User talk:Darryl.matheson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Vandalism to Burghead article
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Mais oui! 20:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Mais oui! 21:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Personal attacks
Please cease your personal attacks against other users at once, none of the content here is your personal property to do with what you will. You can clearly see (all of the text above this point) why your edits are being reverted, and why they will continue to be reverted. Your changes to Burghead constitute vandalism. Fraslet 22:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Duplicate Image:Place of Birth (UK).png
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Place of Birth (UK).png, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Place of Birth (UK).png is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Place of Birth (UK).png, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Burghead age Structure 1.png. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Age Structure 1.png. The copy called Image:Age Structure 1.png has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 00:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Burghead Primary School
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Burghead Primary School, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. B. Wolterding 17:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Round of 16 table
I have started a discussion on the UEFA Cup 2007-08 talk page regarding the usage of "Club X/Club Y" or "Winner Match Z". I would appreciate if you would explain your reasoning why "Club X/Club Y" is better there. Cheers. – PeeJay 23:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] World Cup 2010 Euro Quals articles
Perhaps I should invite you to present your side of the argument, and me mine, lest we start a revert war over style here? Simply put, my view is that I'm not sure that your edits here are actually constructive to the articles, although the code is impressive. While I favour people who attempt to make Wiki better with the use of code, that philosophy doesn't mean that I think that all code should be included. Basically, I'm just not sure what your code actually adds to the Wiki. As stated rather rushedly in my edit descriptions, each article that your code will feature on already has several links to each team. I believe one of the Wikipedia principles advocates (though not quite demands) that each article is only linked to once on any other article, unless it interferes with the style of the article. This excuses the use of multiple links for the fixtures list, say, but since there is no established precedent for making flags into links to article pages, that argument can't really be used to support your code. Being able to click a flag and reach the national team page is quite frankly unnecessary given that the links already exist in the standings table, and numerous other places besides. Also, remember that images are supposed to link to their image page, so that anyone intending on using the image can quickly find the proper page name and such. By diverting that link to the national team articles, you are getting in the way of that purpose. I wonder how many people would even think to use the flags to direct themselves to the national page articles, especially given this unwritten rule of Wiki images, and the fact that so obvious an alternative link to those articles are sitting there a few centimetres away to the left. Even if we ignore the previous arguments and imagine it fitted with the style, I still find myself left thinking "would anyone actually think to use those links, yourself aside?" And I have to say that unfortunately, I just don't think that anyone would.
This is, of course, not supposed to be a rant, so I invite you to reply to my comments with your own justification for your actions. Falastur2 (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, but it's part of the way that Wikipedia runs, that images link to their page. Some Wikipedians are on the alert for non-fair use images, others don't know the name of the image and don't understand the code to find the page in there, others just want the ability to view the image in proper size. It's for these reasons and others that it is generally accepted that Wiki images link to their info pages. Falastur2 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bars above match summaries
Please stop adding them. It does not look neater in my opinion, so this will just end up descending into an edit war. Perhaps a third party's opinion should be sought. – PeeJay 02:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Aberdeen F.C.
Thanks for your contribution to the Managers table - I'm not sure I prefer the look of the flags like that (my template was the similar table in the Liverpool F.C. article), but I'm prepared to accept that it may improve page loading. That aside, I'd be interested to understand your rationale for removing my time-specific introduction. I feel it is important to identify that data is not correct to the most recent game - in fact, I don't believe that the main article is the proper place for that, and updating it once a year, or at the change of manager is more appropriate. Watty1962 (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summary
I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! Artyom (talk • contribs) 08:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I second the above motion. I reverted your recent change to 2000 because without an edit summary, it looked like vandalism. After I did more digging, I was able to figure out what you were doing. I liked it, so I put it back the way you had it. If you had given me a hint by jotting an edit summary, I wouldn't have reverted your edit in the first place. Sorry. Art Smart (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stotfield & Branderburgh
I spotted this sometime ago and being a lazy sort, I hoped somebody would get them deleted — but nothing happened so I have finally nominated them. On looking at the list of settlements in Moray, there is scope for a few more deletions too. Burghead's fairly coming on, btw. Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 09:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like once created we're stuck with them. Stotfield stays. The guy who created the Unthank removed my tag so I'll have to take to AfD if I want to get rid of it. Probably go the same way as Stotfield. Unthank never ever was a village and his co-ordinates point this ghost village to a ploughed field. Anyway, I don't think these non-villages should be left. I'll have another go and see what happens. Cheers, Bill Reid | Talk 17:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aeria20view.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Aeria20view.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 16:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox football league
I restored my edit to Premier League. The use of infobox templates is encouraged by the manual of style, apart from anything else to ensure consistency across the Wikipedia. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Olympic article formatting
Hi, I noticed you have been using bold formatting within the {{RankedMedalTable}}s on a handful of Olympic articles. The consensus we have at WP:WikiProject Olympics is not to do that, so your changes would be inconsistent with more than a thousand other instances where those tables are used. I would also say that it is contrary to WP:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Boldface, which states that boldface should only be used in the remainder of the article only for a few special uses: • Table headers • Definition lists (but, perhaps implied, not table contents).
Also, I saw that you have added the event navbox on some of the main pages (e.g. putting {{BadmintonAt2004SummerOlympics}} onto the top of Badminton at the 2004 Summer Olympics). Again, that is not the consensus style we have. The "details" wikilinks within the medal summary table serves that purpose. The problem with putting the event navbox on the top level page in addition to all the event pages is that some of those boxes are quite long, and that interferes with the layout of the medal summary table on displays of 1024x768, which we still need to consider, unfortunately, even in this day of larger SXGA or widescreen displays!
Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] UEFA Cup entrants
Is it true that domestic cup winners take preference over league positions for UEFA Cup entry? I always thought it was the other way around. Kingjeff (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You bringing up the Scottish Cup final reminded me that I think it's the coice of the national association. Kingjeff (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's because Dumfermline were the losing cup finalist and not the winner. Losing finalists get the worst entry point because, well, they haven't technically earned it as such. The regs] explain that part, but the priority of places awarded isn't explicitly explained. CW places are definately given out first if it makes a difference in entry point, and I swear i remember examples when it hasnt made a difference and the CW is given out first. I'll dig around for my own curiosity and let you no if I find anything solid. :) Aheyfromhome (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I heard that they're not letting any losing cup finalists qualify anymore because the lower quality teams keep balls-ing up the league co-efficient in Europe. The winners still qualify though because UEFA rules say that national cup winners have to qualify before other teams. Plus to actually win the Cup you'll have proved yourself to be a decent team anyway.Aheyfromhome (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Scottish League Cup
Thanks for your offer of help with the tables in Scottish League Cup 2003-04 article. I think that I have managed to work out how to create the tables but would you be able to help with some of the information so I don't have to do it all myself. Thanks. 92.4.52.195 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] xxxx in football (soccer)
What's the reason behind your removal of these categories from some club-season articles? It seems inconsistent, since you only removed 2007 from Blackpool's 2006-07 article when there's also 2006. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] re: First Division attendances
From the UEFA Fair Play website I think, though i'll be damned if I can find the URL. Exxy (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Found this [1]. Apparently the attendences i've added don't match with the ones given on livescores.co.uk which is a bit of a pain. Exxy (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I searched high and low for official stats but the only things I found where the one livescores ones and the ones you found. To be honest, I thought the livescores attendances where a bit dodgy and what with the vitalfootball attendances matching up with the stats I put in earlier, perhaps we can assume that vitalfootball are correct? Exxy (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Aberdeen F.C. season 2008-09
I have restored the "See Also" section of the article, but I have also created the pages for next season's Scottish Cup & Scottish League Cup (CIS Cup) so that there are no 'dead-links' on the page. Dreamweaverjack (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
