User talk:Blethering Scot/2015/1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

School of Rock (musical)

Hi there, hope you had a nice Christmas/New Year - this has been done now. Cheers, GiantSnowman 10:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

DYK for School of Rock (musical)

Harrias talk 00:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

heart of Midlothian
Thank you for quality articles such as Rocky the Musical, for keeping track of the Heart of Midlothian history, for trust, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 717th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

Nonvandal

Cytkory did not do any vandalism. Are you sure he/she did vandalism? --220.255.209.39 (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I'm afraid he is vandalising the site, of that this user is fully aware. Removing sources that are still valid and verify the statement without replacing with another source is vandalism. Cytkory is fully aware of this and has been invited to into discussions and warned plenty of times, but refused to cooperate or discuss. This is an encyclopaedia run on reliable, verifiable information.Blethering Scot 19:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

George Maguire

Hi. I just wanted to point out that the George Maguire who was in Billy Elliot is not the same George Maguire who is in Sunny Afternoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmcc (talk • contribs) 15:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

Logos

Hi, Warburton, hope your doing well, your team certainly are. Is there any chance you could upload these 3 logos for me. [1][2][3] ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

Logos

Please see your archives, a bot archived my message before you would have seen it. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Are they new logos entirely or replacing something.Blethering Scot 18:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Each of the logos will be used on articles of the 2015 versions of the tournament, but will also be used on main article page itself. So for instance this logo will used on 2015 Snooker Shoot-Out & Snooker Shoot-Out. I've already removed the old logo from the Snooker Shoot-Out as it was a different sponsor, but that logo is still need for 2014 Snooker Shoot-Out. So I guess you would say new, sorry long winded. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

I've moved it back to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (musical), that is not a comment on what the 'correct' name it, that should be determined at WP:RM. GiantSnowman 18:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to move back to the original then that is fine. GiantSnowman 18:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

Queen of the South's Season Page 2014-15

Could you fix the squad and disciplinary tables to include other for playoffs and challenge cup just as you fixed for me last season please? Many thanks Rusty1111 : Talk 15:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

Orphaned non-free image File:Let It Be Musical.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Let It Be Musical.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Template:Did you know nominations/Birdman (film)

Hi, would you mind reviewing the ALT1 on this nomination that you reviewed? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Birdman (film)/1

Thank you for notifying me of this GA reassessment. What would you like me to do? I am not familiar with GA reviews (other than answering questions for my own articles' GA reviews) and am not really prepared to comb through 91 footnotes to find inconsistencies in interpreting sources. Yoninah (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

DYK for Groundhog Day (musical)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Queen of the South Season's Page 2015-16

Would it be possible for you to create next season's page so that I can update several transfers of players so far? Rusty1111 : Talk 13:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Adele article

May I ask what this revert is all about? Thanks. Nymf (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Mm. Finger slip I'm afraid. Really odd though because the interface now comes up and asks you directly to make sure it wasn't just a miss touch. I clearly clicked that i didn't wish to do it. Just presumed it hadn't. Sorry. Blethering Scot 19:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Template:Did you know nominations/Voyager 1 (2)

Blethering Scot, the issues you had with this nomination have been worked on. Can you please take a look, and if you're satisfied that it now fully meets DYK criteria, add the appropriate approval icon to the nomination? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Inter Milan

As there's so many, maybe put in a WP:BOTREQUEST? It's not controversial if it's matching the parent article (we have WP:CFDS for categories, after all...) GiantSnowman 18:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2014–15 Inter Milan season

Talk:2014–15 Inter Milan season. Please offer your comments. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

MOSFLAG

Hi - I've not really expressed an opinion on the current discussion as I really don't have an opinion one way or the other on flags in season articles, as its not an area I edit massively in. Sorry! GiantSnowman 15:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I just thought about replying here so we don't spam Giant page :) , for first point thank you for clarifying this you weren't aware of it and it is totally fine I just found it strange you moved it while just one day after the discussion started but again thank you for being honest about it ! for your 2nd point it is fine also . I totally understand your reasoning and it makes sense . have a wonderful weekend :) Adnan (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Brian Colvin

Hello BS, would you please not wikilink Brian Colvin the referee? The article you are linking to is about a London medical doctor. With regards: Noyster (talk), 19:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

Request for comment

An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

Orphaned non-free image File:Cinderella2013.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cinderella2013.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Orphaned non-free image File:American Psycho Musical.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:American Psycho Musical.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Holt - Dundee FC player

With this current Dundee player's career statistics that I've newly updated today, I've tried linking this to the current season for Dundee FC season 2015-16 but this is still showing up in red on the player's page saying page does not exist although I've typed the exact same characters as in the links to the previous Queen of the South seasons. Could you rectify the link for me please as I'm confused. Many thanks.Rusty1111 : Talk 12:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season

Yeah sure. You should probably look at removing the red links for players such as Hutchings who don't pass notability to keep it as credible as possible. Cheers, --Jimbo[online] 10:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Likely to be notable and being notable are two different things, have a read of WP:CRYSTAL. They should only be red if they are notable. --Jimbo[online] 12:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
True. Although the main guideline to be followed here is WP:RED. None of those red linked players in that article are notable (yet), and shouldn't be red linked. --Jimbo[online] 14:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for insulting behaviour. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

GiantSnowman 22:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna raise the block at ANI btw. GiantSnowman 22:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Love how you pissed and ran. Great skill in pissing up a wall. Twat.Blethering Scot 01:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Giant Snowman is an arsehole. An involved arsehole at that. HE IS HEAVILY INVOLVED. Take my talk page access away you idiot englishman. User:Amortias. Now free speech is not allowed. User:Amortias. Now free speech is not allowed. GS is an ENGLISH Tosser. Do i need to reveal more about GS. Delete these pages. Extend the ban and revoke talk page access. Come on.Blethering Scot 11:49 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Oh User:Amortias u are funny. The silent type are you. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.Blethering Scot 23:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Come on. User:Fenix down. On what grounds can you refuse the G7. Its perfectly valid. Main content contribuor of useful edits to the article. I have emailed in with reasoning I can see no valid reason why this should be refused.

User:Fenix down. Would u refuse a G7 normally from the sole useful contributor.Blethering Scot 23:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Fenix down come on you foxy creature. Reply why did u decline my good faith request to delete the article. U can have no reason to do so.Blethering Scot 23:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(Redacted)

Seriously @Fenix down: do you not have the balls to come her and explain why you declined the request. I shouldn't have to fight to get a valid G7 deleted.Blethering Scot 11:33 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)
User:The JPS. That template is in my user space. I have every right to get that deleted. Every right.Blethering Scot 23:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Tick tock, tick tock. Stand up and be counted delete these pages.Blethering Scot 23:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The speedy has been declined, next option is to wait for your block to expire and request them be deleted through AFD. Amortias (T)(C) 23:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Amortias It has been declined with no valid reasoning. There is no valid reason to refuse. You nor User:Fenix down have bothered to provide a reason for declining. It was a good faith request and should never have been declined. OTRS had better provide a better reply than yours. It is ridiculous to refuse the request. Utterly ridiculous. Blethering Scot 00:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Amortias can u not even be bothered to speak. Are u another one of these wankers.

'User:Amortias love how u think I am going to release personal information. The fact is why I could release a fair amount of information about GS. I won't, i have to much respect for editors privacy to do that. What I don't respect is idiots like u who redact but choose not to interact at all with me. Makes me even more determined. The fact is unless the block is made indefinite I will G7 request that article every single time this block expires. There is no reason all my user pages including User:Blethering Scot/WikiProject Football/Scotland task force should not be deleted. I have every right to have my user pages deleted. 'Blethering Scot 23:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

User:The JPS has no right to stop my own user pages being deleted. Every editor has the right to retire & vanish. Not leave bits of accounts lying about. User:Barek All editors have that right. Why am i being punished for wishing to retire.Blethering Scot 00:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Giant Why was User talk:Blethering Scot Mobile not blocked. Or my IP. Just because u assume I won't use doesn't mean they shouldn't be blocked. Not the cleverest cookie in the box GS.Blethering Scot 00:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Request to get 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season & User:Blethering Scot/WikiProject Football/Scotland task force deleted

@Amortias: & User:Barek. The article being well sourced is irrelevant. I added all those sources, I added all the content. I updated it every week. I am the main contributor and creator of the article. The point is people just aren't interested in updating these article. I will not be updating or editing at all any further. I can assure you that if you look at previous season article for the whole of Scottish football you will see the same pattern. It will be an outdated mess within weeks. Does Wikipedia support having stale content. Does wikipedia refuse the right of people to have there own user pages deleted such as this one. It is ridiculous to refuse this request. I fully intend to fight this in every way possible & I mean anyway possible. Wikipedia is a joke that just doesn't care about content, it cares about protecting itself and editors like User:Jimbo online.Blethering Scot 23:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Now most of my pages have been deleted why hasn't this one.Blethering Scot 00:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Amortias: & User:Barek, User:The JPS, User:Mdann52, User:Fenix down why is this not being deleted User:Blethering Scot/WikiProject Football/Scotland task force. I want it off my userspace. I will not support that vile project in anyway by hosting this.Blethering Scot 12:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Other user pages deletion requests

Can the following be tagged as CSD U1 and deleted: Blethering Scot 00:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Blethering Scot/Liam Smith
User:Blethering Scot/Projects
User:Blethering Scot/Welcome
User:Blethering Scot

  • Done. Let me know if you want them restored. Liz Read! Talk! 15:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Seen as i never got a link to ANI this is it.Blethering Scot 00:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket 2015102610024987

This was not a valid response. Whoever the named person who replied clearly didn't bother to look into the reason for the decline by User:Fenix down. To refuse the request because 'From my experience of the editor it seemed quite out of character so a cooling off period would probably be for the best. To be honest I'm not sure how genuine the requests are given how quickly this seemed to escalate so I declined the speedy of the main space article on the grounds that it was difficult to assume genuine good faith given the way wider related discussions had progressed.' It was good faith and genuine. Decline was not valid, it is shocking that OTRS are not capable of independent thought. Also why do OTRS not provide user names when replying. Ridiculous. Regardless of the fact it may seem disruptive unless valid reason are provided for article to lie either incomplete, inaccurate to misleading because I wont edit it I will nominate it for deletion at every opportunity once the block expires.Blethering Scot 00:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Response to the above

Thought I would start a new section as the numerous topics and comments above make it very difficult to comment succinctly. Additionally, given the tone of comments above and at WT:FOOTY and the unacceptable language used in messages and edit summaries, I do not wish to get into an extended discussion on this. I will however explain my views and will be blunt as to how I view your conduct:

  1. I did not respond because I was asleep!
  2. The CSD was declined, as clearly stated in the edit summary because I did not believe it was a good faith nomination. I do not believe you had any desire whatsoever to have this article deleted prior to this discussion taking place. This discussion, which began over entirely trivial matters was escalated very quickly into ad hominem attacks using appalling language solely by yourself. As far as I am concerned, both your conduct and the CSD nomination were completely unwarranted. It is my opinion that you were angry that there were disagreements and felt that if people were not going to play by your rules you were going to do your best to ensure that no one would play at all.
  3. 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season is a clearly notable article per WP:NSEASONS and is entirely non-controversial in content. It is a useful article for readers interested in football and as such, I felt your personal desire for deletion was more than outweighed by the benefits of keeping the article.
  4. CSDs are not demands for deletion that must be obeyed. They are requests. You do not own any of the content you have written once you release it.
  5. Your comments above regarding the article being worthy of deletion because it is inaccurate / incomplete / misleading simply because you are not editing are to be seen. However, incompleteness is not a rationale for deletion. Please take this as a strong request not to nominate this article for deletion on these grounds.
  6. Your comments above that you will continue to nominate the article for deletion once unblocked are completely unacceptable. Please take this as your only warning that if you nominate this article for deletion without providing a clear rationale linked to guidelines, I will block you again for disruptive editing. If you continue to nominate this article after that, you will be blocked for increasing amounts of time, perhaps indefinitely.
  7. Your oblique threats to reveal information are disgraceful. Do not do this under any circumstances.

I hope that in the cold light of day you will realise that your actions, threats and language in the previous 24 hours have been have been absolutely out of order. Fenix down (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Fenix down NO they are not out of order at all. Ive asked to be blocked for longer. I will nominate that article tomorrow morning. Wikipedia doesn't deal with users with mental health problems well. It is disgraceful to let an article die. It is disgraceful to not let me delete a template like User:Blethering Scot/WikiProject Football/Scotland task force in my own user space. I hate the lot of you.Blethering Scot 11:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Fenix down you did not address any of that criteria when u declined. U declined out of sheer spite in a quick manor, without addressing any key points. Its no wonder i have no faith in any of you.Blethering Scot 11:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Fenix down ahhh and now you are deleting the ndashes. Leave them alone, not using the code encourages idiots to use the wrong dash in future.Blethering Scot 11:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I declined it as a bad faith nomination and have outlined exactly why it was bad faith above. I find it staggering that you are behaving in such a manner just because someone removed a bit of markup around some redlinks. Fenix down (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Fenix down I have mental health issues so if I appear erratic then so be it. However this isn't over redlinks this is over him not sourcing his edits. This is about him going out of his way to target me because I asked him to provide a source weeks ago. We have verifiability policy's for a reason. He targeted me. Why should that twat get away without being asked why he choose to ignore my requests for a source. As for my nomination it was not Bad faith in anyway. It is you who has bad faith. Blethering Scot 11:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Fenix down Why am I being picked on for ensuring high quality articles that are verifiable when an editor who claims to be a Ga writer ignores a key policy to enforce a ropey guideline. Blethering Scot 11:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Fenix down Why haven't u asked Jimbo why he doesn't source his articles. Why am I being targeted. It's my firm believe that he is a bully & deliberately targeted me. Giant Snowman is involved and I'm my view a bully as well. He purely sticks up for his footy Mates against anyone who is an outsider. Blethering Scot 11:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You're not being picked on in anyway. You have repeatedly used very coarse language to attack other editors and have failed to acknowledge this in even the most tangential way. You have been engaged in a very minor altercation with another editor over the sourcing of a single, non-controversial statement in a lengthy article, something that would have taken you mere second to find through google, which would have been a much less time consuming than repeatedly posting on the other editors talk page.

I appreciate that you have been trying to keep the article fully sourced and that is commendable. As such I understand that an unsourced statement might have caused you some annoyance. However, somehow the argument then moved into whether players who clearly meet neither WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG nor are likely too in the near future be redlinked, again, a very minor issue. When this discussion did not go your way on WT:FOOTY you resorted to abusive language, attacking a number of editors and then, solely because things did not go your way, you decided that no one should have access to content you released through CC licensing. Your user pages aside, which you are entitled to have deleted, when the CSD for the mainspace article failed, you have continued your aggressive attitude towards others, threatening to expose personal details about them and to disrupt matters by repeatedly nominating an article that clearly meets notability guidelines for deletion.

At no point in any of this have you indicated that you have any understanding that it is you who have blown this out of proportion and that it is you who is needlessly perpetuating this. I really don't think I have anything more to say, I would like to see you back editing because you work in an area that is neglected by a lot of other editors and produce good quality contributions, but you cannot continue to behave in the manner you have recently when things do not go your way. Fenix down (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Fenix down I don't want unblocked I stand by my comments fully. Actually it took aproximatly ten minutes to find the source. Google only provided a blank profile I had to manually search through the clubs website. I am being bullied by Jimbo. He deliberately targeted me because I asked him to find a source. Existing red links should not be removed if they can plausibly hold an article. It does not mention notability in that section. Blethering Scot 12:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Fenix down If as you say I'm entitled to delete my userspace why was User:Blethering Scot/WikiProject Football/Scotland task force not deleted on request. Its hypocrisy. I want it out my user space. If the football gremlins want it they can move it in to there own bastard user space not mine.Blethering Scot 12:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Fenix down They deserved the language, if you think there will be any apology u are mistaken. User:GiantSnowman is a bully of an admin. Stands up for his mates like User:Jimbo online. He was the one that kept posting at me because I dared to ask him to find a source. So don't you dare say I targeted him. He is a bully suported by the Bullying project that is [{WP:footy]]. I will not apologise for being targeted. It is not a wee issue to me. 'Why has User:Jimbo online not been asked about why he didn't add a source especially if u claim it would only take a minute. It certainly took more than a minute.'Blethering Scot 12:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Why is he getting away with ignoring policy. Why Fenix down as as admin are you letting him get away with not following a core policy.Blethering Scot 12:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Fenix down Why is my user page not being deleted. I want it deleted. This is a joke. The football project have no right to be using a template in my userspace. If they won't it they can host it. The football project is nothing but a bunch of bullying holigans. They care more about getting rid of red links than sourcing or decent content.Blethering Scot 12:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Fenix down Why did u remove the dashes, What was wrong with the code.Blethering Scot 12:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

We're just going round in circles here, I just don't think you are listening to anything anyone is saying to you. Like I said, unless there is anything new to discuss, I don't have anything more to add to this, you are fully aware of my position regarding this. The dashes were not removed, they were converted to unicode by a user script freely available to any editor. Fenix down (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Fenix down I am listenting and I'm asking u questions you are ignoring.
Why has User:Blethering Scot/WikiProject Football/Scotland task force not been deleted? You stated very clearly above I am entitled to delete my user pages.
Why has User:Jimbo online not been told he should have provided a source?
Why do you feel it acceptable that he target me because I asked him to provide a source?
Why is WP:Verifiability a core policy being taken less seriously than WP:Red a guideline?

I may have snapped and I won't apologise for my language in anyway. I have issues and am prone to snapping when I feel pushed. But i feel I was targeted and bullied into it. The block is for that and Im accepting said block. I do not plan a return to content editing, expecially not for WP:Footy. The block is justified I was asking to be blocked GS knows that full well. I actually want block extended but none of you seem game to do that.Blethering Scot 13:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Fenix down: If you answer questions will leave alone until block expires.Blethering Scot 13:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Fenix down: Time to revoke TP editing, this is getting tedious. Take some time away Blethering Scot and come back refreshed. JMHamo (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Fenix down: Oh so now a non admin is telling an admin to remove my talk page access without addressing the issues. JMHamo I see u now followed the others at WP:footy and removed the dashes. U are now on my list of editors who do not care about mental health and well being of other editors. I look forward to tomorrow morning because I will happily debate this with you on your territory. If u don't like me stay of my talk page. You aren't welcome here in future.Blethering Scot 13:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
... Typical WP:OWN behaviour :( JMHamo (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
...:MY talk page is my own. You were barred of my talk page. You insulted me. You should maybe go on a mental health awareness course. It makes no sense to convert the dashes. U did it because u say that it annoyed me when Fenix down did it.Blethering Scot 13:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I am talking about Hearts season articles, not this Talk page. While I sympathise with you over your meantal health, it does not prevent me from editing any articles. I wish you well. JMHamo (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
JMHamo You edited article because u saw Fenix do it and knew it wound me up. Thats why you did it. There was no editorial reason at all.Blethering Scot 13:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Answers:

1 Why has User:Blethering Scot/WikiProject Football/Scotland task force not been deleted? You stated very clearly above I am entitled to delete my user pages.
Another admin redirected it. To be honest, leaving a redirect in your userspace really isn't a big deal. I'm not sure whether this will break any links other users have so will not be deleting it myself.
2 Why has User:Jimbo online not been told he should have provided a source?
Because the unsourced element was entirely uncontroversial and completely immaterial to the overall article. A reference would have been preferable but nothing would ever get done around here if we had to speak to people every time a small addition was made without a citation. Looking at the history of the article, the initial addition was made on 14th October you didn't add a CN tag until 20th October despite making 9 other intermediate edits, kind of underlining how this really isn't much of an issue. Jimbo online then removed redlinks on 26th October his only edit since the CN tag was added. He made no attempt to remove the CN tag. It's highly likely that he didn't see the tag given the size of the article. You then added a ref later the same day. Problem solved. I think it likely that he just forgot your talk page message on 14th October. Stuff like that happens all the time. There is nothing to suggest that he took your request personally, he didn't respond to your message and it took him a week to edit the Hearts season article so its highly unlikely that his redlink removal had anything to do with targeting you, given the time it took him to return to the article.
3 Why do you feel it acceptable that he target me because I asked him to provide a source?
The answer to question 2 covers this, it is clear from the timing of the edits and the lack of reply to your messages that there is no targetting involved whatsoever.
4 Why is WP:Verifiability a core policy being taken less seriously than WP:Red a guideline?
You are the only person making this claim. The conversation here was specifically about redlinks. You are the person who derailed the conversation and tried to conflate the two.

Now I have answered your questions, can you please stick to what you have said you would do, drop the matter, see out your block and then if you want, return to editing, but without using coarse language towards other editors or engaging in any of the owny / pointy behaviour you threatened to. Fenix down (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Fenix down: Hi, Fenix. he did respond to my message. On my own talk page. Several times actually. He was aware I asked for a source. He targeted me alright.
The redirect is a big deal I do not wish to be supporting that project in anyway. The links can be moved and should be moved and redirect deleted. Its pretty poor that you told me that I have the right to delete and are know denying me that right to delete.
Unfortunately I feel very much bullied by members of this project. Do not think JMHammo tried to wind me up further. He saw I was annoyed at you regarding the dashes, changed it on another article and then came here to gloat. How can u not see why I see bullying.Blethering Scot 14:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

He said "Yeah sure" and then didn't add the source. Seems, with the time he was away from the article after posting that that forgot. There's just not a problem here. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but I (and as far as I can see from other editor contributions here, at WT:FOOTY and AN/I) don't agree with you in the slightest. I have answered your questions, now again, please do what you said you would do and drop it. Fenix down (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

How can you not see JMHAMMO edits as goading. He saw what u did and then copied you, then came here to my talk page. Im really disgusted by your support of them. Shouldn't be surprised but unfortunately I am. I will drop it but really had enough.Blethering Scot 14:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Unilateral move

It's a good idea to open a discussion about how to handle it rather than unilaterally moving an article (like Finding Neverland) to create a disambig page. This is especially important when it's an article you've never contributed before. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

If it is considered to be a controversial move then i agree with you. I don't see this move as controversial, in my view neither [[Finding Neverland (film) or Finding Neverland (musical) are the primary topic. As for me having never edited that article before that is entirely a moot point. In addition do not remove talk page notices on editors talk pages that have been added by themselves.Blethering Scot 11:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
My complaint here demonstrated that it's controversial, and your continuing to propagate this change with edits to other articles is disruptive. A responsible editor would seek consensus rather than steamrolling ahead with a change that he knows someone involved in the subject has concerns about. Furthermore, saying that you are "retired" from Wikipedia when you are clearly still very active is untrue. What's this purpose of this duplicity? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
My edits to other articles are disruptive. Are u being serious, clearing & pointing links to the correct page is not disruptive in any way. U were more than welcome to revert the move but did not. So clearly the links need to be redirected. It's not duplicity and you are not welcome to remove notices from my talk page. Frankly that is disruptive. I find your attitude to be very abrasive and frankly unnecessary. 94.2.155.101 (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I was attempting to being a conversation. I've removed your "retired" tag, because it is misleading, and I am allowed to. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
No you should not be removing notices on user talk pages placed by the user. Frankly doing do is not on. In addition calling directing links to the correct article following disam disruptive, shows a clear lack of understanding the process that follows disam. You haven't provided one reason why the disam was controversial instead u have been antagonistic. Blethering Scot 13:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
You've been advised twice to not remove it, you are bring deliberatly antagonistic and unhelpful to your cause. Maybe have a read of WP:Own in relationship to your protectiveness of articles linked to JM BarrieBlethering Scot 13:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Please read Template:Retired, which explains that your use of the tag was inappropriate (since you have not retired), and that my removal of it was explicitly permitted. If you are upset enough over Wikipedia that you want to declare yourself "retired" from it, then you ought to actually retire from it. If not, don't say that you have. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to lose it with u, but u are being deliberatly antagonistic because u are not happy about your page being moved. Your ownership issues are concerning as is ur persistence to annoy the editor who moved it by removing this template. Do not do it again as you are not welcome to edit my user page. Blethering Scot 13:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Do I need to take your misuse of the "retired" template (which you now know is inappropriate) to WP:ANI? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Feel perfectly free to do so if you wish. Blethering Scot 15:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Now that you're no longer misrepresenting yourself, that won't be necessary. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you stop being a WP:Dick. At no point was I misrepresenting anything. If anyone has been attempting that today it has been you. Blethering Scot 16:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to take a break from this discussion to give you a chance to calm down. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Your hilarious. I suggest you maybe take a permanent break until you can properly state fact from fiction.Blethering Scot 16:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
You might try a cooling off period yourself. You've said yourself that you need it, and it might be worth asking your friends or family what they think. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me. I suggest you stop posting on this page until you have something constructive to say. Your becoming personal and there is absolutely no need for that. Blethering Scot 19:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to be constructive; you just don't (currently) want to admit that you have a problem. See your comments at the top of this page for a reminder of why you thought you should retire from Wikipedia. Seriously: you need something, and it isn't Wikipedia. If you think I'm wrong, then ask someone you trust whether they agree. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Retirement Notice and reasons including bullying and harassment by editors and non compliance with core policies

This user feels bullied by editors at WP:Footy including User:Jimbo online, Giant Snowman and JMHamo. I have mental health issues which means that I will snap under pressure. Why I won't apologise for having said issues or snapping I feel unsupported by the general community. If you have issues I advise to stay away from that project. They do not support you and do not care about the project as a whole or your own wellbeing. A wikibreak or block does not allow someone with mental health problems to come back refreshed. Such comments are insulting. Nothing will change in me by the end of this block. Thats not how it works. Blethering Scot 13:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Love how User:Jimbo online has blanked his talk page which had comments from 4 years, 11 days ago on this very day. The reason for this is he is hiding the fact that he chose not to add sources but wanted a fight over red links. He claims to be a GA writer on his user page but is nothing more than a redist. According to our founder wikipedia is about content creation. We should be writing articles to the best of our abilities and making sure they are WP:Verifiable. Unfortunately Jimbo online felt that a guideline about 4 red links was more important than sourcing his edit. He was asked to source it but every time he ignored me. I was talking to him on his talk page but he chose to start removing them from article anyway. This is why wikipedia has lost the ability to be a content creator. Its a shame that editors like User:Jimbo online now outweigh the ones who strive to improve the encyclopaedia. When did WP:RED become more important than WP:Verifiability. Real shame. Blethering Scot 23:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Editors like User:Jimbo online must be held to account by Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy. When an editor refuses to source an edit yet claims to be a writer of GA content it shows a lack of comtempt and respect for the well being of content on an encyclopaedia. Surely alarm bells must ring that this editor has issues. It took me ten minutes to find a source for his edit, yet he didn't make any attempt to provide source in the 12 days since he was requested to. No edit should be made without a source. He deliberately targeted me regarding red links knowing I would snap. I cannot stand by and see Wikipedia be lessened in such a way. WP:Red is a guideline and a confused one at that, to target me over 4 red links is disgraceful. It is also disgraceful that no admin such as Fenix down or Giant are prepared to challenge him over his non sourcing. I may have snapped and I note there will be no apology for that as I was pushed, but that is no excuse to sweep User:Jimbo online's poor edits under the carpet.Blethering Scot 12:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't blank it, I archived it - still there for all to see. If I'm honest, I find it unreal how you've reacted to a reference and a couple of red links, plus a general consensus amongst peers. It's a shame you feel the way you do. --Jimbo[online] 16:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I think its unreal how you deliberately targeted me. How you ignored all requests to source your edits. Your edits are ridiculously poor. You claim to be a GA writer but can't source your own edits. Joke.Blethering Scot 17:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Not worth all this

Hey, just a quick word to say that your contributions will be missed, you really don't need to get so worked up about this sort of thing. I should know, I've been there and made similar mistakes. Let the block expire, clear out your talk page and get back to adding content. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man Im afraid its worth it. I was deliberately targeted until I lost it. Im afraid as long as there are editors such as User:Jimbo online, who don't follow key WP:Verifiability policies but are willing to target you over redlinks and bullying enforcers such as User:GiantSnowman who is heavily involved but I won't be allowed to prove it around, then this place is corrupt. Its a joke. I may have lost the plot but I was targeted deliberately to do so. User:Jimbo online is an example of an editor who I cannot work with.Blethering Scot 12:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
There are hundreds of editors I don't get on with, that comes with being here for over ten years and having been an admin for most of the time, plus my bad boy abrasive attitude. I just try not to work with those individuals. You should do the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
User:The Rambling Man The editors I don't get along with are firmly in the WP:Footy camp. Im just sick of their behaviour. All I want is decent content thats well sourced, without being targeted for it. I genuinely feel my face doesn't fit so they try and bully you out. I mean how dare I ask Jimbo to source an edit he made. GS used to be a decent admin. Now he seems content to be abrasive and just backs up the rest of the camp despite ignoring any other real wikipedia policy, simply protecting WP:Footy guidelines. They know I will snap so push me. Its hardly a nice environment.Blethering Scot 13:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It's fine, there are plenty of things you can do to work round it and maybe work with some of them again. People should source their edits, of course, but you were blocked for the personal attacks which you knew would happen. Once that's done, just keep improving the articles you've been working on. That way everyone wins. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The Rambling Man You are correct I wanted to be blocked. I had had enough. I don't feel like doing that. I genuinely don't want to work with any of them or support there cause. If that means abandoning football articles then thats what I have to do. Don't know whether I want to retire fully, create a new fresh start account or just concentrate on theatre articles and DABS. Either way I won't be editing football articles. Its such a vile atmosphere, led my the likes of GS I want nothing more to do with.Blethering Scot 14:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you need to make that decision right now. Just wait for the block to expire, do some edits on things that aren't football-related and then slowly ease your way back in. We can't all get on with everyone all the time... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
If you think you could get on with me, we could work on the List of international goals scored by Kenny Dalglish and List of international goals scored by Denis Law if that might appeal? I've done the Rooney, Terry Henry and David Healy, with Robbie Keane en route too... just a thought. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, sad to see this and surprised. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Errr where have I been abrasive? You insulted (multiple times) a bunch of people. Accept that you were in the wrong, and take the sound advice of TRM and others by moving on to something new. GiantSnowman 09:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Giant So now you come to my talk page to goad. Go and bully other people but stay aware from me.Blethering Scot 19:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
If you don't want me to respond, stop pinging me/talking about me please. GiantSnowman 08:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You were told in that ping to stay clearly away from me. If u dont understand what that means, It means stay away from me, including this talk page. You are not welcome here.Blethering Scot 17:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, my offer is still on the table, let's work on Kenny! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a small group of people working very well together on getting Alf Ramsey to WP:FAC. You're welcome to join us. Or I'd be happy to chip in from the sidelines on whatever project you would like to work on. I think you'll find me pretty collegiate and fixated on quality content. --Dweller (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to say

don't let this drive you away. The Rambling Man's already said it better than I could, but if you do leave your contributions will be missed. Take care, Struway2 (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

The Rambling Man Dweller Cas Liber Struway2 User:Liz Hi everyone. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your support. However at this time I don't really know what I want to do. I do not feel that i wish to return to editing football articles, I just don't have the confidence to do that. My personal feeling unfortunately is that the football editing environment on here is not a positive one in anyway shape or form. Thats led by a few individuals, who I just don't want to interact with. Most however are good quality editors. It may be that I shouldn't let things get to be but unfortunatly thats the way I am. I react and badly. I want to edit Wikipedia in a positive manor improving and creating new content, or doing maintenance tasks such as DAB's but even that at the moment isn't looking enjoyable. I struggle with the fact that minor guidelines such as red links in some editors eyes are more important than a core policy such as WP:Verifiabilty. Some of you will say I'm missing the point on that but thats how i feel. I enjoy collaborative working heavily and did so in the past on From Here to Eternity the Musical with User:Wehwalt, who I'm sure is probably disappointed with me right now. To be honest I think I will concentrate on theatre articles which I enjoy in the meantime and if anyone knows a good mentor or someone who is good at collaborative working in that area please let me know. Im sorry I'm probably disappointing a few of you but thats how I feel. If any of you would be interested in keeping 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season up to date I would appreciate it. It may be in a few weeks or months I will trust myself with that article but I don't right now. Blethering Scot 22:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, not disappointed. I've been here too long. I regret it of course, and hope you will reconsider, but no one can edit here for the emotional satisfaction of another. Whatever your course of action, you do what is best for you, and you have my full support and best wishes. It may help if you think of dashes and other stuff like that as formatting, rather than content, and while not meaningless, far less important than putting proper, well-written, sourced, content before the reader. Since we are given almost nothing in the way of reader feedback or how they use our articles by WMF, I've taken to asking people, and I'm convinced stuff like dashes are formatting, that it is easy to turn aside to pursue but are distractions from what is important. The techs are vital to putting on the show, but what people come to see is on the stage, not what the guys in black shirts in the wings are doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Just take care of yourself. Wikipedia doesn't put food on the table - so it should be a relaxing pastime. If it isn't, then don't waste time on it. I have found most people who focus mainly on content building to be fine to work/edit with, so am sure that on the balance of things you can find something collaborative but just relax in the meantime. I know a bit about fitbaw so can keep an eye out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Dashes

Why User:Fenix down did you change from the code. I see no valid reason to do that. Surely it wasn't harmful. Im really upset by this and it feels like you did it deliberately to wind me up further. The code was better, using uncoded ndashes means people who have no clue what the difference is will use a standard keyboard dash messing up the article. There are so many articles which are a mess as a result. If u won't delete the article at least leave it in a state thats less likely to become more messed up.Blethering Scot 13:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Check my contributions for edit summaries like "(fixed dashes using a script; formatting: 44x nbsp-dash, A|AB, heading-style (using Advisor.js))". As I said before, it's a script that I have used many, many times and changing the presentation of ndashs is one of its many functions. That edit has nothing whatsoever to do with you, I run the script on all articles that appear on my watchlist. There is nothing at MOS:NDASH that states one or the other is to be used. Fenix down (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware that it does not state one or the other. It is my believe that the code is better in these type of articles to stop inconsistency with incorrect dash types. As I am pretty much the sole main editor surely that's an editorial choice. It's not great to change on such articles without asking yourself why they were used. Can I answer my above questions. Blethering Scot 13:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Being a "main editor" means nothing other than the fact that you are getting very owny. It's a point of preference. I prefer one way you prefer the other. If you want to undo it doesn't bother me. Please don't undo any of the other changes though. Fenix down (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Fenix down what's upset me more is JMhammo seeing I was annoyed about the dashes, changing on another page and then coming here to gloat. Can I see why I feel bullied. Look at it another way. If no one else is interested or opens up an editorial discussion on talk page then it is my editorial decision. It other editors wish to discuss then that's a consensus editorial decision. If no one else is interested then I'm

the main editor with that editorial decision. Could answer the questions I posted above?Blethering Scot 13:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles are written with the expectation that they will be edited by many different editors, so a "main editor's preference" is likely to be relevant only in the absence of other factors. In the case of html entities, there is a general consensus that it is better to use the character itself, such as "–" rather than the entity "–". The principal reason is to improve the readability of the page, particularly for editors who do not understand html, and our article on Character encodings in HTML #HTML character references notes: "Unnecessary use of HTML character references may significantly reduce HTML readability. If the character encoding for a web page is chosen appropriately, then HTML character references are usually only required for markup delimiting characters as mentioned above, and for a few special characters (or none at all if a native Unicode encoding like UTF-8 is used)." I agree that not using html entities lessens the teaching opportunity, but using the wrong dash is not a big problem as more experienced editors and automatic tools will soon convert a hyphen into an n-dash where needed. I hope that offers you a different perspective on the issue that you may not have been aware of. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Following on from what RexxS just said, it's inevitable that the explicit coding you used would be changed to the en-dash character. The timing of the changes is probably just one of those things, I know that when I look at an article I've never visited before I check out dashes, date formats, and a few other things. It's never personal, and actually I've received several "thanks" from editors I've never interacted with because I've made such edits. Again it's not a massive issue, I agree that these season articles need care, attention and updating, but the dash thing isn't the biggest issue. Perhaps we could work together on keeping Hearts and Ipswich updated properly? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
RexxS The Rambling Man Its not a major issue when they are consistent. I agree with that fully. My concern has always been inconsistency, when the code is in place you tend to find that most editors coming into the article will copy and use the same code. When its written normally you tend to find they dont see the difference. Its something that highly frustrates me. I just feel its a teaching thing as well.Blethering Scot 22:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

Orphaned non-free image File:Rocky Broadway (Cast Cd).jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rocky Broadway (Cast Cd).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

Virginia Tech Project Invite

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Virginia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Virginia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Go Hokies (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

QEUH Campus or not Campus

Hi, you made fair points on the talk page so I'll withdraw my objection to the inclusion of 'Campus' however one thing I really do think is best given the outside links and search intentions, we should not redirect to the adult hospital section on the original QEUH page. GRA (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

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) 13:48, 24 November 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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Willie Watters

I've noticed this article for ex-Kilmarnock player Willie Watters (as well as several other clubs including Queen of the South) is to be created under the Scottish football task force section. I'm surprised that he did not already have a player page on Wikipedia. I have a book "Killie Til I Die " book that has good information on his time at Kilmarnock as well as his middle name etc and the Neil Brown UK transfers source lists all his club appearances also. I'd be more than happy to create this article as I need the practice to be honest. You can get back to me and let me know anyway. Rusty1111 : Talk 11:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

Willie Watters

I'm just going to go ahead and create this page over the weekend. Rusty1111 : Talk 18:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Orphaned non-free image File:School of Rock Musical Logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:School of Rock Musical Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

QEUH Dispute

I'd be interested in resolving the dispute. Given the retained sites and childrens hospital are part of the QEUH (for example Neuro, PDRU etc) and given your objection to certain parts of the article, how do you wish to resolve this? A seperate article for the children hospital and have the section of the QEUH article point there? GRA (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with the article if it is about the Campus. It isn't so it should have everything else removed or tense changes to say they are linked services on site not part of QEUH. You created a mess, without any thought to a solution.Blethering Scot 11:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The consensus was that QEUH does fit the article, myself and the others are in agreement on this and do not believe it's a mess, on the contrary, I believe this to be the best course of action. Regardless, I tried to reach out and resolve this, I'll implement the proposed compromise on the talk. GRA (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
You are frankly a very ignorant editor. When the trust admits they are run as seperate hospitals, when sources indicate the other facilities are part of campus not main hospital then you can only ignore facts for so long. Frankly you have turned a decent article into a mess. You made no attempt to resolve anything only be a hostile editor.Blethering Scot 15:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Orphaned non-free image File:School of Rock Musical Logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:School of Rock Musical Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blethering_Scot/2015/1&oldid=1136204660"