10 June 2023

• 22:21 22:21, 10 June 2023 diff hist +332‎ User talk:Paul Vaurie ‎ →‎CPFC Website: Reply Tag: Reply
• 22:14 22:14, 10 June 2023 diff hist +1,037‎ User talk:Paul Vaurie ‎ →‎CPFC Website: new section Tag: New topic
• 21:44 21:44, 10 June 2023 diff hist −2,731‎ Crystal Palace F.C. ‎ Undid revision 1159365594 by Paul Vaurie ( talk) Butland is training with Rangers, Lokonga has gone back to Arsenal. Who is Nascimento?? I don't recall Balmer making an appearance either Tags: Undo Reverted

21 May 2023

• 12:04 12:04, 21 May 2023 diff hist +399‎ Talk:Crystal Palace F.C. ‎ →‎The Official CPFC Website: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
• 11:30 11:30, 21 May 2023 diff hist +759‎ Talk:Crystal Palace F.C. ‎ →‎The Official CPFC Website: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
• 10:47 10:47, 21 May 2023 diff hist +748‎ Talk:Crystal Palace F.C. ‎ →‎The Official CPFC Website: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply

12 April 2023

• 18:32 18:32, 12 April 2023 diff hist +1,289‎ Talk:Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎What is a historian – do Manning and Martyniuk qualify?: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
• 17:06 17:06, 12 April 2023 diff hist +1,152‎ Talk:Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎What is a historian – do Manning and Martyniuk qualify?: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply

11 April 2023

• 15:41 15:41, 11 April 2023 diff hist +864‎ Talk:Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎What is a historian – do Manning and Martyniuk qualify?: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
• 13:06 13:06, 11 April 2023 diff hist +641‎ Talk:Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎What is a historian – do Manning and Martyniuk qualify?: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
• 12:43 12:43, 11 April 2023 diff hist +1,452‎ User talk:Spike 'em ‎ →‎Crystal Palace 1861: new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic

9 March 2023

• 21:13 21:13, 9 March 2023 diff hist −758‎ Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ his alleged FA Spokesperson said this in April 2022. But the club were allowed to change their crest in June 2022. They must have got ratification other wise they would be claiming a seperate club and the club told the supporters trust they had got ratification otherwise they could not have changed it! I suggest we leave it as ambigious or take it up with the club!!! The FA would not have allowed it Tag: Reverted
• 18:18 18:18, 9 March 2023 diff hist −156‎ Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ Omit fact based on opinion not substantiated Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 18:15 18:15, 9 March 2023 diff hist +4‎ Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ Grammar Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 18:14 18:14, 9 March 2023 diff hist −9‎ Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ The book the claim is based on goes back to 2018 so it should be left as general Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 18:11 18:11, 9 March 2023 diff hist −596‎ Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ It is clear the FA article is actually old as the history facts only go up to 2012, even though it looks like an updated website. In any case Palace had their crest recognised last year as 1861. So at the very worst it should be left as ambigious. It is a claim (not an assertion!) which people do not seem to understand. But if the crest has been recognised, the ambiguity is more in favour of the club. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

27 December 2022

• 12:50 12:50, 27 December 2022 diff hist +47‎ Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎Formation: Added info
• 12:42 12:42, 27 December 2022 diff hist −209‎ Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎Formation: Not true. 6 of the cricketers played in the football club's second match. Citation ref provided (It lists the 6 cricketers)

23 December 2022

• 23:52 23:52, 23 December 2022 diff hist +11‎ m Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎Formation: Minor edit
• 23:50 23:50, 23 December 2022 diff hist −2‎ m Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎Formation: Date clarified
• 23:49 23:49, 23 December 2022 diff hist +5‎ m Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎Formation: Word changed
• 23:48 23:48, 23 December 2022 diff hist 0‎ Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎Formation: Date correction
• 23:46 23:46, 23 December 2022 diff hist +87‎ Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎History: Added missing facts
• 23:38 23:38, 23 December 2022 diff hist −1‎ m Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎Original membership: Section should be titled 'Players'
• 23:36 23:36, 23 December 2022 diff hist +1‎ m Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎Formation
• 23:36 23:36, 23 December 2022 diff hist +9‎ m Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎Formation: Corrected full title
• 23:33 23:33, 23 December 2022 diff hist +61‎ Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎Formation: Re-worded to be neutral to both sides of the argument
• 23:13 23:13, 23 December 2022 diff hist +687‎ Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ The claim should be noted as the FA recognised the new badge, so it is more in favour of the club. But it only mentions it was 'claimed' not a statement of fact, so it should still ne mentioned

23 October 2022

• 18:53 18:53, 23 October 2022 diff hist −3‎ Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎Demise of the club: Eastlake Smith wiki link duplication

15 October 2022

• 23:59 23:59, 15 October 2022 diff hist −18‎ Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ →‎Demise of the club: Wanderers wiki link already appears on previous section
• 23:56 23:56, 15 October 2022 diff hist +672‎ Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) ‎ Reinstated previous intro. Need to respect the club's assertion of a link, even if some people don't agree with it. Tag: Reverted