Talk:Mossley A.F.C.

message: Not sure there's much point in having a separate article for the stadium just yet..can always be split off if/when there's enough verifiable info. Paulbrock 14:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. It's not exactly a fortress. Aheyfromhome 14:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge stadium article

message: Reverted removals by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/149.254.217.36
This user vandalized several pages, and I see no reason why he deleted the paragraph, except personal reasons. 85.3.89.29 (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: possible vandalism reverted

message: I have fully protected this article for two days, meaning only admins can edit it, because of ridiculous edit warring over the use of AFC in the club's name. I have no opinion on the matter, but this should be taken as an opportunity to resolve the issue and for each person to explain their position. Discussion has not taken place here or on either the talk pages of  or . Nev1 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Awww, spoiling it! lol. In my opinion, the name bit should include the A.F.C. as it's the clubs full title. However, I see that a lot of other pages do no have the A.F.C., so for uniformity's sake perhaps it shouldn't have the A.F.C. on. Maybe this is a subject for concensus within the non-league football project community (which may or may not have been established already, I haven't checked). Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, one or other party should have mentioned it earlier, but I can't find that. Instead, this silly argument has spread across lots of pages aside from this. Nev1 (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's old news and has been discussed to death at WP:Football. Sarumio has been blocked twice for his actions, but he hasn't yet learned. The fact that a lot of other pages do not have the A.F.C. is down to one person. Have you guessed who it is yet? </Rolf Harris> - Dudesleeper /  Talk 02:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, no, Dudesleeper is a notorious liar! I admit to changing a minority (MINORITY Dudesleeper look the word up) of football club infoboxes to remove the F.C./FC as around 95% originally omitted this information and I wanted to make this the same in each article for Uniformity's sake. Secondly, if any of you would like to check the original header of the infobox (which was plain "Mossley" right from when the infobox was first coded - and also if people would like to see who added the A.F.C tag on the 16th August 2009. No prizes for who added it. I've also created two new infoboxes at Clymping F.C. and Little Common F.C. a few weeks ago and Dudesleeper has been insisting ever since on the inclusion of F.C. in the header. These arent the only articles. Before you try sticking the knife in Dudesleeper with mentions of previous blocks try ensuring your own lies are water tight and that your own conscience is clear! Sarumio (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have noticed I'm only reinstating the A.F.C./F.C. appendage when omitting them leaves the name of the city/town in which the team plays, won't you? I believe the consensus was in favour of this. - Dudesleeper /  Talk 12:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dudesleeper, can you provide some links to where consensus was arrived (ie: a bit more specific that WP:Football)? Nev1 (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, when I have the time to dig. For now, see this reversion from today, by someone who I haven't even conversed with on the matter. There have been other reversions by other editors over the months, which I'll link to accordingly as well. Dudesleeper /  Talk 01:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Has there been any progress with this? Nev1 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My paper trail ended here. Can't find the ANI. - Dudesleeper /  Talk 13:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And today I'm reminded that Sarumio likes to attempt to go under the radar, but again fails miserably. - Dudesleeper /  Talk 17:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And again. - Dudesleeper /  Talk 12:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fairly blatant disruption as far as I'm concerned. I've blocked the latest IP and have started a suspected sock puppet investigation. More evidence will be handy. Nev1 (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mossley Young Men F.C. which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 16:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: New players need adding - I have the information so am I allowed to add them? Matthew Hayton (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New players need adding 

message: Am I allowed to do this please? Matthew Hayton (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs a lot of updating 

message: The following players need adding:
Pos.	Nation	Player
GK	England ENG	Dale Latham
DF	England ENG	Paul Riley
FW	England ENG	Mason Fawns
The follwing player needs updating from:
MF	England ENG	Sam Kilner
To
DF	England ENG	Sam Kilner
Thank you,
Matthew Hayton
Matthew Hayton (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Number 57 17:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squad needs updating and correcting