This is an archive of past discussions with User:Govvy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Read the closing summary. "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section." Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jmorrison230582: Even know the conversation was related to the above closed conversation, that's what you're suppose to do, post below the close conversation window. But you break the tradition and do what you want, everyone else does, everyone is so anal these days. Govvy (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Personal abuse? You're the one that started this, you should look at all other conversations with moves, goto WP:AN, good example of how people converse! Govvy (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so, you do this a lot, you interpret rules in-correctly, post on people's talk pages that they are waging war, breaking the rules even know you're the one doing it. You delete people's comments from your own talk page to try and hide your ineptitude. I really have no time for you, I don't like your editing style and don't really want to associate with you and I am surprised you haven't been banned from wikipedia long ago. Govvy (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits re the 'too soon' additions of a transfer of this player which hasn't happened yet. We were editing at the same time and somehow, our edits seemed to get mixed up! I've no idea how it happened, but I think my latest edit has unpicked it all and put him back as a Tottenham player. Neiltonks (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi thanks for your reply, my main concern is to get the Barons of the United Kingdom to a better standard. I have done the Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts and Barons (except the UK).Mr Hall of England (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
Hi Govvy! You created a thread called Moonbook skin, dark theme at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
I am the club's researcher for Football manager and have been for over 5 years. Player list is updated from website/twitter news. Please make sure you check this before making amends as you added players that have left or out on loan. This has been discussed before and all edit's undone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.117.153.126 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@193.117.153.126: Wealdstone page is still a mess, each loan player should have a citation, you don't add a citation to the other players in the squad. You really don't need that big ass hidden comment in the article either! There are a number of WP:MoS issues also that need fixing there. Seems like you're claiming WP:OWN by that full revert. Govvy (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
That is your opinion, it's been like this on the page for over 5 years with only 2 comments on it. All loan players are normally have citation's added. We do indeed to make sure people like yourselves don't have players added that no longer play for the club. The issues regarding loan's will be fixed by myself shortly but no others are required or you will be reported and blocked from making edits on the club. You have made over 6 error's on the page in total and made no apology for these.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.117.153.126 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@193.117.153.126: I don't understand, why do I need to apologise for trying to match the official website? If they are not up to date, it's not a wikipedia editors fault. Govvy (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
As i have worked for the club as a researcher and as a nonplaying member of staff i am in a better position that you to comment on this. You have only checked one source, no social media or other news websites and then try to put the blame on me? All i'm hearing is excuses from you so please stay away from the page or to make further edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.117.153.126 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
apologies offered, due to: 1 - starts in chronology, I was misled by the other user, certes, but the fact is that I also did not correct it; 2 - the ground where match was played yesterday, totally botched it up, nice catch!
Thanks! However, the following: 1 - I noticed :@Iggy the Swan: reverting a user on several articles, after the latter inserted BBC Sport as a newspaper. Plus, if you leave it as a work, the (italicised) display remains, hence creating confusion for some; 2 - no need for first name of subject twice, in this case Harry Kane; 3 - last but not least, I think Wembley should stay linked, it a first-ever (and ONLY) mention in text.
Was just trying to vary the language/verb(s) while still being encyclopedical. Whatever, apologies (and i reiterate, without trying to sound "holier than thou" while speaking to a native of the language, that i'm 99,9999999999999999% sure that "away" and "at" imply the SAME thing. It stays how you want)! --Quite A Character (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Quite A Character: Contextually the language should be clear as possible and I think Hzh has a point there. Tottenham were away at Fulham yes, but to someone who is dyslexic, that might read that Tottenham lost away at Fulham 2-1. Govvy (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I see. But what about "in a 2-1 win at Fulham"? Is it as incorrect as it gets? Honestly, it "rings right in my ear", but i'm not going to vouch for its grammatical value of the top of my head :) --Quite A Character (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
No, i'm not doubting Hzh's language skills, i merely asked if "a team wins 2-1 at another team" was (in)correct English. My Spanish is quite proficient. If i understand you correctly, he's to be addressed as "Jonny" not "Otto" as he's known as "Jonny". People addressing the subject as "Jonny Otto" in newspapers or here are misleading readers (not saying intentionally), "Jonny Otto" is a nick/nickname compound --Quite A Character (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
transfer
Dear Govvy, according to the Oxford Dictionary, transfer is "(in football and other sports) move to another team". Transfer can be by different ways. In any way for K. Sterling it was a transfer on loan. He can't appears again in this table. I think, you are non correct in terminology. But if you insist, I won't to make a controversy and continue reverting. With regards--Noel baran (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Noel baran: I know what a transfer is, did you bother looking up what a loan is? The player can return to the club at any time, pretty different to a transfer. For that reason I don't see the need to separate those players out of the statistics only to add him back in at the end of the season. Seems a bit pointless over live data. Govvy (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
It's policy not to have a gallery of shirts like that, please goto WP:FOOTBALL and have a browse through the history, type in 'Gallery' in the search feature on the talk page and you will see all the arguments. Govvy (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 14, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 14, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
I removed it as it looked like it had been copied from a club website having words such as 'we' and 'our', therefore it was a copvio. I do not have the knowledge to rewrite what was there, and did not know that an earlier better version had existed. All the best Red Jay (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey! Just a quick question about Nick Tsaroulla's move to Brentford B. Wouldn't the move have even less relevance to next season's page, given that it occurred this season? Just trying to get my head around how it will look on next season's page...
@Supernaut09: That note on the Spurs season page is normally if a player is snapped up in a short time period, it has been such a long time period, a whole season till he got signed by Brentford, how do we know he wasn't at a smaller club for a little bit in between that time. I guess you're correct in saying it's this season still, although he won't get any football till next season now! Govvy (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Good point about us not knowing if he was at a smaller club. I have scoured the internet and haven't found any evidence of this, though... Checked his social media outlets without luck, too. If you reckon we leave it until next season, I'll go with your advice, as I reckon you're a hell of a lot more experienced at this Wikipedia game than me, but I just can't see in my mind how it will fit onto next season's page. Do you advise that we just let this bit of news go entirely and not address it on the Spurs pages at all? Supernaut09 (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2019
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Matt Bomer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The article Matt Bomer you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Matt Bomer for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000 AFD repeat
Hi. Have had a go at tweaking the text re Spurs departure. Hope you think it is okay and accommodates use of both sources now. RossRSmith (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@RossRSmith: You got it completely wrong, Tottenham did include Llorente in their released players list to the premier league, hence that primary source. You should read how I had it before carefully, you made it worse and in-factual. The source you added doesn't really add anything and I feel inclined to revert again. I will give you a chance to un-do your edit. Govvy (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Govvy, the discussion is closed. If you haven't already, though, you should heed my warning in the closure.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Okay, didn't think I really did anything serious, but I thought the guy was trolling, I've seen a pattern like that before from two other users and his edit seemed a bit pointless in it's application. Govvy (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The article Matt Bomer you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Matt Bomer for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
He is. He was TBANed a few months back from immigration for bludgeoning a bit too much - which may have been a trigger. Or perhaps a mistake. Want to see what he has to say.Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Govvy! You created a thread called timestamp on watchlist at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
This has been an issue of some contention in the post, not least because there is no clear, settled view on it. It is applied incredibly inconsistently, some people have runner-up positions included, most do not. A general opinion that was floated the last time this flared up as an issue was that the highest achieved position should be included, but even this is applied inconsistently. Would suggest there is at least some attempt to get consensus on this again... Vaze50 (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
This is incredibly frustrating. The Champions League is the biggest club competition in the world and it is entirely logical that we note when a club has won silver medals as runner-ups. Are these same editors going through every Olympian entry and deleting mentions of silver medals?? Including this information is supported by Wikipedia precedent - see, e.g., the entry for Borussia Dortmund, which lists every single runner-up season not just in Europe but domestically, as well. If anything, we should prioritize adding significant information rather than concealing or censoring it, which is what a couple of these editors are insisting upon doing. Furthermore, it is entirely contradictory for Wikipedia to include entries for lucrative and international pre-season tournaments such as the International Champions Cup and the Audi Cup, and to list the winner for each year, but then for one Wikipedia editor to decide, "No, you can't list this information on the Tottenham Hotspur entry!!" More information and less stubborn censorship, please. Realgonerocket88 (talk) 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Vaze50:@Realgonerocket88: Club articles are treated differently to athlete biographies. The current consensus in the Association Football project for club articles is to list trophies won that are run by FIFA, UEFA or the association league of said country. A football club doesn't receive a runner up trophy! As for footballers, there is a slightly different consensus, the current model is to list medals won, that also includes runner up medals. However, for top footballers that have won a lot of trophies and there are only a handful, it's common practice to remove the runner-up medals to stop that section being saturated. As for question over Olympians, editors shouldn't be removing the silver and bronze medals, that's disruptive editing. Govvy (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation, but your explanation is incorrect and inconsistent with Wikipedia precedent. Firstly, the section is clearly for "Honors" not "Trophies," so your statement that "A football club doesn't receive a runner up trophy!" is irrelevant. (Similarly, we see, for example, that the entry for the Croatian national team lists both runner-up and third-place finishes in the World Cup, and neither came with trophies!) Furthermore, your statement regarding a current consensus is incorrect, as the entries for such runner ups as Atletico Madrid, Borussia Dortmund, Valenica, Monaco, Olympique de Marseille, FK Patrizan, Borussia Mönchengladbach, Malmö FF, Saint-Étienne, Hamburger SV, FCSB, etc., ALL list Runner-up finishes in the European Cup/Champions League. In fact, some of these entries also list Runner-up finishes in their domestic leagues or cups, as well! Clearly, it is neither consensus nor common practice to remove runners-up finishes from these lists. Finally, as Tottenham just had its first appearance in club history in the CL final, it is even more noteworthy that this be listed! The policy here should be to share significant information, not to indiscriminately or selectively censor it just because a few other clubs haven't listed their runner-up finishes yet. Thank you. User:Realgonerocket88 (talk) 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Realgonerocket88: A little thing, are you signing your posts correctly, you use four twiddles to sign ~~~~ Secondly, a national team isn't a club, I don't have those other teams on my watchlist. There is a difference to achievements and honours. Getting to a cup final is an achievement not an honour. Receiving a trophy is an honour. Govvy (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Govvy: I'm afraid you did not address my points, and saying "a cup final is an achievement not an honour" is not just an arbitrary value judgment but, as I have clearly demonstrated, contradictory with more than a DOZEN similar entries association football clubs. Fact: The heading is "Honours," not "Trophies." Are you seriously arguing that winning a silver medal in the world's biggest competition is not an honor? If so, then (1) you will have to explain to UEFA that it is not worth it for them to award silver medals, and (2) you are contradicting MANY other entries, as I have documented for you above. Furthermore, the point about the national team holds true; a Wikipedia editor cannot reasonably claim that a silver medal in the world's biggest club competition is not an "honor" when Wikipedia considers a third place medal in the World Cup - the national team equivalent of the Champions League! - to be a worthy honor. Furthermore, editors cannot claim "trophies only" but then simultaneously delete the trophies won in the ICC and Audi Cups these past two years. So not only are these deletions contradictory to the precedent established by a slew of other entries, the editors are also contradicting each other! Again, these deletions speak toward selective censorship and against consistency and transparency of information. Let's be consistent please. … By the way, I might be confused about the signature format? Actually I copied the identical signature format of the post above me and simply changed the user names as appropriate. I don't see where the four twiddles will go? Realgonerocket88 (talk) 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Goto WP:FOOTBALL then, they will pretty much repeat what I've already said. But from what I read, you haven't really understood anything I've said, so I not going to say anything else. Govvy (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Govvy! You created a thread called How do I check my account security? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
Hi. A few days ago I answered your message on my talk page, and I also added comment on the Honours subject at the WT:FOOTBALL talk page. You, and others, have not commented further. I think the inconsistencies in club main page articles re: guidelines at present, do need to be addressed. RossRSmith (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@RossRSmith: Not my fault if others don't reply to you, but for Tottenham all the honours are on List of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. records and statistics, a club wins an honour, players receive an honour for being a runner up, the club does not receive an honour for runner-up. Leagues and Cups have differences for runner-up. I can't put it any more straight forward than that. Govvy (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Chris Kinnear
You can always do what I do (with my assistance with the delete-y bits) - move to mainspace and delete to restore the history in case he becomes notable in the future. GiantSnowman18:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The position in the examples aren't changing it from noun to verb, it's the context of the rest of the sentence that switches it from a named thing (noun) being recognised as the "host" (noun) to the named thing (noun) being recognised as performing the act of hosting the event as the "hosts" (verb). Per the examples in the football talk page I gave, they are interchangeable in a lot of situations depending on the intent, but there are also situations where first person vs third person become set in rock. Koncorde (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not a case of not listening, it's a case of what is being said not being presented in a way that is very clear. The "S" is to do with the third-person singular use of singular or plural nouns of which countries are an example. This BBC World Service article covers it in a basic fashion, as does this which also includes lots of people arguing about it in specific cases, with some examples Pop Quiz #4 and #5 are particularly relevant. Koncorde (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
You OK ?
Just saying, guys, in all that tidying-up to remove my unwanted and unnecessary inputs, the substantive warning was lost.
So for the record, from the History previously, I think this was it, below.
Saying No More. Do whatever you like, Govvy. I am out of here. Pings Parthian Shot.
>
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I have deleted the background to this from my talk page: dig through the history of my talk page if you wish.
I received a 3RR warning (technically deserved, but I would defend what I had done) from , posted by Cassianto, but not signed. I replied that I thought that failing to sign that was rather uncivil (maybe not my finest Wiki-moment, but), and this IP (obviously an experienced Wiki-er, and therefore engaged here in sockpuppetry) weighed in, falsely, that it was a bot. Wondering why this IP with only one previous post would be aware of my talk page, I pointed out his/her error and the cowardice implicit in using an IP, which resulted in a quite incomprehensible reply, including denial that IP is Cassianto. I deleted the entire thread. Govvy (not sure what brought the activity on my talk page to your attention either) appeared with kind words, and the IP then returned with the repost of the 3RR and this surreal farewell message. I deleted it from my talk page, and an hour later it appeared here, with a slightly adapted text so that it was addressed to Govvy. Weird, certainly not the behavious of somebody with only one post to their history. Kevin McE (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Potters Bar Town F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
"MUFC" is not only initials but also one of the common names used to refer to the team, at least historically. Thanks. – PeeJay19:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
A name is any recognisable identifier for a specific entity. "Utd." is not a name for Manchester United because it is not used in that fashion. Ever. – PeeJay19:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I didn't restore that bit. The line says "Man United/Utd", which implies that they can be either "Man United" or "Man Utd". If that's not clear enough, we can change it to "Man United/Man Utd". – PeeJay20:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
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.
Hello. I made sure the numbers were correct and dates updated before clicking submit. I am watching the game and would update if any more goals are scored. At the end of the game it's going to be the same edits that are made to these articles. So why can't they be done half an hour earlier? Ae245 (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I was going to self-revert anyway actually, as the refs didn't look right there. The figures need a source though, so where should it be placed? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Sorry about that, but that's why we avoid adding ref's in info boxes, that should be with the statistics lower down on the page. Govvy (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, there is a career statistics section, but it's also uncited at the moment. Shame, but there we go. Thanks, anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: For Spurs apps you can cite {{cite book |first=Phil |last=Soar |title=Tottenham Hotspur The Official Illustrated History 1882–1995 |year=1995 |page=285 |publisher=Hamlyn |isbn=0-600-58706-1}} Not sure about the other clubs, I did place one citation in the reflist pane, probably needs to be moved out. I am going to go watch Match of the Day now. Peace. Govvy (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
