User talk:EchetusXe/Archive 2017

Archive 2010

←

Archive 2015

Archive 2016

Archive 2017

Callum Brittain

 Done GiantSnowman 20:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--EchetusXe 20:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Terry Bartlett (footballer)

The article Terry Bartlett (footballer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable sports figure with only one local reference. Orphan

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

haha, thank you.--EchetusXe 16:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Deniz Mehmet

 Done - but I'll leave you to update if that's OK? GiantSnowman 13:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get it done by the end of the day.--EchetusXe 13:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

James Gibbons footballer

Hi

I was editing James page and was wondering why you are undoing the edits?

Cheers.

(A1973 (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC))

It is sourced and adequately written as it is. You are removing details and introducing one line paragraphs, which don't look good. I am wondering why you are changing them! There isn't any negative information on there and you are just paraphrasing what is already written. Comparisons of teenagers to great players is a bit pointless but if you really want the Mike Pejic thing on there I'll add it in.--EchetusXe 12:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Some of it is incorrect. He got injured in his 5th game and returned to Vale. The loan period then ended a week later, meaning he missed the final game of the loan spell. So he made 5 starts during the months loan and didn't return to Leek. The injury information he feels is now irrelevant really, if not now it will be in the future as his career progresses, however ref 4 is a good article for him. Criticising a one line paragraph as it doesn't look good is subjective, (it looks fine on plenty of other wiki profiles), and separates his loan information from the subsequent Vale senior information. The comparison to Mike Pejic relates to his style of play, and I like the extra info you've added there from the Sentinels article. Why am I changing them? I'm his dad. (A1973 (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)),

OK, I have looked again and found I didn't actually write the bit about the abductor muscle, someone else added that in and it isn't supported by the reference, so I have removed it. I'd say generally keep a paragraph for each season, and the Leek loan and the Port Vale debut happened in the same season. Thanks.--EchetusXe 12:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It looks better. Are you the unofficial updater of information like this on specific teams or just Vale? (A1973 (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC))

Just the Vale :)--EchetusXe 14:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Jim Wright (footballer, born 1910) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jim Wright (footballer, born 1910) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Wright (footballer, born 1910) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jolly Ω Janner 18:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of short names

Why? GiantSnowman 08:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have never known it before but Wikipedia:ALTNAME says "If a person has a well-known common hypocorism, used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Tom Hopper which has just Thomas Edward Hopper."--EchetusXe 10:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Durham City players

Hello EchetusXe. A couple of articles you created on players have them at Durham City from (e.g.) 1914–1919. However, the club was only formed in 1918. Were these typos? The articles in question are Martin Golightly, John Clarke. Cheers, Number 57

The English National Football Archive gave those dates for when they joined the club. I guess they were mistaken and actually joined the club when it was founded in 1918 unless it existed in some capacity before that time.--EchetusXe 19:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Waterford F.C.

Why did you request so many deletions of the pages I created for Waterford FC players? Me being an inexperienced Wikipedia user I feel this was nearly a form of bullying as I had no solutions how to fix the problem you faced me with. The info you gave for the deletions were inaccurate and I have no way of getting them back now. I just want to know why you'd do such a horrible thing. BluesFan1930 (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I only flagged up the article that didn't meet the notability criteria. They would have been deleted it at some point, it is just a shame you put the time in to make quite a few before they were spotted. There are still plenty of ex-Waterford and a few current Waterford players to be getting on with. The information I gave was accurate, and if they do go on to play a professional game then they can be recreated. If you want to access them now then you can find them on deletionpedia.org. So if you want to put the articles on another website then you can.--EchetusXe 14:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well why have you put so much effort into the page of Shane O'Connor. Kenny Browne, Dean O'Halloran, Patrick McClean, David Mulcahy and Mark O'Sullivan are all on professional contracts and are bigger names than Shane. I wouldn't have minded as much but the page Kenny Browne has been around for years and wasn't created by me and he is a very big name in League of Ireland football. These players would be far more relevant than Shane O'Connor in Waterford and in general and I can back that up also. Also the info you gave was extremely inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluesFan1930 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

How do you mean? I just checked to see who had played in a professional league or not. If Browne was such a big name you could have said on his discussion what coverage he had. O'Connor might not be that big a deal now but he used to play in the English professional leagues, once someone needs the criteria they have it forever, they don't have their articles deleted because they became worse players or whatever.--EchetusXe 11:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The name Tan Hong Djien

You have a page on my grandfather. The name Tan Hong Djien isn't right the official name is THE Hong Djien. Can you please change the name because we can't. Lefty The (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

OK then.--EchetusXe 21:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Harly Wise for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harly Wise is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harly Wise until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Jo(e) Cummings

Hello. I can see that you created the page for Jo Cummings, the Charlton Athletic footballer. It seems that he prefers his name to be spelled Jo, rather than Joe. I feel somewhat guilty for this as I originally added him to the squad list with the incorrect spelling but don't know how to change it on the overall page. Trequartbeasta —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I've moved it for you. Thanks.--EchetusXe 22:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Come back plz

Found myself browsing Lawrie Wilson's page in the early hours (having just read that Wilson had been training with Stevenage for a lot of the close season before his move to Vale) and then stumbled across your message. Appreciate the kind words! Might try and give a few of the bigger articles a bit of a tidy up at some point down the line. Keep up the excellent work! SBFCEdit (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!--EchetusXe 09:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Derek Dougan Blackburn quote

Hello. I just came across the repeated removal and restoration of a quote from the Derek Dougan article, and have started a discussion at Talk:Derek Dougan#Blackburn quote. Your input is welcome. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ciaran Clark

Hey, how sure are you that Ciaran Clark was last season's NUFC player of the year? Can't find anything relating to it, asides from a player's award. APM (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This headline says Newcastle’s Player of the Year can’t wait for the Premier League to kick-off. Did he not win the award?--EchetusXe 22:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was that article, here's another one by the same author, which reads like a opinion piece. In recent years, the player of the year award has largely been forgotten about: Rob Elliot was awarded it on the last day of the season, the 2015 "ceremony" was cancelled due to the relegation run-in, and Ben Arfa's win in 2014 looks to be a protest vote. I've just found out that the disabled supporter's assoication are holding their ceremony on the 20th, so perhaps the actual award hasn't been given out yet? Wouldn't surprise me with this shambles of a club. APM (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

wow, the award has been going from the 70's so unbelievable that they have just forgotten about it, especially after winning promotion! OK, perhaps it hasn't been decided yet, I'll leave it up to you.--EchetusXe 09:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll leave it as it is for now. It's plausible it could go to Clark, though it could also go to Ritchie too. It looks like it's the Newcastle United supporter's trust award, Daryl Janmaat won it in 2015, not much of a ceremony there! And according to this, Loïc Rémy won in 2014...as good a player Hatem Ben Arfa is, there's no way that he won that year, he only scored 3 goals that season! APM (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It is strange. I haven't heard of supporters voting someone ironically for their main award. I don't know if it some kind of protest against Mike Ashley. I don't know why it hasn't been more widely reported. Very odd.--EchetusXe 12:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

HBA was a fan favourite, and was repeatedly played out of position by Pardew, so I'd imagine it was a protest against him, rather than Ashley. However, I have edited in that Rémy win, as it looks to be the right pick. APM (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear

thank you for sharing that... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Claus Bech Jørgensen

Hi, Thank you for your contributions to this page, however, I wanted to ask why you deleted my last edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowsoften (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your edits too. The statistics section goes before the honours section. Thanks.--EchetusXe 00:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, but couldn't you just move it instead of deleting it completely? Cheers, Slowsoften. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.169.245 (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted, by reverting your edit I did move the text.--EchetusXe 09:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

New Page Reviewing

Hello, EchetusXe. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I will apply, thanks.--EchetusXe 01:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello EchetusXe. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--EchetusXe 01:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello EchetusXe, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of William Tempest for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Tempest is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Tempest until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edwardx (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EchetusXe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 23.
Message added 19:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ansh666 19:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, EchetusXe. AfC submissions Random submission ~5 weeks 1,013 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello EchetusXe, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive 2010

←

Archive 2015

Archive 2016

Archive 2017