User talk:Jmorrison230582/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jmorrison230582. 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. |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Scotland national football team manager
The article Scotland national football team manager you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Scotland national football team manager for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yellow Evan -- Yellow Evan (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George Carter (footballer born 1867) 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:
- name = "FT22"/> The team went on to defeat [[Petersfield F.C.|Petersfield]] 10–0 in the next round (with five goals from [[A. A. Fry]] and four from captain [[Charles Bromley|C.E. (Ned) Bromley]].
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi mate, thanks for the work you've been doing on the football categories the last few days. Out of interest, are you sure Tom Curry was a wing half in his playing days? All I can find about him is that he was a generic half back, not that he was either a wing half or a centre half. – PeeJay 21:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nice one, cheers mate. Out of interest, did he play at all in the other half back positions or would it be worth changing his position to read simply "Right half"? – PeeJay 22:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Middlesbrough F.C. players 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:
- |align="left"|{{sortname|George|Elliott|dab=English footballer)}}
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Scotland international footballers (5 – 24 caps) 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:
- {{updated|22:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC))}}
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The article Alan Murphy (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- The two other Alan Murphy's have been deleted, and we don't need a disambiguation-page when there is only one Alan Murphy with a Wikipedia-article.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mentoz (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Goal avergage vs goal difference
Hello ! I attempted to find out if there was an article, about was I thought, was mentioned as "goal ratio". But I found nothing. I later noticed the bold "goal average" in the "Goal difference" article, but not being native in English, I didn't understand that average could man ratio (or other way around). However goal difference and goal average are not the same. And hence I still believe that there could be two separate articles (linking each other). I was just about to rename the goal ratio article, but found it erased. Hence I must ask if You think that goal average is too similar to goal difference in order to have an article about it ? Boeing720 (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Another RfC on naming
Please see the further RfC here. --John (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
IP editing on Scottish Independence
I see you reverted the same IP editor making the same edits as I did. Well he is back making the same edits and flooding the talk page with a wall of text. I wonder if there is anything to be gained by attempting a reply, its a daunting avalanche of text with reams of tendentious justification so I do wonder. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've requested semi-protection but he is back and after 3 reverts in 24 hrs I am bowing out. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Sottish independence
nonsense, your edits do not follow a NPOV; why do you censor the retired military men? get a life. It is *your* edits that display a bias. Let the reader decide, not a censor. 69.60.247.253 (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- quote from morrison: "(such as spam adding the opinions of retired generals)" your biases show through clearly here. please let the reader decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.247.253 (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Blethering Scot 22:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- If that happens again, or a similar case, please just let me know. I would have warned then blocked for BLP violation. Save a lot of time. --John (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Any admin may have warned him, JM could of done so to.Blethering Scot 10:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, he's been warned now. --John (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Im glad you did, just a shame others didn't.Blethering Scot 11:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, he's been warned now. --John (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Any admin may have warned him, JM could of done so to.Blethering Scot 10:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
April 2014
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. the panda ₯’ 12:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Jmorrison230582 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I believe this is an absurd over-reaction against me. I apologise for revealing a twitter identity on this site. I have never been blocked in several years of editing this website. I was merely pointing out what I believe is an obvious WP:COI in User:Blethering Scot's comments on Talk:Leigh Griffiths. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have reviewed the discussion and your apology below. Thank you for making that apology; it is an important step in the right direction.
However, I think that the apology could and should have been clearer. It is good that you accept the policy, because without that the indef block would stand. However, a bare acceptance of policy is inadequate. Before lifting the block, I would like to see a clearer statement from you that you understand the irrevocable nature of a breach of privacy, and the potentially serious consequences of doing so. Before making a further unblock request, please also read WP:NOTTHEM. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Jmorrison230582 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I apologise for revealing a twitter identity on this site. I have never been blocked in several years of editing this website. I believe there is a WP:COI in User:Blethering Scot's comments on Talk:Leigh Griffiths, but that did not justify my decision to post his details. I promise not to violate WP:OUTING in future. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Per apologies and discussion below, unblocking seems reasonable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have no reason to want you to be blocked, if you have evidence of on wiki bias towards Griffiths then please point that out to me. My personal views only voiced outside of Wikipedia are irrelevant unless i introduce bias or suggest bias to the page, in fact you pointed out to me that I've chosen to edit the page only twice over the years. I never actually raised the suggestion that this information should be included in the page a sysop and another editor did. I merely provided the clear evidence in better sources to back up the already made suggestions. This comes down to the fact that I'm a Hearts supporter not a Hibs one like yourself, in fact I've just spent time updating the Hibs article for you. It will be the last time i try and help you out. An apology would of been nice as to you being blocked, i don't really want you to be.Blethering Scot 12:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Jmorrison, have you read WP:OUTING? Do you understand the dangerous of linking real life identities to on-Wiki identities, and why the block was a necessity? Wikipedia needs to take such actions very seriously, and it's therefore not an over-reaction, nor is it absurd - you violated someone's personal privacy, and that person (and the project) need to be protected from that the panda ₯’ 12:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- ... and I have just had to REVDEL another posting in this talkpage as it gave the world directions on how to find out the off-wiki identity of that individual. Further such actions will lead to removal of the talkpage access the panda ₯’ 13:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- For what it's worth (not much), I am not a Hibs supporter now. I have not been to a Hibs match in years because I have lived in Cornwall since 2010. The only reason Griffiths was re-added to my watchlist recently was because he is a Scotland player. (I have had a recent project of improving and creating articles for Scotland and Scotland U21 players.) The reason I was able to identify you on twitter is that your old username on here was exactly the same as that handle. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Mate, DP was 100% correct in blocking you, outing is never acceptable on wikipedia in any shape or form. Up till that point you'd handled the situation completely by the book, in fact looking at the discussion on WP:ANI it was going your way as you were 100% correct in upholding BLP. Your unblock request as it stands will fall on deaf ears, you need to recognise you shouldn't have outed ever, and that you won't do it again. I've interacted with DP before and whilst we often don't see eye to eye, DP is reasonable and fair but right now you've left him with no choice. WCMemail 12:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
- Can you please just simply apologise and be unblocked. User:Wee Curry Monster the ANi was never requested against him, it was requested against the page protection. As JM goes he is usually a great editor, which is why I'm unhappy he has decided to look at my personal life which means I've now had to delete my accounts one of which was used only to promote wikipedia pages. Something I was actually proud of doing.Blethering Scot 13:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Apology
- I accept the policy of WP:OUTING as stated. I was not previously aware of this policy, having not subjected another user to harrassment (or been subject to it myself). I apologise to User:Blethering Scot for doing that, although I still believe that he has a conflict of interest in the article concerned. As stated above, I have edited this site for several years without incident. This was an error by me, provoked by several hours of another user adding what I believed to be libellous material to a BLP and related discussion. Now that I am aware of the policy, it will not happen again. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I accept your apology. However if if had made the suggestion then i may agree, but i never all i have done is provided the suitable sources. Ive asked you also to include more neutral and positive information about the player as well, which was a reasonable suggestion and would of balance article out more. The information suggested isn't libalous given conviction and was actually written fairly neutrally, the only way to make more neutral is to add the details of the players apologies for these incidents which he has made and is sourcable. Personally feel we should both not edit the article, as you clearly feel unusually passionate about the player, as much as you say I do. Shall we both agree to leave it alone?Blethering Scot 13:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for accepting my apology. I think your suggestion for us to leave the article is constructive, but perhaps unworkable as other users and IP addresses will wish to edit it, particularly when the investigations to the recent incidents are concluded. That is assuming that I have any say in the matter! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sure there are other editors who will be willing to watch the page. It was just a suggestion that I felt would help the situation further, I for one don't want the hassle. Blethering Scot 13:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for accepting my apology. I think your suggestion for us to leave the article is constructive, but perhaps unworkable as other users and IP addresses will wish to edit it, particularly when the investigations to the recent incidents are concluded. That is assuming that I have any say in the matter! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I accept your apology. However if if had made the suggestion then i may agree, but i never all i have done is provided the suitable sources. Ive asked you also to include more neutral and positive information about the player as well, which was a reasonable suggestion and would of balance article out more. The information suggested isn't libalous given conviction and was actually written fairly neutrally, the only way to make more neutral is to add the details of the players apologies for these incidents which he has made and is sourcable. Personally feel we should both not edit the article, as you clearly feel unusually passionate about the player, as much as you say I do. Shall we both agree to leave it alone?Blethering Scot 13:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@User:BrownHairedGirl : Although I believe that User:Blethering Scot has a COI, it in no way justified my decision to post his twitter details. I now understand this and pledge not to repeat these actions with any users in future. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 3:57 pm, Today (UTC+1)
- Hi, I suggest you revert the changes you made to the unblock request and make a new one. Making changes a declined unblock request in the way you did is confusing. Also because it remains a closed request there's a fair chance no one will review it again (particularly in cases where there is less attention to your talk page then there is at the moment). Nil Einne (talk) 4:08 pm, Today (UTC+1)
- JM I have and never will show any on Wikipedia bias towards this or any other Hibs player, my personal views are that my personal views. Just like my work I keep Wikipedia and personal life seperatly as it should always remain. Unless you can provide evidence of any past history of bias on wiki towards this player then I suggest you drop it. I have put a very reasonable question to you as my bias is no more evident than yours, the ball is in your court as they say. Blethering Scot 16:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Newark by-election Infobox
Hi. Request you to provide your opinion regarding the inclusion of candidates in an infobox of an ongoing by-election here. Thanks. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
ElectricTattiebogle
[1] FYI WCMemail 18:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Warned per the result of the 3RR case
Please see WP:AN3#User:Jmorrison230582 reported by User:SSHamilton (Result: Both warned). The next time either of you reverts (before getting a talk page consensus) you may be blocked. WP:DR explains how you can get more opinions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
[2] Looks like we were right. Regards, WCMemail 22:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Removal of Source?
Why did you remove the source of the 8-9 May Scottish Independence referendum opinion poll (found here?). Italay90 (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)