subscripts) from Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (formatting) to Category:Wikipedia proposals. I've no problem with the edit — I might have been too bold when adding such a category. I just dropped by to tell you that the content on that page is not something I made up, it's merely a compilation of guidelines from various MoS pages aimed to let the reader get an overview. Cheers, jonkerz 11:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine . I've started a discussion about it Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_.28superscripts_and_subscripts.29 . If no one objects it can be tagged as MOS Gnevin (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S you may want to consider changing your ♠ per WP:ACCESS Gnevin (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi Gnevin, could you have another look at the FLC, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Joan Gamper Trophy/archive1, I took some of your considerations into the list. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 18:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Mars Volta tour[edit]

Hey chum, I see you're semiretired now, which is sad (but I respect it), and lately [and not so lately, actually] it's been discussed and decided that the countless concert tours pages, as they are a listing, should keep (unlike other kinds of articles) their flaggings as for clarity, namely when you scroll the page, so you can visually have fast access to the different parts of the world's sections that you're looking for. For this reason, it has been decided that articles like this or this other one Licks Tour, need flaggings, and in fact, the vast majority of them have them, naturally, now. This is the reason why the flags must stay, otherwise it woudl create a mess of a txt file, basically, not really worth Wikipedia and its look. This said, specifically the old edit you were trying to bring back to live, is old, not up to date, bloated and full of small mistakes. No bitterness whatsoever buddy (how could I be bitter to an irish anyways!? :) ) but what ytou have done when you replaced an up to date concert listing with an outdated and mistakes ridden one, cannot be tolerated. And it is just wrong. I am sure you will understand this, and by the way, greets from Italy to Ireland! :) Eyesbomb 1:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed and rejected at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Use_of_flag_icons_in_concert_tours_or_festivals .Can you please make your edit to a flag-less version of this article Gnevin (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I see no evidence of a large consensus actually, to tell you the truth, between you 3 or 4 discussing it at that link. Instead, it was discussed on a much larger scale in the past, and it was agreed upon that it wasn't unnecessary, because of the easier scrolling reason. One of the users there tells the same thing. Maybe if you agree and have some time for it we could bring more people into this new discussion which is now far too small to set a standard, especially since, again, I am pretty convinced of my stance. But until then, netiquette would want things to remain unchanged as you know I think! I was thinking though, is it really this that terribly necessary to you, given that it worsens the article giving it less readability (scrolling), and is it worth using this much time? And do you really have it? But I agree it can be interesting. Cheers! Eyesbomb 1:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Where and when was it discussed? . As per normal people who want to keep attack the legitimacy of the consensus . The argument the flags help reader scrolling is also rejected Gnevin (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

icons removal[edit]

Please take the time to review what the community consensus is for the use of icons for soldiers before removing. This is an encyclopedia that is designed to INFORM, and informative material is not generally removed for aesthetic concerns. If the encyclopedia is going to say a solider has received something, it is logical to show what it looks like. See Randy Shughart etc. To quote from Wikipedia poiicy, icons to be removed are icons that are "purely decorative" and "convey no additional useful information." YOU may be able to recognize a military ribbon at a glance but that doesn't mean everyone else can. If you feel the ribbon at issue is not notable, then remove from the text of the article as well, as opposed to removing the ribbon's imagery.Bdell555 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where this community consensus is about medals for soldiers, can you provide a link? Until such time WP:MOSICON is clear Gnevin (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:MOSICON is clear all right, clearly appropriate. If not, cite the policy SPECIFICALLY. It seems to me the starting point for your campaign should be the many templates on Wikipedia, where icon use dwarfs icon use on articles outside of templates. Have you not noticed all the templates with icons? If you are not out on a tangent here how did Wikipedia end up with so many template icons? re the consensus concerning the pages of military persons, please explain why the community has not removed all the icons you object to before, if the community truly felt removal was necessary. If you object to my tone here, it is because the Talk page had a specific section concerning icon presentation and you refused to engage there before going ahead and reverting. When someone is likely to be disputed we TALK first. Go and remove all the imagery from a high volume page like, say, David Petraeus. If that lasts for 2 weeks de-iconized, I'll concede that you have read the consensus and the policy correctly and I have not.Bdell555 (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:WAX isn't a argument accepted on wiki. Consensus can change and the fact other articles have icons doesn't matter Gnevin (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Where is your evidence that it has changed? The icon usage policy is clear: is the icon informative? The answer is yes.Bdell555 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
MOSICON saying nothing about informative Gnevin (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I just quoted it above. To repeat, EVEN PURELY DECORATIVE ICONS COULD BE USED, according to the policy: "purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose". Not that these are remotely close to "purely decorative". The policy says "Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information..." INFORMATION. See that word? Not that there is much point discussing when you continue to refuse to discuss on the article Talk page or otherwise express any interest in what the editing community thinks.Bdell555 (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC) What is ironical here is that I actually sympathize with the idea that there is too much gratuitous iconography. But putting into infoboxes for soldiers keeps it out of the article's main space. If you have experience editing soldier articles you'd know that people love adding medal imagery to those pages, and in far larger displays than small infobox icons. Hence my suggestion that you go practice on David Petraeus.Bdell555 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The entire quote is purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing navigational or layout cues outside of article prose. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information relevant to the article subject nor navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. The information isn't relevant Gnevin (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The information identifies the subject's rank, the subject's unit, and the subject's most distinguished awards. I agree that an icon for the subject's combat badge need not be included because combat badges are not unusual enough to merit more than just a mention in the text, if that. Sticking a happy face somewhere is not relevant. Identifying what the subject has on his chest in the photo by repeating the image and stating what it is is both informative and relevant. Might I add that the very first Talk page comment was a request from another editor for EXACTLY THAT? A matching of ribbons and insignia with terminology? Perhaps you can explain to me how ADDING to the article (icons) is hurting anyone anyway. At worst I would think that it adds nothing.Bdell555 (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you have now removed the icons from Petraeus' infobox but not from the article. Can you explain your reasoning for removing from the one location but not the other? Removing from the article body would make the article physically shorter (less scrolling). Would it be correct to infer that you would not object if Giunta's ribbons were moved to the article body? If your problem is just with the infobox then why did you DELETE Giunta's ribbons and insignia instead of MOVING them?Bdell555 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The consensus at least according User:Bahamut0013 is to have the icons in the body. Feel free to add them to the body if you want Gnevin (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Your consensus count both ignores the opinions expressed on the Talk page and the editors of some time ago when the matter arose earlier. You do not explain what your reasoning is here, which suggests that your concern is for aesthetics. World Cup 2010 has icons all over the place, including in the infobox. Are you going to let that slide? I ask these questions because there is a good chance I'll encounter your editing again and if you state what your policy is and EXPLAIN it at least the rest of the community will know what to expect. You have already threatened me with 3RR, so any bringing back of the same images you insisted on deleting would be a risk, would it not, absent a very clear indication of what exactly you are demanding and why?Bdell555 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR is when you make the same edit 3 times in 24 hours. Adding the images in the body of the article is not the same edit. Once again I don't care about WP:WAXGnevin (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Until you say it IS the same, of course. Above, you said the icons were not "relevant" to the article. Now you've reversed yourself to grant that they ARE relevant, as you say you don't object to icons in the article body (despite the fact WP:ICONDECORATION, the very same policy you keep citing for your edits, says "Icons should not be used in the article body").Bdell555 (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


To quote from the policy: Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. Bdell555 (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am discussing it here with you Gnevin (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That's not what the policy says. I'd ask you to read it again and at least CONSIDER following its clear instructions, but I've done that enough times it is clearly time to move on to something more productive. I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that if someone is going to insist on having it their way come hell or high water there is ultimately no stopping them.Bdell555 (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop massive removals from infoboxes[edit]

Please stop massive removals of icons from all infoboxes you come accross. It is a ususal and I'd say useful practice to include country/unit flags as icons in cpnflict infoboxes; your unilateral wholesale erasures are unacceptable. Just removing the data based on your own interpretation of a certain guideline is not very constructive I'd say. I agree that changes were needed in the article on the 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt, but it's much more helpful if you improve the existing version instead of just erasing everything. As your changes have been disputed by a number of users already, please consider finding a compromise/discussing your POV at respective talk pages first, instead of edit warring in numerous disparage topics for enforcing your uniform concept. Thank you. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSICON is clear about icon usage. However it is a guideline and you may choose to WP:IAR if you heart that icons so much . I'm not going to argue with you . Also consider Wikipedia:MILMOS#FLAGS Gnevin (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing icons all over wikipedia[edit]

Seconding the outrage from other wikipedians. McCaster (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSICON is clear about icon usage, if you believe its incorrect then build WP:CON to change it. However it is a guideline and you may choose to Ignore all rules if you heart the icons so much . I'm not going to argue with you Gnevin (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Football[edit]

I though I'd post this here rather than on the discussion so as not to side track it - if you wanted to try and introduce these changes as standard or float them across a few articles then I (at least) wouldn't stop you. I don't think the changes would improve Wikipedia - in fact I think all the proposed changes are less readable than the current status - and I think they could create trouble for us due to vandals/innocent passers-by misunderstanding them. But you clearly genuinely think this is a change worth making so from that point of view (whilst I'll continue to argue against it) I also wouldn't revert any decision you or others made to implement it. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. How about we did a trial of 50 Rugby, GAA,Aussie and Soccer articles picked at random ? Gnevin (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
While posting below I noticed this comment. It wouldn't be appropriate to make changes which have been or are still under discussion and haven't yet gained consensus. It would be preferable to keep working on gaining consensus that to try and force through changes that are likely to result in reverts. National terminology is a contentious area that has lead to various disruptive edit wars, and it is as well to proceed with caution. SilkTork *YES! 10:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be limited CON for the hotnote idea Gnevin (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to suggest my comment is an endorsement for acting, only that if it you did I wouldn't go round reverting and that I do think there's no point in endless argument. I'd suggest that if you want to introduce something, you should try and get more opinions. How about informing a few of the people who've said they'll peer review sports articles? You can find them on Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers#Everyday life. They might have more familiarity with whether the current usage would be considered appropriately specific or otherwise. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Closing active discussions[edit]

Can you be careful when closing discussions . The one at Talk:Football is still very much active Gnevin (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I have left a note there explaining the situation. If either your proposal or a new one starts to gain some consensus, then please use CENT again to pull in a wider consensus. WP:Engvar does provide a workaround for the situation, though if a better solution can be found that would be of value and should be implemented. SilkTork *YES! 09:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Cool, no worries Gnevin (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to apologise[edit]

For my over-zealous edit summary here. My point was that the edit I was reverting demonstrates why this does not need to be applied universally. Regards, —WFC— 15:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries atleast you didn't make a frightful exhibition of yourself. :) Gnevin (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to Premier League[edit]

Thanks for you edit to Premier League but using Association football like that has been rejected . To me this was the most obvious solution to the issue but appereently not. Maybe you can give your 2 cent at Talk:Football#Hatnote ? Gnevin (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Football is on my watchlist and I have indeed watched the discussion and read it all and I don't see where it says that association football in the lead is not allowed anywhere (nor indeed does that discussion have the ability to demand or deny that anyway). The slight change to the lead makes perfect sense to me and doesn't affect the prose so I can't see how it harms the article. Woody (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I know you've not breaking any rules. As I said I think your change makes more sense and that's what I proposed in the original RFC but users seem to think that is not acceptable . Anyway was just letting you know of the discussion as you seem to be aware of this then that's ok Gnevin (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for your thinking about contacting me, but I don't think I could anything to the discussion: it seems to be a bit circular already. Regards, Woody (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


Would you please stop using this template until you have wider consensus for it. You are using it on articles that do not need it, which is against WP:OVERLINK. There may well be a situation for it on certain articles where the term football is not linked in the first paragraph, but you do not need to add a link statement when there is already a link statement in the first sentence. As an example in Rugby World Cup your hatnote read: "The primary meaning of the words football or rugby in this article refers to rugby union." While the first sentence reads "The Rugby World Cup is the premier international rugby union competition." I have removed the hatnote, and will now go through and see where else the hatnote has been inappropriately placed. SilkTork *YES! 16:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote is under a trial run . Instead of removing the template you could of just fixed it Gnevin (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The hatnote has no consensus, even for a trial run (unless I missed that discussion and community sanction?) You seem to take people not reverting your choice of odd pages to add it to as a "success". We don't need this, people don't want this, it doesn't help, and we have piped links for those who really don't get it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Piped links aren't helpful Gnevin (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Um, what? So presumably you'd like to change "Irish footballer and manager" to "Republic of Ireland-born association footballer and coach (sports)..."? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This has all been covered at Talk:Football. In context manager and Irish are clear as its Irish or Northern Irish Gnevin (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. Purely subjective. In hatnote world, someone not aware of the various Ireland issues would be confused. And in hatnote world, someone who isn't into sports but knows that their manager shouts at them for using the photocopier may get confused. This isn't Simple English Wikipedia, we have to credit our readers with some ability to understand what they're reading, including pipelinks. And I didn't see any consensus at Talk:footy for you to start slapping hatnotes everywhere. And I see no consensus to keep them. So please stop experimenting in the mainspace. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
CBA Gnevin (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Do you have a link for that? I assume you mean you're out shopping in Hungary? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time . I consider this issue closed Gnevin (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Footballword[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Footballword has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gnevin (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


Hey Gnevin, I need your help with a discussion over at this discussion page. In the past we have argued over the use of images in templates and the WP:MOSICON and WP:ICONDECORATION policies. I have converted to your side and think icons and decorative stuff like that is useless and confusing. I am not sure how to formulate my argument, but over at Intelligent Design, the template is similar to the Template:creationism2 and Template:evolution3. We ended up removing the images from both of those because they didn’t represent the topic and it caused more confusion. The image on the Template:Intelligent Design article has a watch. I understand that the watch represents the watchmaker analogy, but it is not representative of intelligent design as a whole and it really is a decoration. For those who know nothing about that analogy, they may wonder what the hell a pocket watch has to do with anything. Also, I want the templates to be similar with each other, and if one can have a stupid image, then why shouldn’t they all? Please consider joining the discussion. Thanks! A. Z. Colvin • Talk 00:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Image Removal from Psychology Sidebar Template[edit]

Your recent edits to Template:Psychology sidebar appear to violate the spirit of the the three-revert rule. I understand from reading your talk page that you do not think that icons add significant value to infoboxes and templates. However, your edits have reverted the actions of at least three separate editors in recent days. Your opinion seems inconsistent with the current consensus of editors, at least those who have restored the image when it has been deleted. If you feel strongly about this issue, I suggest you raise this issue for debate on the talk page. Continued reverts without consensus will be viewed as edit warring. If edit warring continues, the issue will be brought to the administrators' attention and you may be blocked from editing without further notice.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is consistent with guidelines not what looks pretty. [1] . Also 3RR would not apply in this case as its 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Also please read the text on the undo function If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only. Gnevin (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
What I said was that you violated the "spirit" of the 3RR. That is hard to deny. Your edit summaries (e.g., "so what") did not provide a clear reason for the removal of the icon and the discussion you began on the talk page still doesn't contain a reasoned argument for its removal. Saying that it is "pointless" is not an argument. There is no clear reason in WP:MOSICON that would suggest it should be removed because, as other editors have commented, it is an established icon to represent the field. Make a convincing case based on more than opinion and take a break from editing the page and no one will think you are edit warring. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Irish calendar[edit]

Why did you G7 the AFD? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I used TW to nominate Irish calendar but it didn't include the template. I used TW to readd the template and meant to point Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish calendar. In the long run it was properly wasn't the best option Gnevin (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Tram SackvilleSt.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tram SackvilleSt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Kelly hi! 03:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ultras[edit]

Your latest edit looks good. I completely agree with your intention by the way, more than 3 and a half years is ridiculous. Regards, —WFC— 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks Gnevin (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


There's a PROD at Talk:Michael Phelan (hurler). Don't usually involve myself in sport, but thought it might be something up your street. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Gnevin (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Famine categorization[edit]

The category was removed because of WP:OCAT. See my talk page for details. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Awe ok, missed the fact there was a sub cat Gnevin (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:Summary style[edit]

Hi. I was wondering today why Summary style was under the MoS. It used to be an editing guide, and the guideline still appears to be about making an editing decision rather than a style or formatting decision. I took a look at the history and note that you moved it based on your understanding that a discussion on this page included a consensus discussion to include the guide in MoS. I can see how you would reach that understanding from glancing at the section headings, but what appears to be happening is that people were referring to Summary style as an editing guide as to how to achieve the consolidation. There wasn't any discussion about bringing Summary style into MoS, let alone an agreement as far as I can see. I may be mistaken, so I thought I'd pass it by you before moving it back. SilkTork *YES! 12:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It was part of a bulk move , revert me if you think it doesn't belong in the MoS 11:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I will do as you suggest. By the way, I note that you have a semi-retired note on your talkpage. Wiki-editing can get stressful at times. There are many wiki editors who have encountered differences of opinion that have been exhausting, and some have drifted away because of it. I see you are enthusiastic, well intentioned, have energy and ideas, so I hope you don't drift away. It can be hard when others don't always agree with your ideas, but that is the nature of Wikipedia. Sometimes even the most brilliant ideas get trampled on. Breath deeply, and move onto something else is my approach. Keep well. SilkTork *YES! 12:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Cheers for the encouraging words. Yeah I pretty much move from issue to issue now, much less stressful Gnevin (talk)

Your Template:Egypt topics reversion[edit]

I have read and re-read MOS:FLAG and do not see any reason why having the Egypt flag icon on the Egypt country topics template would be a problem, or an "inappropriate" use of the flag icon. Please explain your reversion, and please let me know where the specific guideline is that says that the flag shouldn't be used on a country template, when the template is only about that one country. Thank you. --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION is very clear, we don't add flags just because they look nice Gnevin (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
To the contrary, I don't think that the flag icon use falls under WP:ICONDECORATION as much as it falls under the section just below that, which pertains specifically to flags — MOS:FLAG. The use of the flag icon on the Egypt country template does have an Encyclopaedic purpose, as it links to the article on the country. Also, the use of the flag icon is discussed in the MOS:FLAG#Country can sometimes be omitted when flag re-used section, so the use of the flag icon is certainly not prohibited, by any means. Also, as described in MOS:FLAG#Avoiding flag problems, it can be seen that this particular use of the flag icon in the country's topics template definitely has direct relevance, and does not violate any of the inappropriate use guidelines. As I can see from your user page that you reside in the Republic of Ireland, I find it very interesting that the Template:Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland does use the flag icon. My question to you is: why is that use okay, when the use in the Egypt template is not? I feel that your answer above does not completely address the MOS:FLAG guidelines which pertain to my argument. I am also interested in hearing your opinion to when the use of the flag icon "would" be considered appropriate. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
As I said other things exists is not an argument. I remove these flags as I see them . If you want the pretty flag well then keep it Gnevin (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Quoting WP:Other stuff exists: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because 'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.'" My point is that the flag icons are consistently used on the "country X topics" templates. I have noticed from your edit history and the comments above by other editors that you seem to be universally removing the icons. This is creating a problem of edit warring, in that you are disregarding the fact that there is a precedent in using these flag icons on the aforementioned templates, which is based on consistency. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't care, we re add it if you want Gnevin (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gnevin. Onetonycousins (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Gnevin (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Seealso.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Seealso.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gnevin (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:AIfomat1.JPG[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:AIfomat1.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gnevin (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:AIformat.JPG[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:AIformat.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gnevin (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD of Seven Worlds Index[edit]

It appears Twinkle broke while you were nominating this at AfD. I have procedurally completed the nomination for you and placed what I assumed to be your rationale. Please go to the discussion and clarify the rationale for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Worlds Index. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. Gnevin (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tramroutes.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Tramroutes.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gnevin (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive move[edit]

Hello, back in May you moved Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (self-references to avoid) per consensus, but the talk page archives didn't make the move. Since IPs can't do page moves, would you please move the archives for me, see the "pages with prefix" for the archives in question. Rgrds. (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Talk pages of content such as the above don't move as the move was a merge Gnevin (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert War on Template:JewishPolishHistory[edit]

Please cease your revert war on Template:JewishPolishHistory. I have requested temporary page protection. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Page protection seems are over the top but fair enough Gnevin (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit_warring regarding an issue with which you are involved. Regards, Ajh1492 (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


This edit is your second breach of 1RR in 24 hours. I warned you about the first, but you declined to self-revert. Take this as a second warning - it might be advisable now to self-revert both of the edits in question. Mooretwin (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a sporting article with a small subsection dealing with the sporting organisation's perception in the North. Its not a hot bed of edit warring nor is it about the troubles or Irish nationalism , 1RR doesn't apply here Gnevin (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Where there is doubt, assume that it does. A very wide interpretation has always been applied - your edits can, and will, be interpreted as relating to the Troubles. I advise you to self-revert and try to achieve consensus with fellow editors. Remember WP:BRD. Mooretwin (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The idea 1RR applies here is laughable but there you going , start adding references Gnevin (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
As you chose not to act on various warnings, I've raised the matter at Arbitration Enforcement Mooretwin (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about ? I reverted as requested Gnevin (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't realise. You gave no indication that you were going to revert. I'll scrap the enforcement request. Mooretwin (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


Would you mind taking this out?

"the basic unit of the association is the club.[40][41][42][43] which maybe have their catchment defined by the local Roman Catholic Church's parish boundaries [44] and"

It has no place in that section and is already dealt with in the 'structure' section above. Thanks. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied on the talk Gnevin (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Super 12 champions and Super 14 champions[edit]

Hi there. I was wondering if you had any idea of how best to generate sufficient interest in this merge discussion? I left a note at WikiProject Rugby Union, but judging by recent unanswered comments I don't know if it will garner any attention. If a decision is reached quickly, there may be a chance of saving the list of champions from removal as a featured list. —WFC— 18:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No sure really. Apart from a WFC but that will probably not help, may just be bold? Gnevin (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Air force[edit]

I've reverted your attempt to wipe out over a thousand instances where flag icons were used in military biography infoboxes. I think a consensus needs to be reached at WP:MILHIST for the removal of flag icons from pages that transclude {{Infobox military person}}, marking the country and/or branch of alligience. I agree with you that it's a misuse of {{air force}} (and for that matter, also {{navy}} and {{army}}) but I disagree with your method of removal. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD but fair enough. I've opened a discussion but MILHIST maybe a better location Gnevin (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree. You were bold, I reverted, and now the discussion. By the way, please use the "New section" button next to the "Edit" button when starting a new talk page section. Editing the previous section produces erroneous edit summaries, such as your recent edit to WT:WikiProject Flag Template which looked like it was part of the "Flagicon for Malta no work" section. Thanks.Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Opps, sorry about the edit summary(ies) was trying to do 2 things at once Gnevin (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts[edit]

Wikiquette alerts has been filed aganist Fry1989 (talk). Under "An editor without compromise" so if you have anything to add, it may just help the guy out, maybe a bit less rude, and a softer tone, Regards Jetijonez (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look Gnevin (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't kills yourself it's a pointless deadend. Not much help on that page, but Thanks Jetijonez (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! A request for your input[edit]

Per wp:CANVASSING, this is a neutrally worded notice being sent, without any type of "selection" bias, to everyone that edited fairly recently the MOS page about how to term the Latter Day Saints denominations on Wikipedia in the belief that your various and collective expertise or expertises, if that's a plural, can help us improve its wording, if possible. a bit. The most pertinent section is here. And the issue is to what degree the terms "Mormon church" and "LDS church" relate to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in specific, and to what kind of sourcing should be used to document this. Thanks, if you find time and the interest to look into the matter and offer your opinion or commentary.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox GAA dualplayer[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Infobox GAA dualplayer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox GAA player[edit]

What broke? I checked a few hundred and didn't see any problems. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

icpositionf and clpositionf are used in the dual player template and as such {{#if:{{{icpositionf|}}}{{{clpositionf|}}}|Football position|Position}} makes no sense Gnevin (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, I was demonstrating that one could merge {{Infobox GAA dualplayer}} with {{Infobox GAA player}}, that option would not appear on players that were not Dual players. Did anything actually break? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
If you can demonstrate a full merge then please do in the sandbox and I will have a look Gnevin (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I will do that. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Flags of BRICS[edit]

What's your problem with flags???... You'll also get the flags of the G7, G8, Superpower, G20, Group of 15??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chafis (talkcontribs) 23:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSICON outlines the issues with flags. If I have time I might Gnevin (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study[edit]

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Reopening Debate Of Icons On Template talk:Infobox bilateral relations[edit]

Hi, I've reopened the debate on flags with an additional proposal. Please compare Template_talk:Infobox_bilateral_relations#RFC_For_Overhaul_Of_This_Template and its edit summary.Curb Chain (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI Gnevin (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"A dog"[edit]

Just to be clear: No insult was read or understood (the wikilink was useful for that). Some times banter is more difficult to convey than debate on the internet.

I'm just trying to push back to the style issue (I almost said "the substance of the style issue"), rather than debating WP:BURDEN. Care to go back to my concerns and suggestions earlier on the page?--Carwil (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


Not saying it was wrong, but why did you move the RFCs to WT:MOSICON? The instructions at RFC said to list them at the top of the page, which I did, and then the bot only half formed the actual RFCs. I made them as subpages because they are two separate issues, which I did not want to detract from one another. I also had the subpages watchlisted so that I could keep track of their progress. An editor moved the notices to the bottom of WT:MOSICON yesterday, which I noticed late last night. I've not reverted you, but wondered why you did this. It may be that your reason is valid, and I await your reply. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:Requests for comment as you've misunderstood a lot of it. If you have any questions after that please feel free to come back with questions Gnevin (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

2008 Heineken Cup Final up for deletion[edit]

If you have any comments please leave here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Heineken Cup Final --Bob (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


I sympathize with your sentiments. We should write up some policy about this. My biggest concern is that these color choices are very hard for me to read with my visual impairment. Frietjes (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you kind comment. Well we have WP:COLOUR but that can't handle the case where several differently coloured templates combind on a page to look dreadful and present a access issue Gnevin (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Centralized discussion[edit]

Reinstating an edit which has been reverted is called edit-warring. Please refrain from doing so in future and take it to the talk page instead. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. WP:EDITWARRING An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. You offered an opinion of not important enough for CENT with no reason given as to why you felt this. I offered the counter opinion disagree major change to the mos structure. Not every thing has to be talked to death on the talk page, reverting while using the edit summary to disagree is perfectly acceptable in one of cases. If you had of reverted with the same edit summary as above I would of then contacted you. Gnevin (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Personally I always follow WP:BRD, and would recommend it to you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
That's nice, I think I may have come across it during my 5 years here ..... Gnevin (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Limerick hurling biography stubs[edit]

Category:Limerick hurling biography stubs, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Gnevin (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Personal attack"[edit]

Don't make a bloody nuisance of yourself and expect people not to object. I am perfectly entitled to complain about your behaviour.

Do you act like this offline? I hope not, for your sake.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Then file a WP:ANI, however a much better use of all our time would be if you get over your personal issues with me. You've created 100's of great Rugby articles and done some great work for the Wiki project and the RU project. Surely this not the first time an article you created was AfD'd. The article you created I feel has no chance of ever being notable, this is nothing to do with you personally yet you decided to take personal offence Gnevin (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi and thank you for stopping by the Pittsburgh pages. As a long time member of the regions WikiProject I wanted to personally bring to your attention the discussion and subsequent consensus on the matter of the Pittsburgh infobox. As we are aware at the Pittsburgh project there is a movement to standardize all infobox colors on wikipedia, however for the most part still optional. I could take this opportunity to remind you that it is a similar policy to that of checking and even contributing to the discussion page of a wikipage you may want to fundamentally change (I do use fundamentally because anyone with knowledge about the region would immediately remember that this is the only city known to mankind that has all professional sports teams draped in the same colors, that of the city flag, seal, police cars, some fire units, and even (get this!) the fire hydrants (yes they aren't red they are black and gold)). So just as some editors take the option of not checking the discussion page chock full of people with knowledge on the subject matter nor leaving comment or views on it before undertaking such a fundamental change, most of us in and around the Pittsburgh project take the option of having our wiki infobox the same color as every civic identity (sports, law enforcement, emergency services, government) in this region. I could say that but that wouldn't be very Pittsburgher of me, so in the words of that famous Pittsburgher Mr. Rogers we invite you to "be our neighbor" by ringing the "doorbell" on the discussion page and talking to us before painting our infobox "fence" for us. We all loved Jack Lambert but wiki shouldn't have people editing like him. We are all for complying with wikipolicy but in the face of a wiki "suggestion" please lead by example by checking and discussing any proposal for a wiki first. Thanks again.Hholt01 (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've no major attachment to the template nor the will to battle to have it changed. However your WikiProject maybe should take a step back and consider how hard on the eyes the current colour scheme is Gnevin (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
No desire to battle, as you might be well aware by now the discussion addressed "hard on the eyes" in some ways. Best I can say is beauty is in the eye of the beholder on that, I and a few others have never understood the "hard on the eyes" however your point is well taken and I'd be interested in pursuing it with other wikipedians that although have little or no expertise on Pittsburgh topics equally have sight not raised in the black and gold soup of W. Pa. Once again I want to show our appreciation for visiting Pittsburgh sites, and we do love to hear viewpoints of others even if our civic pride is a bit on the rabid side. Hholt01 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping by and your kind words. Go Steelers Gnevin (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost interview[edit]

Sorry I'm not involved in WP:RU heavily enough to take part Gnevin (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


Please consider removing the AFD asap. I would bet you every penny I own this article wouldn't ever stand a chance of being deleted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I interpret this edit as a withdrawal of your nomination? —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes 14:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Got it. I've non-admin closed the AfD. Cheers! —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, better[edit]

Yes...Your wording is better here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Uncivil[edit]

Hello Gnevin. On 19 April 2010 you left a message on a Talk page asking a User to behave in a more civil manner. See your diff

Unfortunately, that User has not taken adequate notice of your advice, and has continued to taunt others, including newbies, with uncivil comments. For example, see this recent diff.

In recent times there have been more messages on this User's Talk page, and a couple of approaches to Wikiquette Assistance, and finally Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DocKino. In this RfC, you are mentioned by name, and your message from 19 April 2010 is among those cited as evidence of other Users having tried unsuccessfully to influence this User's behaviour. If you agree, you are entitled to endorse the RfC as a User who has tried to solve the problem. Regards. Dolphin (t) 02:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Roch Hanmore for deletion[edit]

hi Gnevin, Feel free to delete the articles if you must. I understand that some of the footballers might not be notable enough in Gaelic football (in that they never played senior intercounty football. Cheers talk 17:25, 04 Febuary 2012 (UTC)

The community will decide if they should be deleted Gnevin (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Comparison of rugby league and rugby union". Thank you. --AIRcorn (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your removal of the Los Angeles Kings' team colors[edit]

I understand the source you cited, but I simply replaced the gray on black with white on black...easier to read, plus it keeps the team colors. Tom Danson (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok that looks much better . Thanks Gnevin (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
see the threads at WT:HOCKEY (thread 1 and thread 2). Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Cheers Gnevin (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ?Gnevin (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


You have been blocked from editing for a period of twenty-four hours for edit-warring on Rugby league. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- tariqabjotu 18:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

GAA suffix[edit]

I'm genuinely puzzled by your inconsistent behaviour. Sometimes you support the use of the suffix. Then you strike your support. Then you complain that the logic has not been carried out to its advertised entent. Then you oppose moves that carry out that plan. Now you're reverting all the article moves that use the suffix. Please help me out here - will the real Gnevin please stand up? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My position is unimportant. What is important is that it is very clear that you don't have consensus for these moves and moving stuff now it disruptive Gnevin (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Come sir, are you a man or a mouse? What do you stand for? As for consensus, if there was a tad more consistency in your behaviour the apparent concensus of the usual suspects might not as it appears to be. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
From WP:ANI page "If Brocach and Finnegas will agree to a self-impossed ban on all GAA related articles for a period of 2 months, then I will too. If not, let the ANI case continue (on the arguments hopefully, not the personalities)." Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't care about the ANI nor do I care if you think I'm a mouse . Gnevin (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your preferences at the WT:GAA page - it's very helpful to have this calm and well-ordered discussion on what has previously been a very heated topic! There is a new proposal which has come in after your contribution, which you might also like to comment on. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Caps in dab titles[edit]

No, of course not. "Kerry" and "Gaelic football" have capital letters, but "association football" does not. – PeeJay 11:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Winning Margins of All-Ireland Senior Football Final[edit]

There is a page of All-Ireland Senior Football Championship records and statistics bring about Winning margins, so I don't know why that is nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltonli (talkcontribs)

The issue was the nonsense in the opening paragraph and format . I didn't notice I remove some of your changes when I reverted . Sorry Gnevin (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Inter-county football competitions[edit]

Category:Inter-county football competitions, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FS-talk[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:FS-talk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MOSIndex[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:MOSIndex has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...[edit]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)