This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dolovis. 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.
Dolovis, Thank you so much for capturing a few Van Gogh articles about the Old Tower at Nuenen that needed to be redirected. Very much appreciated!!! I've not seen anything about bolding titles of paintings in the WP:VAMOS or in practice. Just so I better understand going forward, did you bold the names of the paintings in Old Church Tower at Nuenen ('The Peasants' Churchyard') image captions because of the redirect? Another reason? Thanks again!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Good work on the Old Tower article! It is a very effective way of organizing the information for these paintings. From my observations, it is common practice to bold the titles that are redirects. I do not know if this practice is suggested is in the manual of style or not, but I think that it improves the appearance of the article, and also assists the reader who may have found the article by way of the redirect. Dolovis (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey, great to see someone else working on these with me. Could you please leave the player signings at the bottom of the transactions sections so we keep the seasons looking uniform? It was like this at least the 3 previous seasons, so let's try to keep it that way. Also when using a signing reference, could we please try to use the team's official website? "team.nhl.com" That way we aren't sending people to many different websites if they want to look at the reference. Appreciate the fact that someone else is doing it with me, I've definitely felt like I've been working alone on these pages! Thanks! Piemann16 (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I am happy to collaborate with you to keep the teams' current season pages updated. It is my opinion that putting the Player Signing at the top of the Transactions section makes logical sense, as this section will (hopefully) provide a comprehensive and chronological list of all of the team's signings throughout the year - with the transactions below it breaking the signing down by type of signings as appropriate (such as Free Agent signings). If uniformity is your only concern, then previous season's article can also be edited to conform. As for references, while team.nhl.com does often provide a Press Release for signings, other sources may also provide the required verifiability, with the additional benefit of potentially providing additional editorial information that may not be included within the standard NHL press release. There is no reason why we should not include more than one source if available. Cheers! Dolovis (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Definitely see what you're saying about the multiple sources, I've been using the "Player signings" section as a place to list signings of prospects or re-signings of players that were previously under contract with the team, the seperating and free agent signings in the free agent section rather than listing the signings twice. I guess it's all up to personal preference, so since I've been the main editor for a few seasons that's how I saw it, but now with more people working on it, it surely could be a topic to bring up to a possible vote or something like that. Piemann16 (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that you are open to my idea of moving the player signings to the top of the Transactions list? If so, I will continue to put the player signings in chronological order at the top, and to establish a uniform template for all the teams for the 2011-12 season. It is easier to decide upon a format now and add to it, then it will be to try to update multiple articles to conformity at a later date after numerous signings have been listed. I look forward to your continued feedback. Dolovis (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep the player singings at the bottom (have it going trades, then free agents acquired/lost next to each other, then the waivers, then player signings) and only including the prospects and re-singings in that "Player signings" section if you are ok with it, keeping any free agent signings seperate (maybe adding a date category to that section). I think keeping it this way (as I have done in the previous 2-3 seasons of team season pages) would be less work on both of us and I feel like it looks nice on the previous seasons. Again, nice to see passion about keeping these season articles going strong and I am definitely open to suggestions/changes! Piemann16 (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
One-line stubs
It isn't useful to create one-line stubs that state "X played for Y at the 20xx IIHF World Championship". A reader would click on a link hoping to find more information on the player; this sort of one-line stub defeats the purpose, as it is redundant to the team page. If the reader searches for the item, then that information would be better conveyed by the team page. All of this would not be as problematic if your creations didn't have to prodded (correctly!) for lack of sourcing, and then renamed, or they required other basic fixes. Wikipedia has more than enough biographies of marginally notable people that are underwatched, and adding such BLPs, which are one line long and unsourced, makes this problem worse. Maxim(talk)21:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The basic concept of creating a stub article is to provide adequate context for other editors to expand upon. Please feel free to build upon the ice hockey article's as you find the time and inclination. Dolovis (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you undestand WP:BLP, and consequently, the ethical issues with creating an underwatched substub that is unlikely to be expanded, on a marginally notable athlete, which is freely editable and most likely one of the top Google hits on the person in question. You really shouldn't be editing biographies of living people if my previous assumptions are correct. Maxim(talk)00:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This isn't the first time that this problem has been brought to your attention. These one sentence sub-stubs are not beneficial to the project, are very unlikely to be expanded - god knows you'll never do it - and show only that you can read the roster page on the IIHF's website. Since polite discourse has failed to yield any results, I have therefore deleted your latest batch of sub-stub BLPs per WP:IAR. If you wish to find sources to re-create viable articles, feel free to do so, but for the benefit of Wikipedia, take the effort to do a reasonable job of it yourself. Don't try to download the work of creating viable stubs to other editors. Resolute00:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Given these concerns from multiple users about this user creating one-line stubs, I have revoked autopatrolled privileges to ensure the normal review process of new articles created by this user. Toddst1 (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Winnipeg NHL Team, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Team does not exist. It may in the future, but it does not exist yet. I know you people want the Atlanta Thrashers to be confirmed to be moving. But the NHL has not yet announced it and made it Official. Therefor this page should removed.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Dr. Pizza (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how major Wikipedia edits work, but I knew in general that there is no Winnipeg team yet. Thats all. It wasn't anything against you. :) But If it wasn't me, someone else would have. So i apologize for coming off like a newbie. But this place goes by facts, not speculation. And that was my own Criteria that i went by.--Dr. Pizza (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Appropriate notification
...and can I ask a question? You canvassed a whole range of users (including IP editors) regarding an RFC ... how did you do that so quickly? You actually have 2 per minute! (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
If you think that my edits are quick, perhaps you should look into getting a faster Internet connection for your own computer. I did not use any bot or automated editor, if that is what you are asking. I gave appropriate notification to those editors who had contributed to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Following the edit history for the article, I made the limited posting that was neutral, nonpartisan, and open. Dolovis (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
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.
I should be around when the announcement happens, so if there is a need for some moves and redirect deletes (should they go with Moose or Jets as a team name), I'll try to take care of it quickly so the draft article can go live. Otherwise, other admins will undoubtedly be around. I half suspect that someone's going to create another new article about 2 seconds after the press conference starts, so probably a history merge will be required also. Resolute13:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Why not just move it now (2 hours early) and save all the trouble. Once an official name is announced it can be moved to the correct team name title at that time. Dolovis (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
For the same reason it was userfied in the first place: It is speculation until the league confirms. It's only about 90 more minutes... Resolute14:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I get what you are saying, and you are probably right. But officially, there is no Winnipeg NHL team until so announced. FWIW, at the end of the 1994-95 season, the Winnipeg papers were lamenting the demise of the Jets and how the team was moving to Minnesota in the summer. What appears to be a done deal isn't always so. Resolute15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Heh, I see you moved it already anyway. No worries. I did delete the cross-namespace redirect, however. Resolute16:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dolovi, you may want to keep an eye on this pape. A user by the name Skol fir has been posting false information. Best Babafat22a (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I struck out the above inappropriate comment according to your own instructions above. This was pure vandalism. Period. --Skol fir (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Dolovis, I happen to be a victim of WP:Wikihounding by a purely disruptive editor, User:Porgers, who has been using numerous sockpuppets over the last two weeks. If you look at the pattern of edits he has done, most tend to be nonsense and unfounded, just what he is accusing me of doing. His message to you was a red herring. As for User:Toddst1 removing the comment above, he was just following through on removing any false accusations being spread by this person. I am surprised that you allow such a vindictive comment to sit on your Talk Page without at least qualifying it. Therefore, I am doing so. Carry on. --Skol fir (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Racepacket (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.
A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
No rollback rights
Your user page states that you have rollback rights. You do not. You shouldn't display that userbox. Toddst1 (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I did not even realize that I had a rollbacker userbox there until you pointed it out. I think that I must have been trying to add an Autopatrolled rights user box and just made a mistake. I have removed it. Dolovis (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
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.
Djsasso, you know very well that the sock puppet allegation was demonstrated to be a false positive, and that all of the editors involved were unblocked. You have also read the top of this talk page where I have politely stated: "If you have come here to harass or bait me, please don't." Because it appears that you have intentionally ignored my request, I am now requesting that you stay off my talk page. Thank you. Dolovis (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know that. It was actually demonstrated to be probable. What you were given was a second chance. Or third since it happened twice. You also realize you can't ban people from your page right? -DJSasso (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
It was actually found to be "Possible / Inconclusive" which is a far cry from confirmed, and in the end it was demonstrated to be an untrue allegation. That is why all of the accounts that you accused (the alleged socks and puppets) were unblocked. And yes, I can ban editors from my talk page, and you are banned from my talk. Do not post here again. Dolovis (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You're going to want to take a peak over at WP:UP#OWN, Dolovis; specifically the quote "a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to". You have no right to "ban" a user from your talk page, you can only request they do not post. Threatening reporting of a user goes against Wikipedia policy regarding user pages, and is far more of a "ban" than a "request to not post". – Nurmsook!talk...16:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
As my page top paragraph clearly states, this talk page is open to receiving appropriate project notices and communications, and there is no attempt here to avoid administrator attention. I do, however, maintain the right to request that a specific editor is not to post to this page. Dolovis (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Poor choice of wording on your part then? Especially considering the situation? Perhaps that's because you're trying to arbitrarily define what you deem the definition of this is "a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to" (emphasis mine). I'd just relax and worry about editing - I suspect you'd avoid such notices and communications entirely by doing so. But that's just my suggestion. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN21:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
As I said, Dolovis, you certainly do maintain the right to request a user do not post on your talk page. But you have ignored the other half of my comment. Comments such as "I can ban editors from my talk page, and you are banned from my talk" are by no means a request to not post, are simply not true according to established Wiki guidelines, and are an aggressive and disruptive style of commentary that certainly does not take the civil tone that you wish to represent on your talk page according to the header to which you have referred. – Nurmsook!talk...01:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you have already made your POV known, and since we are now repeating ourselves, it seems that this discussion has run its course, so this discussion on this talk page is now closed. Dolovis (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Season numbers
Hello. I notice you're creating BLP articles. Just note that "2011" in a roster at Eliteprospects' website is the ending year of the season. In other words, it should be 2010–11 Elitserien season. Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 22:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Beaulieu until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. USA1168 (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Howdy Dolovis. I'm not too surprised by those current page moves to diacritics via by-passing RM. That's how alot of the hockey player articles ended up with diacritics to be begin with. Years ago, the pro-dios pushers arbitrarily moved them & then began shouting "it's the correct names" & "it's a consensus". Anyways, you can appreciate the frustrations I have on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that the NYT article might be used to improve the current policy and clarify wp:Diacritics. Thanks for bringing it up! Let's work together into improving the wikipolicy. See my edit here. Divide et Impera (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
My talk page isn't really the place to discuss this kind of thing; you'd do better to gain consensus on the talk page and then use the {{editprotected}} template to get an admin's attention. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The change was made without consensus, but you say a consensus is required to revert it back to a status quo? That is not right. Proper WP:BRD process says that the article should revert back to the status quo before the discussion takes place. Dolovis (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
As the protecting admin, it's not my place to decide what does and does not belong in the page: I protected it because edit warring was going on, and stability is important. Requests to change the content of a protected page are supposed to be made at the respective page's talk, not the talk page of the administrator who protected it. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Edit war
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not involved in any edit war. I've made just two edits to that page in the past week, and those edits were six days apart, and made in keeping with the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Have you given the "other party" in this alleged edit war the same warning? Dolovis (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If you don't think [1] and [2] is edit warring, then you don't understand the policy. If you think additional warnings are in order, then issue them. Your history of conflict around diacritical marks speaks for itself. Toddst1 (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not make vague and unsubstantiated accusations of me. It appears to me that you have demonstrated a COI against me ever since I posted this message to you talk page. Dolovis (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ice Hockey Players
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hello there. I noticed that you've been very busy making new articles about ice hockey players. At the moment these are all stub article with very little content. The only notability of any of the players seems to be that they all played for HC Litvínov. I would suggest that these stubs be merged into that club's article. — Fly by Night(talk)14:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking an interest in the articles that I have created. Please know that hockey players who have played in the Czech Extraliga meet the first criteria of WP:NHOCKEY and are therefore deemed notable for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. Merging should be avoided as stub articles about notable ice hockey players can be expanded. Cheers. Dolovis (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I am aware of that, as my comment at the merger discussion page shows. The subjects of these articles only just make it through on a single point of WP:NHOCKEY. Which does not mean they are notable, but "presumably notabable". A much better idea would be to create an article like HC Litvínov 2010/11 Squad; instead of having a series of single sentence stubs. — Fly by Night(talk)16:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I have reinstated the merge template that you removed. The idea is that the community enter into discussion. If community consensus is that the articles are worthwhile as standalone articles, or there is indifference, then the template should be removed. You need to give a reasonable amount of time for a discussion to occur. — Fly by Night(talk)16:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you really think that it's a good idea to keep churning out one sentence stub after one sentence stub? These articles only just manage to scrape through WP:NHOCKEY by the skin of their teeth. Even after the merger tags from earlier, instead of improving those 16 stubs, you are starting to create more stubs. One of the rationales in favour of merging is "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." Can you see any of these stubs being expanded within a reasonable amount of time? Please, try to focus on quality and not quantity. — Fly by Night(talk)00:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, yes. I fully expect that all of the articles are likely to be expanded. These are all notable professional athlete's who are playing at an elite level in a premier league. Your tagging for merge is premature. I would expect an editor who is acting in good faith to wait a reasonable amount of time before tagging newly created articles for merging. The proof will be in the pudding. Dolovis (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Quite so! I guarantee that they won't get expanded. They are far too obscure. If they were team captains, top scorers, or fan favorites then maybe. But the majority are nobodies, they play in a non-anglophone country, and they have articles on the English language Wikipedia. How many people in the English speaking world have even heard of HC Litvínov?! Both you and I know that these playes are only just "presumably notable" (it could be argued that their notability has not been demonstrated in these stub articles) and that the merge rationale tells you that a merger would be a good idea. I would assume good faith, but I see that you churn out the same mass produced articles over and over again using the same page creation tool. Why don't you spend some time padding out these articles instead of trying to inflate your articles created figure? I'll say again: Please, focus on quality and not quantity. — Fly by Night(talk)01:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
You comments above brings the concept of ethnocentrism to mind. If you believe that notability has not been demonstrated in an article, then you should follow the appropriate deletion process. And I do not use a "creation tool". I didn't even know there was such a thing. Dolovis (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
For those interested editors who enjoy following my talk page, the merge discussion referred to above can be found at Talk:HC Litvínov. You input is welcome, so please continue this discussion at that location. Cheers.Dolovis (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Very, very sad
I find it sad that you make claims of ethnocentrism, and then close off the discussion so as not to let the accused defend himself. It's a repeating pattern on your talk page, isn't it? You seem to be an active censor when it comes to discussing your editing activities. It's not just me that thinks so either. I'd recommend you follow your own advice and read the merger discussion. The tide is changing. — Fly by Night(talk)04:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
As I have clearly stated at the top of this page, this is my talk page, so I will choose which discussions will continue, and which discussions will not. I closed the above discussion on this talk page so that further comments concerning the mergers would be directed to the proper forum; and although I do not think it was necessary, it is self-evident from your above comment that you have not been denied your opportunity to "defend" yourself. So cheer up and make your points for merging the articles within the merge discussion that you have started. Cheers! Dolovis (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Ya may have to slow down on the article creations & concentrate on expansion. I reckon the mass creation of non-diacritics titled article stubs, might be seen by some as a sorta court packing thing. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
My past experience with GoodDay leads me to believe that he is a well intentioned editor, so I am assuming good faith and will not construe his above comment to be a Wikipedia:No-edit order. I don't know what "court packing" means in this context, but at any rate, all articles that I have created conform to the Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria. If any editor disagrees, then they should follow the appropriate deletion policy. I remain encouraged by the words of the administrator DGG who recently wrote in addressing my editing style: “As the encyclopedia is a continuing project relying on the principle of communal sourcing, to start articles and hope others will finish them is acceptable procedure, and I would not even ask someone who did it to change the way they work, I commend Dolovis for creating valid stubs. I commend him all the more that he has greatly expanded them. Some of them were challenged very early, before he could reasonably have had a chance--exactly the way we do not want to treat editors. It would be very regrettable if the personal view of a few editors—totally unsupported by policy or consensus—that stubs are unhealthy, were permitted to affect Wikipedia” [emphasis mine].
The pro-dios gang likely believe you're creating alot of stubs to bolster the 'no dios' in article titles argument (i.e. court packing). GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The creation of articles for Czech Extraliga players has nothing to do with the dios discussion, and your introduction of that red-herring into the discussion is regretful. The players' articles have been created because they are notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article. End of story. Dolovis (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The frustrating thing about these mass article creations, is that they lead to mass page movements to diacritics, via compliance with WP:HOCKEY's diacritics compromise. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
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.
The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. I trust that explains the current Wikipedia policy as it relates to this issue. Dolovis (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, WP:AT says very little about diacritics. The advice applies mostly to whether it should be Bill Clinton or William Clinton (or even William Jefferson Clinton). The reason why a spelling without diacritics would be more common in English-language media, is merely that those characters are available not on an English keyboard (at least not as easily as the others). It's not a deliberate choice.
So, when it comes to counting the spelling variants, one could maintain that "Mattias Bäckman" should really be counted together with "Mattias Backman" as one variant, statistically.
I see that you're already reverting my requests for speddy deletions of teh redirects. Please obtain a concensus before you go ahead and make such drastic mass-moves from a very long-stadning concensus over article titles, which will draw criticism, as you have already noticed.
Please be aware that this issue has been fully discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) with no consensus being reached to support the preference of diacritics over English in article titles. This means that the policies of WP:AT and WP:EN remain in full force and effect. It is your edits to delete proper redirects which is contrary to policy. Please stop. Dolovis (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
You're using words to convey a consensus. While no consensus was reached to support the preference of diacritics over English in article titles, no consensus was reached to support the preference of English over diacritics in article titles either. – Nurmsook!talk...15:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
My words read clear to me. Since there is no consensus to change to policy of WP:EN or WP:AT, then those policies are what we, as editors, must continue to abide by. Dolovis (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stop reverting my requests for speedy deletion of the redirects created by your unilateral actions. If you're so certain you're the one who's right, then obtaining a new concensus on WP:HOCKEY should be done in no time, right? So what's the big hurry?
This behavior of yours is totally anti-wiki, and if you don't stop, you might find yourself blocked very soon. Consider this a friendly warning.
On the subject matter, the single (!) WP:AT example you are referring to is not a proper noun, and so does not apply for personal names. And in WP:EN the concensus is that diacritics are neither encouraged nor discouraged. Lacking definitive direction there, the concensus in WP:HOCKEY applies, and that is "what we, as editors, must continue to abide by".
First, there is no consensus to encourage the use of non-English titles in WP:HOCKEY, and second, even if there was a project cannot not over-rule a wiki-wide policy. Dolovis (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
You've just made my point. The only way one can justify the use of diacritics in article titles is to ignore all policy. Dolovis (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Not really. My point was about policy in general. Not this specific case. Obviously as I have stated in many of the discussions I feel policy already supports this use. I was just pointing out that any editor can over-rule policy if its preventing the wiki from being improved. Anyways that is all I had to say. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
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.
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.
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 don't get into a revert war over the diacritics. You may propose your preferred approach for discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey, but it's simply not appropriate to get into edit wars with other users over this — and it's also not appropriate to simply impose your preferred approach to titles if you can't get a consensus for it. The "Use English" naming convention is a guideline, not an inviolable rule, and it's a guideline which explicitly states that there are numerous cases where an alternative convention prevails for perfectly valid reasons (for instance, we use call signs instead of on-air brand names for radio and television stations, we err on the side of "official spelling in native language" in many cases where English usage is inconsistent or ambiguous, and we place most plant and animal species at their Latin names to preclude debate about which name to use in cases where the species has different "common names" in different countries) — so you need to discuss this, not get into a battle about it. I also need to remind you that you can be temporarily editblocked if you violate WP:3RR. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
"roster" is not a proper noun, and thus should not be capitalized. So could you please write "Slavia Praha HC's 2010-11 roster" instead of "Slavia Praha HC's 2010-11 Roster"?
Reply: As the title of the external link it should properly be in Title Case.
Yes it is. It is an in-line citation to an external website, but if you feel strongly about this - please change it. Dolovis (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The title of the external link in this case is either "Slavia Praha 2010-11 Scoring at hockeydb.com" or "2010-11 Scoring for Slavia Praha HC (Czech)", depending what one views as the title of a page. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
for non-North American players, international date format should be used,
Reply: Per WP:DATESNO either format is acceptable.
Actually, articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently. (My bold.) See WP:STRONGNAT. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
please use "Template:Infobox ice hockey player" instead of "Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player", as the latter (camel-case version) is a redirect to the former.
Thanks again.
Reply: Thank you for the heads up on this change, and in the future I will use "Template:Infobox ice hockey player".
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.
No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.
We would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.
Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matti Koistinen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —AssassiN's Creed (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ville Laine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —AssassiN's Creed (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
You are mistaken to claim that your POV is the "general adopted rule". The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. This has been discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), with no consensus being reached to change the existing policy. I trust that explains the current Wikipedia policy as it relates to this issue. Dolovis (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
All this thousands of examples, all this thousands of articles with diacritics created years before my registration are not my POV... Reguarding the issue of WP:AT, as wroten by Fram: As long as such disagreement is not resolved, it is not up to you to impose your preferred version over other ones by making it impossible for non-admins to move the pages. I'm not interested into follow my personal POV or gaming the system... No comment. --Dэя-Бøяg20:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
This refers to your moving of article from title with diacritics in the to titles without diacritics. I strongly suggest that you do not move any more articles unless consensus is first gained, otherwise you 'may be blocked indefinitely. Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Please note that I am, in fact, making page moves in accordance with policy (see WP:COMMONNAME). There has been an-ongoing RfC for well over a month at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, which is discussing this matter at length and, at only 50% support, it does not look like it will get a consensus. Again, I am acting in accordance with the policy as it is currently written. Also, the warning makes it sound as if I am currently moving article en masse, when in fact I have only made four moves in the last two weeks. Dolovis (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
You forgot to mention the redirect edits that you've made, intentionally gaming the system. You are (deliberately?) misunderstanding what the ANI is about. It is not about diacritics or not - it is about your behaviour. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Why didn't you do it in one edit? You can't be forgetting it all the time. You are deliberately making "mistakes", so that non-admins will not be able move the articles back. Remember that there are logs on wikipedia, and it's easy to see a user's pattern of behavior (as well as earlier ANIs). HandsomeFella (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
It is the controversial movement of articles, without discussion, to article titles that do not conform to the policy of WP:AT which is disruptive. The only reason a non-admin editor would be concerned is if he/she intended to make such a disruptive move. If you wish to suggest a move, then please follow procedure of Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dolovis (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not bringing up the issue of diacritics, I'm bringing up the issue of your behaviour. Do I have to spell it out? (As if I haven't already.) HandsomeFella (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Editing redirects
Even if the above page move restriction would be lifted, you need to stop creating redirects and then editing those again. This was mentioned in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive709#Gaming the system, but you have continued doing this over and over again on every diacritics move you made since then. If you create a redirect, do it in one edit, or don't do it at all. Continuation of this gaming of the system (as it was aptly described) will also get you indefinitely blocked. Fram (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
First, I am under no move restriction. Second, I have tagged redirects in accordance with WP:REDCAT. Please point me to the policy or consensus which supports your unilateral block warning. Dolovis (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
It is a form of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, making it deliberatley impossible for other people to undo your moves and/or moving articles you created to the version with diacritics. There is no reason to add the category in a second edit, when you could just as well do it in one edit. Doing this over and over again, coupled with the previous different versions of edits with the same result (as shown in the previous ANI discussion) make it very clear that you have only one aim with these edits. This is your version of WP:OWN and WP:FAITACCOMPLI. Please stop it. Fram (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
It is the controversial movement of articles, without discussion, to article titles that do not conform to the policy of WP:AT which is disruptive. The only reason a non-admin editor would be concerned is if he/she intended to make such a disruptive move. Dolovis (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
There is serious disagreement about whether your preferred (non-diacritics) names is the policy-conform one or not. As long as such disagreement is not resolved, it is not up to you to impose your preferred version over other ones by making it impossible for non-admins to move the pages. You are both moving pages to non-diacritic versions, and restricting other users from doing the opposite by using two edits when creating a redirect. You are trying to exploit a technical feature of the Wiki software to win a content or style dispute. This is disruptive. Further instances of this will be blocked. Even if you are right in how the pages should be titled (which is far from certain), you are not entitled to impose this in such a way. Fram (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
