User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

1. User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 1st year on Wikipedia
2. User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 2nd year on Wikipedia
3. User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 3rd year on Wikipedia
4. User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 4th year on Wikipedia
5. User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 5th year on Wikipedia
6. User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 6th year on Wikipedia
7. User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 7th year on Wikipedia
8. User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 8th year on Wikipedia
9. User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 9th year on Wikipedia
10. User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 10th year on Wikipedia
11. User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 11th year on Wikipedia
12. User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 12th year on Wikipedia
13. User talk:Gibson Flying V/Archive 13th year on Wikipedia

Orphaned non-free media (File:Engage Super League logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Engage Super League logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Western Suburbs Magpies logo 1978.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Western Suburbs Magpies logo 1978.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

• File:Jack Reardon Queensland.JPG
• File:Eddie Burns.JPG
• File:Johnny Graves.JPG
• File:Les Heidke.PNG

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

State Of Origin 2013

John Sutton was in fact the 18th man for NSW. Josh Reynolds was player number 16 on the bench although he didn't get a start? why should he be reverted to 18th man when he wasn't? Sutton reverted to 18th man when Reynolds was selected on the bench over John Sutton. Check here: http://www.nrl.com/DrawResults/StateofOrigin/Teams/tabid/11363/Default.aspx

And why not? 17th and 18th man should be as equal as the rest of the squad. They did get selected didn't they?

114.76.237.11 (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right about Josh Reynolds (and I'll gladly fix that). Definitely wrong about players who don't even play in a game being equal to those that did.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough on the 18th man's importance, it looks better though and flow better if the team lists looks the same, although 18th man should be before the coach. May the best State win, finally NSW can compete with QLD. #uptheblues 114.76.237.11 (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I am of course so deeply devastated by the outcome of game I 2013 to the extend that, erm, I carried on with life as if hadn't happened, despite being deeply devastated. The only bright spot for me apart from Darbs' try was... well, it wouldn't be Origin without a bit of the biff, would it?--Shirt58 (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The refereeing was an absolute embarrassment this year. Not sending Gallen off then sending Tate off. That there weren't multiple sackings after that is a source of utter shame.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Headings

Stop edit warring, you know as well as I do about BRD. You were bold and made a change, it was reverted now discuss it on talk pages to reach a conclusion. Mattlore (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Anyone can see you're the one edit-warring, but nice try. I have no idea what "BRD" is. It's clear why I'm making the improvements. You have some explaining to do.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD; Bold-Revert-Discussion. I'll start a discussion at wp:rl and give you the link. Mattlore (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league#Headings_in_player_biographies Mattlore (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brett Kimmorley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Bulldogs]] of the [[National Rugby League|NRL]]. He previously played for five other clubs ([[Newcastle Knights]], [[Hunter Mariners]], [[Melbourne Storm]], [[Northern Eagles]], [[Cronulla-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Nicholas Pappas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nicholas Pappas 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/Nicholas Pappas 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. Kumioko (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Dave Parkinson (rugby league

If you want to delete an article such as Dave Parkinson use the formal process instead of just overwriting it.--Racklever (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

1998 GF

At some point you will actually go off and find out what the highest score in GF is, and thereby learn a valuable lesson.

By no means do I take it for granted that you'll actually read the content you're deleting and the unambiguously worded source material given for it. Gosh, users masquerading as anonymous IPs are such fun!.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

So I take it that's a no on the highest score research?

As long as you don't have to actually constructively edit or reference anything, and continue limiting yourself to undiscussed removal of well-referenced content while hiding behind an IP address, right?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2011 London Broncos logo.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2011 London Broncos logo.PNG. 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. --Bloonstdfan360 / talk / contribs 23:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Football in Australia

I think you may have fundamentally misunderstood everything being discussed on Talk:Football in Australia. There is no consensus to change anything from soccer to football. There is consensus that there is no need to disambiguate the article because the information provided is much more useful than a disambiguation would be in terms of explaining the complex picture of football (ALL CODES) in Australia. The consensus exists. The sources that support this position abound. If you take a second to read the points being made by the side that consensus exists for you, you would realize that you need to argue from a source based position that relies primarily on etymological sources regarding the history of the terms. You can say anything else you want, but until you provide those sources, there will be zero ways to reach consensus. Do the research to enhance your position. Or better yet, spend a few weeks improving Soccer in Australia, Australian rules football, Rugby league in Australia, Rugby union in Australia, American football in Australia, Futsal in Australia. Get them all up to GA levels. Learn the sources. Then having a good grasp of the sources and the history and the etymology and the regional playing patterns and all the other information presented in the Football in Australia article. After that, make your case. (Doing this for all other football codes in Australia will also make it harder for people to argue you are a soccer partisan of the worst kind.) Anyway, I await your sources. Sources. Sources. Sources. --LauraHale (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you've just been arguing with these soccer guys far too long. You can't possibly be as foolish as you're making yourself look. Not trying to be funny, but did you actually read anything I'd typed? And if so, what is the "case" you think I'm making? I see you're big on apologies for personal attacks. I wonder if you'll practice what you preach.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop and explain the edits you are making to Football in Australia.--LauraHale (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you go and read all I've written on the talk page. The article should be restricted to content relating to more than one code of football, or, if about one code of football, should be for firsts or records for any code of football (not any sport). But I'm repeating myself. Go read about it on the talk page where you spectacularly failed to address it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

anti-consensus editing

There is no consensus to go back to a disambiguation. Please stop removing all "code" specific information because it is too sepcific. This looks like an attempt to purge all information about football as a whole in Australia in order to justify a disambiguation against consensus.--LauraHale (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You let me know when I create a disambiguation page. Until then you've not the ghost of a point.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

anti-consensus editing

There is no consensus to go back to a disambiguation. Please stop removing all "code" specific information because it is too sepcific. This looks like an attempt to purge all information about football as a whole in Australia in order to justify a disambiguation against consensus.--LauraHale (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Then look closer, restricting the artcle to "information about football as a whole in Australia" is precisely what I'm doing. And I'm rather helpfully doing it one sentence at a time, so that you can attempt to argue against each edit if you're willing/able. I know I can.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Newtown Jets (logo).jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Newtown Jets (logo).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC) 13 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically 1997 Super League (Australia) season, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You're wasting your own and my time. Look more closely at your edit. You removed more than just images. I am replacing the textual information you carelessly removed. I don't care about the images. Please pay closer attention to what you're doing.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Do not re-add those files, or I will take this to ANI and request your blocking for repeated violations of WP:NFCC. One cannot just remove the files and leave the text. Gallery tags dont work like that, Feel free to re-add the text but do not re-add the files. Werieth (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You make it extremely difficult to construe your edits as anything but nonconstructive when you willfully remove content and flat out refuse to re-add it. Report away. All you'll do is display your own carelessness and bad faith.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

See what I mean? the text without the files doesnt display. It should be re-worked into the article. but thats not a simple process Werieth (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

See what I mean? No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that the article still looks horrible and re-working the formatting is going to be a fairly complex process which will probably involve wikitable markup (something I dont know how to write) I felt that removing the files and leaving it for those familiar with the article to re-integrate the information in a logical and functional manner would be best. Your actions to blindly violate NFC is what led to your warning, it wasnt a matter of bad faith, rather it was an attempt to ensure that NFCC was enforced. Werieth (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

So materially reducing the informativeness of the article is preferable to having it "still look horrible"? Yeah OK. Very good.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Football in Australia Terminology

I just wanted to know why you undid my edit here? I thought the section needed rewording as the current backtracks, and is unnecessarily lengthy.--2nyte (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I was viewing that edit (giving soccer of all things pride of place at the top of the Etymology section) through the paradigm of your stated goal to have the Football in Australia article changed over time into Soccer in Australia.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, my intention (as stated above) was to reword the section as it backtracks and is too lengthy; I only 'reorganised' the content in alphabetical order (now I realise American football came before association football - honest mistake). Secondly, my "goal" was to have the Football in Australia article replaced with a disambiguation page, and separately have the Soccer in Australia article moved to Association football in Australia. Now, with that out of the way can we revert to this edit though in the correct alphabetical order.--2nyte (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You really think I'm that stupid? You'll do better not to insult my intelligence like that. Of course it wasn't an accident. And from "Association football in Australia" (which I'd have no problem with if it would only end there) you'll then use the fact that it has the words "Football in Australia" to move it there instead.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Why must you be so cynical and why must you villainise me? It was an honest mistake. And I have no intention, none at all, for the Football in Australia article to be only about soccer. Don't second guess me, don't anticipate my next move because I don't have one. There is no elaborate plan or scheme so please stop accusing me of any such thing.--2nyte (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Football in Australia "Sportsperson"

Ok, I can now see how 'footballer' is applicable, as described in the opening of Football player, so we'll leave it as that. Though, couldn't you have just explained your own reasoning in the edit summary rather than just insulting me. Don't assume I know what you know, because I simply don't.--2nyte (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edits are in perfect alignment with what you'd expect from someone who believes that soccer in Australia should be called football and no one but soccer players have the right to be called footballers. (The world is full of these people by the way, they're called British people) If it's all just a remarkable coincidence of innocent mistakes I'll gladly eat my words. But it just doesn't look very likely that that's the case now does it? I'm far more disappointed than you are. There are enough users here that can't be taken seriously without you adding yourself to the pile. The sooner childish tactics like vote-stacking and trying to smuggle POV-pushing through customs under the guise of innocent error are grown out of, the easier all this will get for you.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't using sportsperson because I think football/footballer should only be used for soccer/soccer player (which I don't), I was using sportsperson because Karmichael Hunt played 3 different sports and I though it sounded ambiguous. Similarly, if he played rugby league, rugby union and soccer or soccer and cricket I wouldn't use footballer or cricketer, I would use sportsperson. On the other hand all people who play a code of football are considered footballers, so that's why I said it's fine.--2nyte (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very good. Until your next innocent error then.[1][2] (Don't go making too much of a habit out of it) --Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it an error on my part, I was just misinformed. You could have very easily explained your edit before you undid mine. And to be fair in the first edit you showed I cut and pasted HiLo post to quote him and didn't realise at the time, and the second I clicked save page instead of show preview and I undid the edit straight away before LauraHale commented.--2nyte (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Football in Australia talk page

Also, why did you add the content I archived back onto the talk page on Talk:Football in Australia? It has been quiet for over a month and also if we are going to continue we should probably start fresh seeing as how ugly it got.--2nyte (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course. You're innocent and not trying to cover your tracks. I forgot. Allow me to explain: Talk pages discussions should be archived when they get too numerous and the page becomes too long, not when they get too old. The most recent ones should remain no matter how old they are. Otherwise people come to the talk page thinking an issue's never been discussed before when it actually has, and they should simply read/add to the existing one rather than starting afresh (thanks for making me type that out. I had nothing better to do).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to cover my tracks. I archived the content, I didn't delete and I added a search bar. Also the page was 184 KB which took very long to load and didn't save properly. Anyway Archive 1 had the main discussion, which you didn't add back, and like I said it was quiet for over a month.--2nyte (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ask yourself if you really need me to type things this obvious: if the talk page seems to long, archive the oldest discussions, not all of them.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Laird

I removed your addition of Graham Laird as there is no Wiki page nor significant references. See wp:listpeople and wp:wtaf. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I've re-instated it though as national rugby league representatives are without a shadow of a doubt notable. See WP:REDDEAL. Cheers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Bulldogs salary cap breach

Hi,

I've noticed that you've moved the page "Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs salary cap breach" to the club's 2002 season page. I was wondering what prompted you to merge the separate page to the season page, given it was a major salary cap breach since the NRL was formed in 1998.

I don't want to argue but I do believe the Bulldogs' 2002 salary cap breach was big, second only to the Storm's 2010 breach. In fact, both breaches came under the leadership of David Gallop, who has now defected to the FFA. The Storm's breaches has its own separate page, but it is more detailed (stripped of two premiership, three minor premierships, all competition points in 2010, etc.), whereas the Bulldogs' breaches in 2002 only resulted in the loss of 37 competition points, demotion to the bottom of the ladder but with no recent premiership to strip them of (at the time, their most recent premiership was in 1995).

Maybe that's one reason why you've decided to merge the Bulldogs' breach page to their 2002 season page. MasterMind5991 (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree 100% about the arguing. All the content you went to the trouble of creating/referencing (which I commend you for) and all the links to it are still 100% intact. The 2002 Bulldogs season article was crying out to be created. The breach's article? Less so in my opinion.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"Expressing human height in metres is the same as expressing it in yards..."

Not necessarily Jeff, the last time I saw a doctor (albeit in England) is was height in metres and weight in kilograms (Though I'm old enough to prefer; feet & inches, and stones & pounds), and the Leeds Rhinos concur. Best Regards. The 2-yard tall DynamoDegsy (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that it does happen, and it concerns me how much wikipedia may be responsible for that given its current status within the information "ecology" of which it is a part. In Australasia and Asia, where the metric system is not an oddity, centimetres have always been used. That is because expressing human height in metres truly is analagous with expressing it in yards (kind of like expressing aircraft altitude in feet: something I've personally never understood!).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Height in football players' infoboxes

Hi, please do not change the height in football players' infoboxes to the unit cm, as it is usually shown in m (or ft and in) as you can see at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. --Jaellee (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That shortcoming will be fixed soon and your reversions will be corrected. WP:SOURCEs carry more weight than WikiProject norms.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:CALC. --Jaellee (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems to agree with what I've just said. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Height_templates.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If you claim WP:SOURCE as reason for this revert [3] then you say that 172 cm is supported by the source but 1.72 m is not. According to WP:CALC and 172 cm are equally supported 1.72 m by the source, so you should provide a better reason for the revert.

About Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Height_templates – I was under the impression that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players is something that shows the consensus at WP:FOOTY, but if it's only a vague recommendation, okay, I'm glad to hear that. --Jaellee (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The quality of sources plus what is the norm locally is always taken into consideration. Please see Template_talk:Height#Human_height_is_more_commonly_expressed_in_centimetres_than_metres.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If you continue to push a pro-cm bias like you have done here then I will have to report you. Please stop until consensus is reached. GiantSnowman 13:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You honestly think there's something to report? Go for it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Final warning, if you continue to push your agenda like you have done here then I will take this matter to ANI. Just because the discussion at {{Height}} is not going your way, no need to edit disruptively. GiantSnowman 12:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You want to report me for introducing first-rate sources to biographies of living persons and formatting content to match them? I'm kinda curious to see how that goes. I suppose you know fully well that an assumption of bad faith is inherent in any such report and that's why you're not doing it. No one is impressed with your bizarre claims about metres being the norm and this being a personal crusade of mine, and I think your adminship needs to be looked at.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Haha, yes, why don't you suggest that someplace? Almost as funny as your bizarre love for the cm. GiantSnowman 19:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of anything in the MOS demanding that Wikipedia expresses human height in centimetres, we should follow reliable sources, especially in biographies of living persons. If quality, published sources express a subject's height in centimetres, then a very good reason is needed for us to go against that. You seem to think this is a personal preference of mine, but as you've already seen, it is the preference of sources. You don't know how many BLPs' heights and weights were incorrect before I came along and corrected them, and you don't know how many thanks I got from other editors for doing so.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you are deliberately choosing some sources over others, namely those that support your pro-cm agenda, when plenty of alternatives which display height in m exist - see the Davide Astori talk page for evidence. That is what my issue is here. GiantSnowman 20:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do discriminate when it comes to sources, and so should all Wikipedians. You're supposed to be an administrator. You must know that not all sources are created equal. This is why I do prefer, for example, FIFA when it comes to biographies of soccer players over, say, fan-generated databases.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've found you a FIFA link on the Davide Astori talk page which uses m - and Sky Sports is not a "fan-generated database" - in fact many of them in wide use are professional companies. You don't know what you're talking about. GiantSnowman 20:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

By all means continue the ad hominem attacks and see where it gets you.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

By all means continue making vague threats and unfounded accusations. GiantSnowman 10:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

???--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"vague threats" = "I think your adminship needs to be looked at" and "see where it gets you"; "unfounded accusations" = "continue the ad hominem attacks." GiantSnowman 12:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What does SOURCE have to do with any of the changes you reverted?

I simply took the exact material and used the correct template for them. I will be restoring those if you don't explain your change. In short, the information is exactly the same. My {{height|m=1.80}} returns 1.80 m (5 ft 11 in) and your {{convert|180|cm|ftin|abbr=on}} returns 180 cm (5 ft 11 in). The difference is that 180 cm is 1.8 m. That's a simple metric conversion and permitted per WP:CALC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you're edit warring with other editors above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Then I needn't repeat myself here. The fact is, the metre as a unit for measuring human height is an oddity, and WP:Sources prove that.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That's one revert for me, two for you. Who's edit warring again?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. Any time you change anything, it's a revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating. Yes, how dare I introduce reliable sources and change content to match it? Scandalous!--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating. You don't understand the issues at all.

I understand that height isn't usually reported in meters but is usually reported in centimeters: I do live in a metric country after all. However, there is a general agreement to use that template. The correct fix is at that template, not on an article-by-article basis. So I'm partially on your side, but not in the way you think.

You also don't understand what it means to revert an edit.

Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.

Your change to add the source also reverted material. I changed the template from convert to height. That too was a revert. Then we each undid the edit of the other. We're each at two reverts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The power of "general agreement" on Wikipedia is quite remarkable then, isn't it? When users (in quite surprising numbers) start thinking it trumps WP:Verfiability (possibly the single most important core policy) and, not only that, but what they already know to be right.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:V isn't being trumped as 100cm = 1m = 0.001km. The information is not unverified because it's a different unit, it is only displayed differently. I could even say 39.37 inches and not be going against WP:V as it's permitted per the guideline you're ignoring. The actual argument is whether height should be displayed in m or cm and I'll focus on that battle for now. BTW: Thanks for the thank. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If high-quality reliable sources present WP:BLPs with height in centimetres, then a very good reason is needed for Wikipedia to go against it. It's an absurdly small and simple thing when you think about it. Amazing that it's getting any resistance at all.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 19:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Churchill 1st 1951 Test against France.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Churchill 1st 1951 Test against France.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Referee and captains 2nd 1951 Test against France.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Referee and captains 2nd 1951 Test against France.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for Height cm

I am glad someone finally restarted discussions about {height} with cm, and I suspect the 30-day RfC will find reasonable support. January tends to be a net-negative time period for Wikipedia, where progressive people seem to meet even greater resistance, perhaps because typical people up North are shoveling snow and gathering firewood, while more people far South are spending free time along the shoreline. Many editors have been blocked in January each year. Several months ago, I recommended to Jimbo how WP needs another pillar, "WP:Progress" to foster more improvements sooner, rather than thwart discussions about height-in-cm for 7 years (since 2007). Many protected templates have still had long-term bugs, discussed over 3 years ago, but thwarted. I am thinking to just incubate new ideas for discussion later (or at wp:VPIL now) and develop new templates offline, such as the way "cm=" was added into Template:Height/sandbox to experiment with options, while more people begin to take time away from early winter/summer activities to join the discussions. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. It's worrying to see how deep the effect of this template's flaw has has gotten into some people's psyche.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Wikid77, the RfC is closed with consensus to add cm support. But it still isn't happening. I'm guessing people knowledgeable in editing templates are needed to determine how to approach it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Changing height from m to cm

Can you explain your recent edit to Steve Prescott to change his height from m to cm by replacing {{height}} to {{convert}}, when the RfC you started for cm support for height is still outstanding? At your last ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive827#Gibson_Flying_V, it was suggested by an editor that you "wait for the outcome of the RFC before taking any more actions along these lines", and you stated that you "have stopped editing height in articles".—Bagumba (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my first once since I said I'd stopped. I didn't think anyone would care since it was cm in the source, and it's not a basketball or soccer player. Apologies if I was wrong about that.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You were wrong, as it is a soccer player. Now do you see why we have concerns about this parameter being used? GiantSnowman 12:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Steve Prescott's a soccer player?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my aplogies, I saw 'Hull' and assumed this Hull. However he is British, where m is the preferred useage. GiantSnowman 12:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it? The jury is still well and truly out on that one (to say the least). Do you have any evidence whatsoever for that claim? Probably not, because, as anyone who looks at your history with this issue for even a moment can see, it is 100% personal, 0% related to the actual case at hand. You've embarrassed yourself thoroughly and continue to do so, and I can't stop you from doing that. It really doesn't matter to me what you say or do, or how much you obsess over me. I'm interested only in improving this encyclopedia, and will continue to make comments and edits toward that aim. Well done though, for using this talk page to discuss my personal editing. It is actually the appropriate place to do so, and I think represents a definite step forward.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The only one who has any obsession here is you with your bizarre pro-cm agenda. You were advised to stop editing like that after the previous ANU discussion, waited a few days, and then made a poor edit because you "didn't think anyone would care" aka you didn't think anybody would notice. Shameful. GiantSnowman 13:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Presumably you've already seen for yourself via the reliable sources I've provided just how "bizarre" it is. It's comments like those that show clearly how this is totally personal for you. You're completely blind to everything except any edit or comment from me (no one else) that can be perceived as contradicting your newly (and rather foolishly) formed opinion that metres are the norm for expressing height in the metric system. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I've never not said that cm is used, and indeed used widely. What I have said is that is is not used everywhere, a fact you conveniently continue to ignore, as shown by your recent poor edit to Steve Prescott. GiantSnowman 13:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Shall I provide yet another weeks-old diff of me saying that metres are appropriate in some cases? I do know one place that they're not used though: the source that Steve Prescott's height was taken from.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, what I do want to know is whether or not you will make changes by ignoring sources and convention, as you have done at Liam Miller. You acknowledge that m is used un UK/Ireland but changed his height purely because he now plays in Australia? No, it doesn't work that way. GiantSnowman 13:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I may have acknowledged that metres are used in the UK and Ireland, but I've certainly never acknowledged that it's a convention to do so there. If you want to know my opinion, it's that people in the UK/Ireland (as with people in the US) don't care either way, or, if there are people that think metres are more appropriate than centimetres for displaying human height metrically, then this is analogous to a fringe theory. As you're probably aware, fringe views are not to be excluded from Wikipedia, but they, along with the mainstream view, are to be represented in proportion to each other. I know you've already seen for yourself that at best, metres approach fifty-fifty with centimetres when it comes to sources for certain soccer players' heights. That aside, you'd be lucky to get over 1% usage of metres in real quality sources such as books. Yet you want 100% of soccer players in an encyclopedia to have their height expressed in metres. There is no logic there. I don't know why I'm typing this out. You're already aware of it all. It's a purely personal thing with you, not a logic thing. There is simply not a single good reason for prohibiting the use of cm for displaying human height and your efforts continue to reflect that fact.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion at one place, shall we i.e. the template RFC. GiantSnowman 18:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. Sorry for straying. I guess I just don't find the topic of my "disruptive editing", "bizarre centimetre obsession" and "convenient ignorance of facts" quite as fertile ground for compelling discussion as others seem to.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Glenn Lazarus

Hi. Seems I need to explain my edits to this article, so here goes. Whatever the situation was previously, the article is now likely to develop along the lines of Glenn's new political career, so I see a need to leave room for this, and not to have that career heavily overshadowed by the fine details of his illustrious footballing past. Hence, I took some football detail out of the lead par, but also made sure it was essentially included in the 'Rugby league career' section where it properly belongs. By the same token, it would be inappropriate to cram the lead with relative trivia about his accession to Clive Palmer's party, the Senate campaign, etc, etc, for which there is also an appropriate section below. The article needs to be limited to 'encyclopedic' (and necessarily brief) content. That means it is fair to select important data, as against reproducing all the detail that might be found in a CV or extended biography. If I make a wrong choice of content, the WP system enables that to be put right. However, if you want to restore all the excluded content, there might come a point where discussion would be needed on the talk page.

I'm sure you will agree that your decision to restore football content to the lead created some duplication and overlinking beneath, which I've tried to fix. The nephew Blake Lazarus has his own article which is linked to. It is therefore not appropriate to go into any detail about Blake's career in Glenn's article, other than to note the relationship. In my view it is more correct to say that Glenn is the uncle than the other way round. It would be equally right to say, in Blake's article, that he is Glenn's nephew. (Personally, I don't see how the nephew, or any other relative, has much relevance at all here. But I'm not interested in pushing petty differences of that nature.) Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

While it's a nice change to see an editor who's actually literate contributing to an Aussie rugby league article, I believe my additions to your version of the opening paragraph brought it closer to complying with WP:LEAD. Also, I thought mentioning that his nephew's NRL debut was in 2010 made more sense appearing as it does in the "Post playing" section in between events of 2009 and 2013.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, on reflection, it's quite right to have those highly notable matters in the lead. I would still regard the nephew's debut as relevant only to the nephew's article. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The only question is where in the article to put the mention of the nephew. There is no "family" or "personal life" section, so the article reads purely chronologically, which I think is fine. I've never been a fan of those sections as they often consist of only one or two sentences and appear suddenly with no regard for flow. With no reference to a time frame though, I just feel that Blake's mention appearing as it does between the events of 2009 and 2013 is kind of floating randomly in no man's land. The addition of when he started in the NRL was not an attempt at introducing the thin end of excessive detail about his career to someone else's biography. It was just an attempt at locating the sentence at a logical point in a chronologically flowing article. I'm not overly fussed though and don't intend to revert. Just explaining myself.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for expanding Zbigniew Bródka, here's some beer as a thank you for your edits :) I have now expanded it further and nominated for WP:DYK. Perhaps you could add/copyedit it further before the main page display? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Height cm closure

I tried to close the whole ball of wax on the height RfC, but your reflist templates seem to break the Template:discussion top archiving background div. Not sure how to wrap it so it looks archived. Gigs (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I just wrapped the closure around the straw poll section as well, that should make it more obvious. Gigs (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And sorry about the formatting of the RfC. It was my first one so I just went by Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_articles.2C_policies.2C_or_other_non-user_issues, which says, "Edit the talk page of the article or project page that you are interested in. Create a new section at the bottom of the talk page. If the talk page already has a section started on the topic, you can edit that existing section, but a new section is generally better." Maybe the part in italics should be left out? By the way, is the template going to be modified now that there is consensus to do so? Or are there still more hoops to jump through?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It was fine, it was just a technical issue with the reflist template. I think it's fixed now. Yes, the parameter should be able to go live now, as an optional parameter. But be sure to follow my closure advice, any application of mass changes needs solid, separate, specific, consensus. Most likely that would be on the Wikiproject talk for the articles involved, but could be elsewhere depending on the situation. Gigs (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Naturally. That discussion was only ever about that template's parameters. The extension into topics beyond that was the work of other editors. Now that it's done the main issue of fixing WP's artificial bias towards metres can be taken up at the appropriate forum(s).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Multiple unexplained reverts

Hi Gibson Flying V, I admire most of your work overall, however, I notice this morning many unexplained reverts of my work, there was method and reasons for all my work, which I can explain. As the actual edits was a work in progress and heading the right way, following all RL and wiki guidelines, you have set the whole process back somewhat, I am not going back to revert all your "undos" without actually talking to the individual (yourself) as per wiki guidelines. The speed of the reverts allows me to know for a fact, that you did not assess accurately what had been changed and their impacts to the greater RL and wiki on an individual basis, the temporary loss of an "info-box" is not a reason to revert, just add the info box back if it is of an urgent nature for you to do so. I am going to re-do the page "Dally M Awards winners" page only, to add;1. A navigable TOC that would appear on one screen for tablet or PC quick links. 2. A "default sort" for listing requirements so that this page is located in the "D" category for listings etc. 3. Add a lead section as per wiki guideline. 4. Add a main article link at top of page. 5. Adding categories for completeness. 6. Adding info boxes as required. There is still quite some work to do even with above all completed, such as a. Adding top point scorers. b. re-formatting links to avoid "redirects" such as #REDIRECT Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs/Canterbury Bulldogs etc. however these are minor details as opposed to navigation and listing items as above. Any positive comments, suggestions or if I have misinterpreted any of the process or standardisation requirements or guidelines please let me know before I try to help replicate across any and all RL articles.
Kind regards
The Original Filfi (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Again Gibson Flying V, I noticed you last edit on the above, solid, thumbs up for both the edit and comment, cheers, as you seem to have a large buy-in to the RL portal and its applications etc can you view my talk page re Eels in progress and comment as required, note 1. I have multiple contradicting sources on some of the info posted there, so may have to reference both or come up with a more suitable solution tba. 2. Has there been a standard format for the list of players layout agreed on RL. 3. The update of the points part of this (and each other teams) table seems quite labour intensive, and the source for much of the historic data states the following - quote "Disclaimers, I am not the NRL, nor have any connection to the NRL, clubs or players. No data on this site should be deemed as official. I also make no claim of complete accuracy of said data, in particular team lists prior to 1986 (which definitely have omissions or other issues), and scoring details in the formative years of the competition. Any corrections gratefully accepted" end quote - http://stats.rleague.com/rl/snotes.html. Your thoughts as best practice to move forward.
Thanks
The Original Filfi (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Your 2 cents

Hi there, is this comment threaded correctly? Are you replying to my comment? - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I should have mentioned the edit conflict. It was meant to be immediately preceding yours.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Australian sport naming rules

Thanks for your contribution. I edited it slightly, to bring it into line with the format of the poll. Hope that's ok. --John (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Another RfC on naming

Please see the further RfC here. --John (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:N8-57469, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Eyesnore (pc) 01:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops. I thought the template would do that for me.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review on Megadeth

Hi, nice to meet you. I came here to ask for some help regarding the peer review on Megadeth. Can you make a comment on what should be improved so that the article can reach FA status? All the best.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

infobox cricketer

if this works for you, then by all means do so. however, if you do want to put a footnote after the height, you can either uses (a) |height={{convert|183|cm|ftin|abbr=on}}<ref> ...</ref> or (b) I could add a |height_footnotes= for appending a citation. Frietjes (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, cool. Thanks :) --Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Fred de Belin.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Fred de Belin.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)