Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
Why did you delete all information in this article regarding him being German? He is born in Germany and is also German citizen. Or do you have further information? Kind regards --DrunkenGerman (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. For footballers who have played for only one country, we typically use that nationality in the article, as it's the only one notable. Many players have multiple nationalities, for different reasons. For example, according to transfermarkt.com, Sami Khedira is a Tunisian citizen; yet he's not referred as a "Tunusian footballer" in the article. For more information see WP:FOOTBALL and WP:MOSBIO. --Bobcats 23 (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of foreign Bundesliga players
Hi! Vastic was Croatian in 93-94 and only eligible to play for the Croatian national team at that time. That he later became Austrian is not important. The same for Krauss, he was German in 76-77 so there is no sense to list this period. He was not be a foreign player for that time (and also from summer 1984 onwards). I would like to respect this in the list? 89.246.11.178 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Yes I absolutely understand your concerns. But if we would follow your accurate and detailed approach the complexity of the list would dramatically increase, since a lot players change national teams during their careers (sometimes even over and over again during youth ranks). Thus the lists preceding definitions and criteria were created. Now we basically determine the nationality just by caps for the national team or when there are no caps by the country of birth. This rules shall ensure that a player is assigned to the nation he is mostly identified with on international scale. And also for reasons of simplicity the whole career of the player is encompassed. DrunkenGerman (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not speak about the youth. So you would have added Vastic in 1993 under Croatia and after his first cap for Austria in 1996 you would have moved him to Austria? And you would not have added Krauss to the list in 1976, but you would have added him in 1981 after his first cap for Austria? Strange... I do not think that this was the idea of this list, because both cases are definitly wrong... I think it would be better to work this out correctly, this will not take effect to so many players? Let's try to do this! 89.246.53.234 (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bajram Nebihi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kosovar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi - it makes sense to me that the reserve team should go first, because the list is in chronological order, and most players start with the reserve team, then progress to the first team. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Max Reinthaler, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages German and Italian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks. I do think the label number at the end of each note tag is pointless, as far as I'm aware, it doesn't make a difference in the current format either way. it's a bit of a hindrance when you need to duplicate a tag and place it before an existing one, you have to keep updating the label for subsequent notes. VEOonefive09:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jairo Samperio 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:
al Mainz 05 (Jairo, transferred to Mainz 05)]; Sevilla's official website, 29 August 2014 {{es icon}</ref> The transfer fee remained undisclosed but is believed to be €2 million.<ref>{{cite
1. Because of S.L. Benfica (disambiguation) and because text is not displayed "for Portuguese club Benfica". I pipe the link when it's a Portuguese player or current club uses unpiped link. Feel free to change it.
2. There is no rule, in fact, many articles use "as position" in the end when the player is loaned.
3. There is no rule. Benfica is a short name and fits well without <br>. If the name of current club is long, break should be used. Sometimes it changes the size of infobox.
4. I know but when I add <ref></ref> it's just because I want to do it quickly. Anyone can improve it.
5. Yes and it's logic. I have used your advice in other articles of loaned players (and got reverted in some articles). SLBedit (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you and a fellow wikipedian added in BVB II players into the BVB squad template box.
I understand that one or two of them are capped in the Bundesliga this season coming on as substitutes, however there are also players who were unused substitutes in Bundeliga or Champions League (e.g. Amini in CL).
If I am not mistaken, BVB is still assigning them as Reserve Team players. And the point of them appearing on the bench is attributed to the injury crisis in BVB at the start of the season, when Klopp cannot field 18 First Team players to fill the bench.
But at the end of the day they should still be Reserve Team players, and that the Squad List as per BVB.de shall be more accurate than that of Bundesliga.com, on how Borussia Dortmund themselves classify their own players.
On this basis I believe that Reserve players should not be placed in the template, and I would like to know your thoughts on this particular matter, as I saw your remarks in the editing history.
Well, I think it's not that easy to draw a line between the first team and the reserve team's squad. In modern football it's just so common that players are assigned to both teams and are dispatched to a certain team regarding lastest demand or club's ideas.
With that in mind I usually assign all officially registered players (in that case all registered players for the Bundesliga) to that respective team template. In my point of view other approaches would only lead to confusion und inaccuracies. DrunkenGerman (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of assigning players to both sides, Sarr, Bandowski, Bonmann and Alomerovic are all Bundesliga registered for both sides as per bvb.de, which I regard them as those who are really assigned for both sides. While I understand the liquidity is the flow of the players, please correct me if I am wrong, that Reserve Team players are all officially registered under their club alongside the First Teamers(In this case, all BVBII players should be registered as BVB players), but assigned to the reserve team. In that case I believe all BVB players fulfill the criteria of being officially registered to be on the template. Maybe I just misunderstood the principles?
I have gone through the Bundelisga official website squad list for BVB, and also the match reports of BVB for clarification. What I believe Bundesliga website is doing is that they are adding ALL BVB players who have ever worn a first team jersey into the squad list even if they are unused subs. (Jon Stankovic for BuLi, Mustafa Amini for CL) For example Amini hadn't even appeared on the matchday squad for any Bundesliga games.
I am aware of the fact that clubs have to register their players with UEFA to make them eligible for CL matches, and there are several players who have never made the squad list for BVB this term included, and Bundesliga website did not include them in that list because of this. Putting the domestic registration aside, do these reserve players registered at UEFA qualify for the team template?
I understand your mindset, but with all the above doubts in my mind, I find it considerably easier to follow the squad list as per bvb.de rather than Bundesliga website or other sources, as at the end of the day, BVB should be the organization which knows the best how they are assigning their players.(For example, they promoted Hoffi and Durm during last season, and they are added in the squad list on their official site.)
Apologies in advance for any possible flaws in my views and hope you understand my point of view!
German isn't my first language. It had looked to be confirmed in the article. It was easily revertible. I have reverted much harder edits. Kingjeff (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you don't understand a source, you shouldn't use it. That should really be common sense. This is an encyclopaedia and work here should be highly quality-oriented. DrunkenGerman (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, they completely changed the source. I would have never did the change with the source in it's current state. Now I think you have better things to do than to be critical of me. Kingjeff (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You added the source by stating it's title was "Austria: Lindner-Transfer geplatzt" which exactly means "Austria: Lindner-transfer fell through"....so stop looking for poor excuses. You are clearly not able of understanding German sources. DrunkenGerman (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just had it translated. I can clearly see that is what it means. Like I said before, you have better things to do than to be critical of me. Kingjeff (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. Standard wording is just an option, not a rule. It is intended to maintain quality, not to curb it.
2. WP:KARLSRUHER doesn't apply here, as you would know if you be able to understand German. Karlsruher as like e.g. Hamburger is a possessive pronoun, that's the reason why Karlsruher SC as well as Hamburger SV aren't piped. Part of the clubs name like "SpVgg", "FC", "SSV" etc. (usually the ones that go ahead of the club's location) aren't possessive pronouns and can therefore be piped without causing grammatical issues. Usually German football club's names are piped since there is usually only one element, additional to the club's city name, needed to distinctly identify a club. DrunkenGerman (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the standard wording is there for a reason. Please stop reverting. I will concede on the KARLSRUHER element following your explanation. GiantSnowman20:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
just a few topics of discussion regarding this player's article: 1 - the order of fields in box, usually it's years/clubs/caps/goals, but since the display mode when not editing is always standard I give up there; 2 - intro, we never write "currently" in an introduction, it has been decided by the WP:FOOTY community. What also has been decided is that we write "...who plays for German (in Golobart's case) club as a (player position)...". If a player plays in his own country we write just "...who plays for (club) as a (position)"; 3 - storyline, we can flow the wording a little more, no need to say "2. Bundesliga club/side" all the time when referring to teams from that country/division in my humble opinion.
Even if you choose to re-revert me, please at least offer some words of reply, I am here (as you) to help. And I am in no way a newbie, have been here for almost nine years, was previously User:AlwaysLearning but asked that my account was vanished after suffering abuse and taunting from a troll, had the serious intention of leaving never to return.
1. Yes usually the order is years, clubs, caps, goals. But the issue is that club names differ extremely in length. So it is far tidier to put caps/goals before the club's name.
2. I absolutely disagree with the concensus. Do you have a link? Because today players change clubs so frequently, it makes perfectly sense to write "currently", e.g. Golobart will extremely likely play for a different team in next season. Also I would always put the position before the club, since the position is a closer description of the player himself and is directly directed of him being a footballer (often I write also something like "football goalkeeper" or "football midfielder", instead of writing "footballer who plays as a midfielder"), while the club of the player is changed frequently and only a temporarily condition.
3. In this case, I think it is remarkable that he moved from a first league to a second league team. Since it says stuff like "he wasn't good enough for the first league".
4. And why using the club's full name in the opening paragraph?
2 - nope, I know it's in the archives, but it took place almost two years ago so I can't remember where it's located, but I guarantee you it's true (of course, my word is worth what it's worth :), you can post at WP:FOOTY and ask if it is indeed true or I'm making a mess of myself, I think I am not), and if Golobart changes teams next season we change the club/affiliation, the word "currently" is not in relation there in my humble opinion. If you write "football goalkeeper/defender/forward" and not "footballer who plays as a...", you create overlinking, also called by WP standards WP:SEA OF BLUE.
3 - yes, Golobart moved from the top flight to the second tier because Koln promoted, I was just making the connection between his two teams (Koln was in the 2. BL when he played there, Aue is as well). I did not imply he was not good enough for the Bundesliga, sorry if I gave that impression.
4 - I always write clubs name in full in storyline, compressing them in the infobox. I do not agree with WP:KARLSRUHER at all, but out of respect for other people's work I retain that approach in the boxes as well. Happy weekend --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Country at the time of birth of Anier was occupied Estonia. Only this occupation lasted almost 50 years, but no other differences... four governments recognized Estonia as part of Soviet Union. Anier had nothing to do with Soviet Union since Estonia became independent when he was 9 months old. More - after the Sovereignty Declaration in 1988 Estonian laws were superior to the laws of the Soviet Union and Soviet Union tried to force something called union treaty for Estonia. We don't mark European Union behind Country names? What I want to say is keep Your political views out of the BLPs. --Klõps (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy...all that stuff you are writing reveals a lot of your political views. I personally have no interest regarding Estonia's political status - I really don't care. But it's a fact, that we use the country's status at the time of birth...like also East & West Germany, Poland for the occupied areas of Germany after WW2 etc. Maybe it's more about just the actual permanent governance of a country rather than if it is occupied or not, e.g. France was only occupied for a few years. DrunkenGerman (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, oh bob, no logic at all... You care because You won't change these articles I listed, but You changed Anier. You are the one who made the political change. I reversed a change made by anonymous IP without explanation against the standard. Please if You think, that BLP and EST should follow Your theory that the length of the occupation matters make Your statement there and give the exact number of days. Country's status at the time of birth was occupied Estonia. The difference with East & West Germany read here State continuity of the Baltic states. --Klõps (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Estonia's wikipedia article says it's independence was restored on 20 August 1991, so I see no reason, why there should be a different date to determine it's status. That's the common consensus here at Wikipedia, if you want to change that you should discuss at a other places. DrunkenGerman (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need a dictionary to see what restored means? Common in Baltic states articles is not to use politically/imperialistically motivated name of the occupying state but to link to the common article. You are the one who changed that. --Klõps (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't invent that, it's common practice. If you will continue to change that in articles you will end up in endless discussion and in the end you will get a lot of problems. By the way, now I also have read the article about the Estonian SSR and the basic deal is, that it was only de jure still a sovereign state, in spite of being de facto part of the Soviet Union. I guess that's the whole thing, at that time Estonia was part of the Soviet Union society. DrunkenGerman (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
France was de facto part of the German Reich. I checked, You haven't changed non of the articles I have listed above. Until You have done so or You generate a single argument to support Your case don't edit war. Abaut threats, You will be the one in trouble if You continue with this attitude. --Klõps (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DrunkenGerman, the Soviet Union may have been a sovereign state, but its sovereignty over the Baltic states was never accepted by the international community. The occupation of the Baltic states is generally compared with the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. Both countries were occupied and illegally annexed. In both cases these countries never disappeared, but continued to exist de jure, because sovereign title was never transferred to the respective occupying power, and thus their identity continued to be preserved throughout the period of illegal annexation. The only point of difference was the duration, Kuwait was occupied for six months while the Baltic states for fifty years, but remains an occupation never the less. --Nug (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking me now GoodDay? When reliable sources contradict your preconceived notions I guess that could be frustrating to you, but most people change their notions accordingly, that's called "learning". --Nug (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. There is no reliable source (some football website is really a good source for the legal status of a country) 2. A temporarily occupation during a war cannot be compared with a de facto regime. DrunkenGerman (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Give SOURCES that say so! What temporary means? How long is then the time limit? What about cold war? Then Baltic states were temporary under the soviet occupation during the Cold War and France still was de facto part of German Reich. As long as You only have Your opinion without any sources to support it the article should stay as it was before Your and anonymous IPs edits! State continuity of the Baltic states and Occupation of the Baltic states for beginning give You much information and sources try to find some to back You up! --Klõps (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could state e.g. stuff like a permanent implemented administration of a certain territory. But I think the most significant argument that supports the implementation of Estonia into the USSR is that it was fully implemented into the Soviet Union's society. That distinguishes it distinctively from German occupied France. The status of the Estonia SSR can basically be compared to the Polish annexed territories of Germany after WW2. Basically it should be treated like all the other SSRs of the Soviet Union. DrunkenGerman (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BS. Still only Your opinion without any sourced back up. It's only what You think. Wikipedia is not about Your ideas and world view. WP:NPOV. Give a source that says that If a country is fully implemented (what ever that means?) into the occupying country's society then it is no longer under the occupation That's what You are claiming here! You can not compare that to territories behind Oder–Neisse line, because both Germany and Poland have recognized these changes German–Polish Border Treaty (1990) while the status of Baltic states was challenged by the international community. Welles Declaration etc. Baltic states were independent states that had diplomatic relations with Soviet Union and Soviet Russia itself was the first state that recognized de jure independence of Estonia, while the Treaty of Tartu (1920) was also first international treaty for Soviet Russia. Read State continuity of the Baltic states and Occupation of the Baltic states why they aren't like the other SSRs. Until then don't editwar. --Klõps (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
De facto Soviet Union, nobody cares about de jure something stuff. It's about realities. It's not about what you wish to be. Besides, the New York Times, one of the world's most prestigious newspapers, is absolutely on my side - as you can see in the source I added and which you delete. Next time you changed that, you will be definitely reported for edit-warring and damaging the Wikipedia project. DrunkenGerman (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaand back to square one... France was de facto German Reich - also reality. This all here is about how You wish things to be. You wish to change the status of Estonia 1940-1991 from occupied to inseparable part of SU. About Your "sources".. that is not a proof that one sport reporter in one sport article has listed people as born in USSR. A source would be an article that proves argumentatively that SU had full sovereignty over baltic states and states why the nonrecognition of international community does not matter. Until You prove that You have something more than Your opinion the article should stay as it was before Your intervention! --Klõps (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
De facto Soviet Union, de jure Estonia exactly - no absolute sovereignty that's why there is just Estonia and Estonia article covers the period of occupation as well as France covers the period of German Reich. --Klõps (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop edit warring
Your recent editing history at Henri Anier shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The Baltic states,[1][2] the United States[3][4] and its courts of law,[5] the European Parliament,[6][7][8] the European Court of Human Rights[9] and the United Nations Human Rights Council[10] have all stated that these three countries were invaded, occupied and illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union under provisions[11] of the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, first by the Soviet Union, then by Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1944, and again by the Soviet Union from 1944 to 1991.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] This policy of non-recognition has given rise to the principle of legal continuity, which holds that de jure, or as a matter of law, the Baltic states had remained independent states under illegal occupation throughout the period from 1940 to 1991.[20][21][22] Most Western governments maintained that Baltic sovereignty had not been legitimately overridden[23] and thus continued to recognize the Baltic states as sovereign political entities represented by the legations appointed by the pre-1940 Baltic states which functioned in Washington and elsewhere.[24]
^"22 September 1944 from one occupation to another". Estonian Embassy in Washington. 2008-09-22. Retrieved 2009-05-01. For Estonia, World War II did not end, de facto, until 31 August 1994, with the final withdrawal of former Soviet troops from Estonian soil.
^Feldbrugge, Ferdinand (1985). Encyclopedia of Soviet law. BRILL. p. 461. ISBN90-247-3075-9. On March 26, 1949, the US Department of State issued a circular letter stating that the Baltic countries were still independent nations with their own diplomatic representatives and consuls.{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^Fried, Daniel (June 14, 2007). "U.S.-Baltic Relations: Celebrating 85 Years of Friendship"(PDF). Retrieved 2009-04-29. From Sumner Wells' declaration of July 23, 1940, that we would not recognize the occupation. We housed the exiled Baltic diplomatic delegations. We accredited their diplomats. We flew their flags in the State Department's Hall of Flags. We never recognized in deed or word or symbol the illegal occupation of their lands.
^Lauterpacht, E.; C. J. Greenwood (1967). International Law Reports. Cambridge University Press. pp. 62–63. ISBN0-521-46380-7. The Court said: (256 N.Y.S.2d 196) " The Government of the United States has never recognized the forceful occupation of Estonia and Latvia by the Soviet Union of Socialist Republics nor does it recognize the absorption and incorporation of Latvia and Estonia into the Union of Soviet Socialist republics. The legality of the acts, laws and decrees of the puppet regimes set up in those countries by the USSR is not recognized by the United States, diplomatic or consular officers are not maintained in either Estonia or Latvia and full recognition is given to the Legations of Estonia and Latvia established and maintained here by the Governments in exile of those countries
^"Seventh session Agenda item 9"(PDF). United Nations, Human Rights Council, Mission to Estonia. 17 March 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-01. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 assigned Estonia to the Soviet sphere of influence, prompting the beginning of the first Soviet occupation in 1940. After the German defeat in 1944, the second Soviet occupation started and Estonia became a Soviet republic.
^Mälksoo, Lauri (2003). Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR. Leiden – Boston: Brill. ISBN90-411-2177-3.
^"The Soviet Red Army retook Estonia in 1944, occupying the country for nearly another half century." (Frucht, Richard, Eastern Europe: An Introduction to the People, Lands, and Culture, ABC-CLIO, 2005 ISBN978-1-57607-800-6, p. 132
^"Russia and Estonia agree borders". BBC. 18 May 2005. Retrieved April 29, 2009. Five decades of almost unbroken Soviet occupation of the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania ended in 1991
^See, for instance, position expressed by the European Parliament, which condemned "the fact that the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral States by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 following the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, and continues." European Parliament (January 13, 1983). "Resolution on the situation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania". Official Journal of the European Communities. C. 42/78.
^"After the German occupation in 1941–44, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the restoration of its independence in 1991." KOLK AND KISLYIY v. ESTONIA (European Court of Human Rights 17 January 2006), Text.
^David James Smith, Estonia: independence and European integration, Routledge, 2001, ISBN0-415-26728-5, pXIX
^Parrott, Bruce (1995). "Reversing Soviet Military Occupation". State building and military power in Russia and the new states of Eurasia. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 112–115. ISBN1-56324-360-1. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
^Van Elsuwege, Peter (April 2004). Russian-speaking minorities in Estonian and Latvia: Problems of integration at the threshold of the European Union(PDF). Flensburg Germany: European Centre for Minority Issues. p. 2. The forcible incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union in 1940, on the basis of secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, is considered to be null and void. Even though the Soviet Union occupied these countries for a period of fifty years, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania continued to exist as subjects of international law.
^Quiley, John (2001). "Baltic Russians: Entitled Inhabitants or Unlawful Settlers?". In Ginsburgs, George (ed.). International and national law in Russia and Eastern Europe. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 327. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
^"Baltic article". The World & I. 2 (3). Washington Times Corp: 692. 1987.
That's all just blah-blah-blah. De jure Estonia, de facto Soviet Union, we figured that out a long time ago. So please don't spam my talk page with copy and paste crap. It's obvious that all that discussions are initiated on the basis of political interests. Personally I think that's pretty childish. On that basis e.g. all Polish people born in former German Reich's territories between 1945 and 1990 would have to have "born in Germany" in their info boxes. You Estonian people should really grow up sometime. DrunkenGerman (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Australia. You are comparing apples and oranges, the former German Reich ceased to exist in 1945, there is no concept of a "de jure German Reich" as having existed during the period. The mainstream viewpoint found in reliable sources is that the Baltic states continued to exist as sovereign independent states under foreign occupation, the view that they were legitimately a part of the USSR is in fact a Russian nationalist viewpoint. The parent inbox guide clearly requires sovereign state, not the de facto controlling entity. Otherwise please explain why we don't list those french players mentioned above as being born in Paris, Military Administration in France, German Reich. The fact is that any passport issued today would list Estonia as the birthplace. This is an encyclopaedia, let's keep it consistent and factually based. --Nug (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your pseudonym
I saw your pseudonym here, and I couldn't help but think of this hysterical video clip of two German guys evaluating a helium-infused beer:
"The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is the UK’s largest independent producer of official statistics and is the recognised national statistical institute for the UK. It is responsible for collecting and publishing statistics related to the economy, population and society at national, regional and local levels. It also conducts the census in England and Wales every ten years. ONS plays a leading role in national and international good practice in the production of official statistics. It is the executive office of the UK Statistics Authority and although they are separate, they are still closely related."
You may check as much as you want in that document and see that the UK government consider Irish people apart from Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish, so your considerations on whether Irish footballers should be included in the foreign Premier League article are wrong, unless you can prove that the UK’s largest independent producer of official statistics and recognised national statistical institute for the UK are wrong in whether Irish are foreign or not.
Take a look at the conversation you started at WB:Footy. There you can read in detail, why he is clearly American. You also could have had participated in that discussion. DrunkenGerman (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read the discussion? Of the three participants (other than you and I) one says "he should remain in that category" and one says "I agree with GiantSnowman"! The other just questions why a player can't be in both. You have ZERO support! GiantSnowman17:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about support, discussions are argument-oriented. That's something you should have learnt in 7th grade...saying "I think that's right" is worthless when you have no arguments supporting your claim. And this case there were zero arguments against my approach. DrunkenGerman (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, yes I just did take a look for two minutes and just read there: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. That's exactly what I told you before and what you haven't done. DrunkenGerman (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DrunkenGerman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Most Spanish-language websites seem to use only one 's', including the website of his former club (Link). After doing some Google searches, it seems as though his name with only one 's' has about 9,000 more results. Also ESPN, Fox Sports, and Eurosport seem to use one 's', so as of now it seems as though one 's' is used more often. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey S.A. Julio, thanks for your message. Well seems you are right. I only checked the link to worldfootball when I moved the article. It confused me that you created the article with one "s" and then used two "s" in the players info box. Kind regards, DrunkenGerman (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry for the confusion, I accidentally included a few instances of 'Andersson' in the article. Also, on an unrelated note, I noticed on the dewiki you linked Nahom Gebru in FSV Frankfurt's squad navbox in this edit. Did Gebru make a league appearance for FSV Frankfurt? I noticed Soccerway displayed a 3. Liga appearance for him, but I couldn't seem to verify this or find what match he actually played in, so I am unsure if this is correct (or if Gebru is notable). Cheers, S.A. Julio (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Regarding Gebru: Yes I linked him because of Soccerway, and I didn't really check up on the game he played. Now I had the same problem as you, I couldn't see that match on Soccerway. So I checked on kicker.de which is usually the most reliable source [2] and it seems that Gebru actually didn't play that game. So I guess the link has to be removed. DrunkenGerman (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you leaving me alone. You aren't even able to read an article of ten rows.....I don't want to do anything with negative, uneducated people like you. Thank you. DrunkenGerman (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DrunkenGerman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, DrunkenGerman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, DrunkenGerman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Ibrahima Dramé requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahima Dramé (2nd nomination). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nehme1499. References in list articles are not necessary when all information is already referenced in the list's members articles. See e.g. List of people from Berlin. To add unnecessary references in list articles only increases the article's size without any gain. DrunkenGerman (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not prepared to be WP:CIVIL and respect our policies, then there is no reason for you to edit. We are volenteers, you need to cite information when you add them, and do not add personal attacks about other users. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)11:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
August 2021
Hi there - Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. You didn't provide a source for your changes to the Thijmen Goppel article, but I have found one and added it for you. Please try and remember to include sources yourself with future edits. Please let me know if you have any questions. GiantSnowman10:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)13:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know it has a lot information on lower-league players. Unfortunately, the fact that it is user-generated makes it unreliable. See WP:USERGENERATED. This was last mentioned here.
I use worldfootball.net and Soccerway for German lower leagues. In my experience if neither of them have the information, it's not worth including. I think most readers aren't interested in anything lower than the fifth-tier Oberliga and worldfootball.net usually has that. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!16:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
