User talk:Blethering Scot

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Welcome to my talk page!
-Blethering Scot (BS)

Date: Monday, 18 August. Time: 06 hrs 18 min(s) 23 second(s) (UTC+1)

Status: Around

MCFC

[edit]

If you would please revert the edit to the Manchester city fc page so that all the fixtures are there that would be great. Footballl club pages have always had all the fixtures nd that shouldn't change. You say wikipedia isnt a news site, so it isnt but facts about the fixtures for a football club is not news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.89.210 (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly. Want fixtures go to the BBC, go to Skysports, go to the club web page. We aren't a directory, we are an encyclopaedia. Blethering Scot 14:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

go look at the last 10-15 seasons. youve been on here for 17 years is it? and you havent seen that they always have all the fixtures. if you dont revert it ill just edit it myself but it would be so much easier if you just did it after all more of us want it than you the one person who doesnt e.g. liverpool page brighton page etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.89.210 (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BS, please STOP edit warring - otherwise I will have to block. GiantSnowman 10:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not currently edit warring with anyone. But I will absolutely defend my position. The MOS needs massive work, we are at the point where I am finding stuff that deffo isn’t in line with MOS and I’m just letting it rot there. Blethering Scot 10:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman Just go say it’s also clear to me that the football project has become even more toxic than it was. It’s a shame as it used to be a good area to work in. Now we have people arguing we should use flags cause there pretty. Total mess. I would have been happy to work with others on making the club season MOS match what others seem to think it does. It’s massively outdated. I am not sure there is any point when it’s this hostile. Blethering Scot 10:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways and means of enforcing MOS - I actually agree with you on removing flags btw. That does not excuse edit warring. GiantSnowman 10:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman Yip. I know it’s always been the case with the flags. If you go back more than around 5 season you start not seeing them on friendlies. That’s largely cause I’m sure it was me that removed them pre Covid. MOS clearly backs that up.
Its so frustrating because the arguments I’m getting are not valid. I am not going to stop removing them, but will stay away from certain users as not worth the hastle. Blethering Scot 10:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, flags should be removed - but not though edit warring! GiantSnowman 10:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman So in what way do you want me to address it, because this is a case of multiple editors wishing their articles to remain that way. I feel totally unsupported in something that clearly should be happening.
As ive said already I’m got going to interact with them, but I’ve literally had enough of being beaten down, for doing something exactly as we should. Blethering Scot 10:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn’t not should. Blethering Scot 10:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post at WP:FOOTBALL as you have done to get support. If needed, approach an uninvolved admin/WP:RFPP and get the page protected. GiantSnowman 10:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will do that because of respect for you more than anything. I don’t feel footy is particularly supportive. Blethering Scot 10:29, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LCFC

[edit]

The same as the guy about Man City above. go look at the last 10-15 seasons. youve been on here for 17 years is it? and you havent seen that they always have all the fixtures. if you dont revert it ill just edit it myself but it would be so much easier if you just did it after all more of us want it than you the one person who doesnt e.g. liverpool page brighton page etc.

Can you stop deleting all the fixtures just because you want to enter them. Idkreally6969696 (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 August 2025

[edit]
Plus a mysterious CheckUser incident, and the news with Wikinews.
A review of June, July and August.
Who is this guy?
Threads since June.
And slop.
It's not a conlang, it's a crossword puzzle.
gang aft agley, an' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, for promis'd joy!
Everybody's Somebody's Fool.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Long Scroll”

[edit]

In all my years on this site, I never thought I’d hear “avoids the long scroll” as a reason to make an edit. Is scrolling really that much of an issue? 98AL (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aligning the tables is the case across the vast majority of season articles, including ones you regularly edit. Happy to discuss, but leaving no edit summary and having tables aligned in other articles you created means the revert made little sense. But yes from a visual perspective, the tables and date being aligned makes sense. Several Celtic articles are unnecessary long due to very long tables, which makes comparting difficult. It is a valid reason for tables being aligned. As i said happy to discuss but im interested in the reasons for some being aligned in articles you have created and not wishing it to happen here. Blethering Scot 22:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the alignments I’m using and the one you’re using, don’t look the same. 98AL (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The alignment method is identical. The issue isn’t the alignment it’s the table width. The table has extra columns, which was something I was trying to avoid removing. Blethering Scot 09:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be easily sorted, and I would happily make the table data match. However I am guessing there are other editors who would prefer that table design. Blethering Scot 09:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]