User talk:Beve/Archive2009

Hull City

Hi and happy new year. Do you know what happened to John Welsh as someone appears to have replaced him at 19 by Kevin Kilbane in the main article but there is no note in the season of this change. His own article indicates 2 loan periods in infobox but have not seen any news of it. Keith D (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of Welsh having left, but OTOH he's not listed on the OWS squad list - though I think this is likely to be an accidental omission rather than an indication that he's gone. Kilbane's number seems like pure speculation at this stage. Also seen no confirmation of Zayatte's loan turning into a permanent transfer. Beve (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info. Keith D (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was perhaps mistaken?

It was not my attempt to edit in bad form. I may have become confused as to what the status quo was. I was reverting the repeated edit of an IP who I just finished blocking for tampering with peoples comments. It was not my intention to show any preference to a particular version of the article. Chillum 04:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I think it's obvious you were acting in good faith. Cheers, Beve (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were directed to Sabine and I see that wasn't very clear, so I apologise. Beve (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Chillum 04:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I removed your templated warning from Sabine's page. I had already discussed this with the user and explained 3RR just prior to the note. I hope you don't me mind removing it, it is just that it is unhelpful after the matter has been resolved. I know first hand that it is hard to notice such things when using automated tools. Again, no worries. Chillum 04:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Kuyt's socks, as it were

Hi there. I decided against requesting a sock investigation into those editors on the Dirk Kuyt article, as I cannot convince myself up to about 80% certainty that they are actually socks. I suspect if anything some meat-puppetry went on, but the evidence is rather slim, and IMHO too slim to be worth starting that whole beauracratic process. If you feel different, let me know and i'll reconsider, or support you if you want to do it yourself. --Ged UK (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Meat-puppetry" - that's a new one on me. I can guess what it means though. I don't think there's any need to pursue this unless they start edit warring on the article again. Cheers, Beve (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's a great phrase! Just means you ask a friend to register a new account and support you in whatever it is. I agree, they seem to have gone away now. --Ged UK (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Football tourney infobox

Hi. Can you please revert my edits on that specific page? Yes I was involved in an "edit war" over which should be used: British English or American English. Initially, I was pushing for AmE over BrE, which is the most relevant to me since in AmE we use Champion instead of Champions used in BrE. I then thought I had found a middle ground by editing to Champion(s) in much the same way Most Successful Club(s) means both Most Successful Club and Most Successful Clubs (an edit I also tried to incorporate in the infobox as well). I, or any user who understand AmE (which is probably the majority), shouldn't have to read an infobox that is grammatically incorrect to us because in BrE "things are done differently." There is no reason one style of English should have preference over the other, and using (s) is a good middle ground since it is meant to be understood as two different ways... But the other user, who seems blinded by his preference of BrE over AmE, failed to see that. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Champion(s) could be misleading, as it implies there could be a tie, with two clubs taking the Championship. I started a discussion on the template's talk page, it really would be best to get consensus there rather than keep reverting each other. Beve (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello How Are you you have a very interesting page here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danuk1984 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment of Hull City A.F.C.

As you are one of the principle contributors to this article, I wanted to be sure you were aware that Hull City A.F.C. has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BEVE (talk)  15:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]