| Revision as of 15:59, 15 April 2021 editJohnpacklambert (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers602,765 edits →ANI: new sectionTag: Reverted← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:19, 15 April 2021 edit undoGovvy (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers36,247 edits →ANITag: RevertedNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| The issue at hand is unique. I have apologized profusely. It is a different issue than has ever been brought up before. I am trying to do better and make Misplaced Pages a better place. I feel some people are trying to turn it into an opportunity to ban me from the thing I enjoy doing the most in my life. This is not fair.] (]) 15:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC) | The issue at hand is unique. I have apologized profusely. It is a different issue than has ever been brought up before. I am trying to do better and make Misplaced Pages a better place. I feel some people are trying to turn it into an opportunity to ban me from the thing I enjoy doing the most in my life. This is not fair.] (]) 15:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :{{reply|Johnpacklambert}} You don't need to apologise to me. Every so often I have noticed your name winding up at ANI level. I don't feel you need to be banned, it's just those AfDs, yesterday how many did you contribute too? Near 40 of them? Seems a lot. It does wind a lot of people up the wrong way. Maybe if you limit it down, it's less likely to bug people out. ] (]) 18:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:19, 15 April 2021
 Archives |
|
Portsmouth F.C.
Hi Govvy,
I'm not going to cite the bits that needs sourcing as that will take days; the users (mostly IP addresses) who add such large amounts of info need to do that. I also wouldn't call the templates "incorrectly used". The page is quite long and needs trimming. The pages of Manchester United F.C. and Liverpool F.C. (who are far more successful than Pompey) are far smaller and easier to navigate/read. It's also not normal for a history section to have every season described in detail, it really could use some summary. I'm not really bothered, however, so I won't engage in a revert war. Portsmouth's page has had such templates before so I won't be surprised if they were reinstated at some point in the future. Cheers, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hello to you both, I noticed the edit war over tags on my talk page. The tags are not really needed. We use the sourcing tag for badly undersourced articles, not for articles which have heaps of sources but have some sections without citations (not sure if that's the case for Pompey, but I think that's the argument.) The article may be too long and definitely needs cleanup, especially through splitting out some sections - I think the crest might be able to have its own article, but there's certain parts of the page which violate WP:NOTGALLERY. So, yes, please work together to clean up the page, but tags aren't really needed here imo. SportingFlyer T·C 12:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer:, @WA8MTWAYC: I actually had trimmed a load out a good while ago. Yes the page is long, and it needs trimming back, but an IP added a load back which I had trimmed even know it is also on the History of Portsmouth F.C. I've had problems in the past trying to trim it down for it all to come back, you're more than welcome to see if you can improve it! Govvy (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your replies. I think the lede (10 paras!) and the history section are the worst when it comes to the excessive detail. Ideal models would be Luton Town F.C. or York City F.C., which are very well written. I will try and find some time to trim back the Pompey article but can't promise anything. Cheers, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @WA8MTWAYC: More often or not each article has its own individuality, I don't think you can compare articles like that. Portsmouth page just needs work. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah of course, but I just wanted to indicate that you can write about a club's history in few sentences but still cover the most important aspects. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @WA8MTWAYC: More often or not each article has its own individuality, I don't think you can compare articles like that. Portsmouth page just needs work. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your replies. I think the lede (10 paras!) and the history section are the worst when it comes to the excessive detail. Ideal models would be Luton Town F.C. or York City F.C., which are very well written. I will try and find some time to trim back the Pompey article but can't promise anything. Cheers, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Two years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
ANI
The issue at hand is unique. I have apologized profusely. It is a different issue than has ever been brought up before. I am trying to do better and make Misplaced Pages a better place. I feel some people are trying to turn it into an opportunity to ban me from the thing I enjoy doing the most in my life. This is not fair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert: You don't need to apologise to me. Every so often I have noticed your name winding up at ANI level. I don't feel you need to be banned, it's just those AfDs, yesterday how many did you contribute too? Near 40 of them? Seems a lot. It does wind a lot of people up the wrong way. Maybe if you limit it down, it's less likely to bug people out. Govvy (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)