Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to JAS 39 Gripen, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bzuk (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieval dates
Using non-print or electronic media is fraught with problems, especially since so many editors do not identify when they have accessed the data. Whenever a "check" is made on an article and invariably, a review of any links to determine whether there are "dead links" then at least placing a marker as of the date of the check tells other editors that the reference source has been operative on that date. This is a "standard" procedure and should not be considered "false" or "misinformation"; it is merely a reaffirmation that the link is active. Every so often when an article is being revised, it is a common practice to update the non-print media links and that is why you will see the information given in two different ways, when the information was first written or created and when it was active or current. Consider my above comment as a gentle reminder to ask first or check with the appropriate group veterans when a question like this comes up again, otherwise you may incur the wrath of some of the crochety smart-aleks, like myself. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Periodicals and main entry references in the JAS 39 Gripen article
When a periodical title is part of a larger work such as a book, encyclopedia or the like, then the first title is identified as a unit separated by quotation marks and ending in a full stop (.) while the main entry title is identified by italics and again ends in a period. The reason I use for the terminology "Retrieved" is that is the term that is "outputted" in the citation templates. The reason for the more precise "Retrieved:" stems from the very first GA. FA review in which I was involved and was the acceptable entry at the time. FWiW, the use of non-English sources is a bit of a conundrum and in going back to my cataloging courses and checking with my last Chief Library technician, the consensus was to identify the language directly within the title tracings (which in the case of a URL-linked sources is within the brackets). 21:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bzuk. I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to tell me. About the colon following "Retrieved", if you can show me that this is the standard, then ok I'll buy it, but this is the first article I've seen it in (and I've read many). Are you introducing a new standard?
The next thing is the full stop at the end of cited web page titles. My view is that quotations should be correct - to the last comma and full stop, and even spelling error. And in most web page titles, the sentence does not end with a full stop. So why should we insert it here? It will only result in an incorrect quotation, albeit of minor significance. But why have an inaccuracy at all, even if it's small? I haven't seen this anywere else. Maybe the full stop should be outside the quotation mark. What MOS are you referring to in these cases?
Commas haven't been used in bibliographic notations for nearly 20 years, the use of the full stop was instituted years back as the way to end a MARC record (it is a convention that told the operator or cataloger that there was a break in the bibliographic notation, with the use of digital records, the standard was maintained). URL records simply are the notation within the tracing. The use of the style of retrieved is simply that, the use of the style, and once a style is established, the style predominates in editing. The use of full stop (.) is a North American convention and is widely applied in all publishing, cataloging although there is a British variation that is used in Wiki style for quotations, however, you have mistaken the entire premise here, the use of "quotation" marks does not identify a quotation, it is merely the protocol to identify a subsidiary title compared to a main title. Whenever there is an article title contained within a larger work, then both titles are identified. For example, the author of newspaper article has both an article title identified by quotation marks, separated from the main newspaper that is identified by italics; again a convention that was established many decades ago. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about. Are we talking about the same thing? You have reverted my edit of the article on the JAS 39 Gripen. Among other things, this has resulted in a full stop being inserted into quotations, like "Saab signs new agreement with UK’s test pilots’ school." instead of "Saab signs new agreement with UK’s test pilots’ school" (nb. the full stop inside the quotation mark). What on earth is the point in that? There is no full stop in the referred page heading, so why should there be one here? And what does any of it have to do with bibliographic notation, subsidiary title and main title? Finally, please refer to a MOS section to verify your claims. Cheers HandsomeFella (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, these are not quotations, but "titles" that use a quotation mark to identify them as a secondary title, where a main title is identified with italics. FWiW, "Saab signs new agreement with UK’s test pilots’ school." is a title not a quotation and has an end point established while Gripen International is the main title identified, and if there is no further elaboration as to an update appears as Gripen International. If a date is given then it appears as Gripen International, 29 October 2010. The entire "string" that follows is: "Saab signs new agreement with UK’s test pilots’ school." Gripen International, 29 October 2010. If the title is from a book, then the publisher and source is identified in a completely new bibliographic notation. Here is an example of that "string": Joiner, George. The Saab Story. New York: Random House, 2009. (ISBN optional) Bzuk (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now that you're finally expressing yourself clearly, I'm beginning to understand what you're getting at. You're saying that North-American standard/style should apply. But the article in question is not about a North-American aircraft. So the style does not apply. Remember, this is an English language encyclopedia, not an English or American one. Btw, it's funny that you call it a full stop. If you're such a fan of North-American style, you should call it a period. Finally, you've still not provided a reference to WP:MOS supporting your view, nor have you provided examples of other (non-North-American) articles with the same style. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title are titles, it has nothing to do with quotations. You identify a title from a periodical with quotation marks and where it comes from, the publisher or source with italics, both being separated by periods, in no matter what style guide you are using. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC). Read: Citations and References.[reply]
You know, it's funny, almost ironic. When you finally come up with a reference to support your claims, it turns out - when one reads it - that it actally supports my format. Hence my revert. Can I trust your promise (from the edit summary); that it was your last revert? Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's only you that doesn't understand the basics of citations. How can you possibly state that the title entry is a "quotation". Do you even understand the difference between a periodical or non-print title linked to a primary source? FWiW, the style guide for this article is already established, please leave the article alone. Bzuk (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not a vandal, and I will *not* be treated like one. I make constructive edits, just as I assume you do. Me reverting your changes does not make me a vandal; you revert mine, so that would make two of us, if it were true. However, we do have serious differences in the view on the "looks" of the references.
One thing is that your explanations tell me close to nothing. You're correct: I don't understand what you write. This could have two possible reasons (well, there could be a third, but I know I'm not stupid). The first is that English is not my mother tongue. You've probably understood this already. So my choice of words, my terminology if you will, may be off (in your view).
The other is that your explanations are, to put it mildly, not very clarifying. When I try to understand them, and believe me, I've tried desperately, I just can't. I've also followed your links to wp:mos pages. What I find there does not match your (intentionally?) woolly explanations, to the best of my understanding. Instead, I find that what is shown there match the "looks" of the references before you started to alter them. For instance, look here - I found this when I followed your link - and then try to convince me that this is what the references look like, "Bzuk style"! Just look at it. No periods or commas inside the quotation marks there!
What the examples look like, is how the references in the Gripen article looked before you started editing away on it, putting periods and commas inside the quotation marks, etc. I know, because I've been a major contributor to the Gripen article for a couple of years now. (I know, it doesn't give me a veto, but it does give me a say.)
The reasons for our communication breakdown is probably a mix of both reasons as described above, with frustration added to the mix. One part of me suspects that you're taking advantage of my inferior understanding of the English language (compared to you), and that you intentionally produce woolly explanations in order just to baffle me to silence. But the logical part of me says: "what on earth would he do that for?". But then again: why haven't I seen the "Bzuk style" in references in any other article? As I said, I've been around in Wikipedia for a while.
Now, let's start from zero again. I've gone the extra mile. I started a new discussion section on the Gripen talkpage. I suggested the use of cite web templates, which might resolve the dispute (you've responded, but not to that). I've now described exhaustively how I perceive your input. Now, you go that extra mile and *please* try to express yourself clearly (even if you think it's at children's level) and in a structured manner. Contemplate this: why do I understand every other editor's input, but not yours? Maybe you're not so good at explaining as you think you are.
This is as simple as I can state it: References (all sources of information given in academic works) are given in this form (there is no variance from one style guide to another, all style guides use this format, even in the Wiki citation templates:
Author (typically last, first name order, alphabetically ordered by first entry if more than one) e.g. Smith, Joe.
Title (given as full title, INCLUDING the titles of articles and the main title of the derivative work; so that if an encyclopedia article appears, it is cited, but the main title, e.g. the name of the encyclopedia also appears. That form would read: Smith, Joe. "Interesting article: Today." Encyclopedia Smith. Because there are essentially two titles, the first subsidiary one is differentiated from the main title by the use of quotation mark and italic symbols. The use of periods is the current (for the last 20 years) style to differentiate from commas which are reserved for continuous passages. Colons are used to separate a title from a sub-title within a title line.)
Publisher/publishing information (If use of the Modern Language Association style guide, or any other style guide that specifies "full" detailing, then the publishing location is given with a colon used as a separator. The example then appears as: Smith, Joe. "Interesting article: Today." Encyclopedia Smith. London: Smith Publishing House, pp. 181–193, (note no end point is established yet)
Date of publishing typically ends the statement, so that the final form appears as: Smith, Joe. "Interesting article: Today." Encyclopedia Smith. London: Smith Publishing House, pp. 181–193, 2010.
International Standard Book Number (ISBN) (Optional but seems to have become de rigueur in Wiki use as it does provide some additional information as to a source.) The ISBN and ISSN (International Standard Serial Number); serial refers to periodical or journal (magazine); numbers were established by booksellers in 1965 to provide a source of publishing information as it represents a code that identifies country of origin, publisher and language. The first series known as ISBN:10 were given as a 10 digit number, often separated by hyphens until 2005 when they were supplemented and sometimes replaced in 2005 by the ISBN:13 code that has a 13-digit code to accommodate more titles in publication. The example would now read: Smith, Joe. "Interesting article: Today." Encyclopedia Smith. London: Smith Publishing House, pp. 181–193, 2010. ISBN 980-2345623456. The ISBN number being a separate and optional entry is treated as a sentence in its own.
Now as to the canard that this is a unique system, please check any article in the Wiki aviation project group. As you already must have determined, there are innumerable referencing systems in place in Wikipedia, some of them entirely made-up or unique to the developer. The system above is not one of these hybrids or original styles, but based on current bibliographical and referencing style guides in use by publishing houses and "professional" editors. How do I know this? I was a reference librarian for 30 years before becoming an author and editor of an aviation periodical and editor for other publishing houses for book publishing. Nothing I have stated is unique, new or out of line with current referencing and bibliographical notations; I had used library templates for over 20 years as many libraries I administered were being converted from an archaic card catalog to an electronic cataloging system. As data was reconciled into an electronic data base, the use of the MAchine Readable Cataloging format, designed by the Library of Congress in the late 1960s allowed libraries to convert their card catalogs. MARC was not infallible and librarians still had to manually reassign cataloging, so the old system never died. In applying logic to an Internet-based encyclopedia, the same format was simply adapted to new times. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Where it gets realllllllly tricky is in applying the coda of Author. Title. Publisher's location: Publisher, Date. ISBN (optional). to a non-print reference source, but here is the logic. Use the same format and you get: Smith, Joe. {{[}}http://en.encyclopediasmith.com "Interesting article: Today."{{]}} Encyclopediasmith.com. , 2010. Retrieved on 4 November, 2010. The referencing and bibliographical notation still works in all forms including adding a url to point to the exact title, but the url/title is now the active "hot point" to retrieve the information. Due to the vagaries of an Internet location, a retrieval, sometimes known as an "access" date is given, so that at least a fixed point of reference is established. If the url is discontinued, there is sometimes a chance to locate an archived version if the original url is known. Bzuk (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey.
Thanks for this exhaustive description. You've really gone out of your way (more than the extra mile) to clarify this for me. It's much appreciated. But I still think this style looks really - really - awkward. Inserting a period/full stop where there isn't one in the source; really, really strange. So (as you might suspect), I have a couple of questions.
In my experience, the habit of putting periods and commas inside quotes is purely North American - and this is not a North American aircraft. So, this is my first question: are you sure that this style of referencing is international, and not just North American?
Next question: how do you explain that the example you're referring to doesn't look the same as the references in the Gripen article? I've pasted it below. As you can see, the periods are clearly outside the quotation marks. You must admit that this is confusing, as the guidelines seem to contradict what you are advocating. Comments?
A third question: I've suggested the use of cite web, cite book and cite journal templates in the Gripen article. Any objections?
Some webpage have permalinks, which are URLs that access a copy of the page that is archived on the website itself. If a permalink is available, you should normally use that instead of the URL at which you first found the article. Wikipedia articles, for example, change constantly, but permalink references are available to each version of an article. Here, for example, is the reference to a version of Wikipedia's article for the 16th U. S. Poet Laureate that existed on 2008-07-28:
If there is no permalink for a webpage, consider creating an archive copy of it yourself by using an on-demand archiving service. WebCite (http://www.webcitation.org/) is one of the on-demand services. Here is the same "Open Source" reference based on a copy of the webpage that was archived by an editor on 2008-05-27:
Okay, never meant to imply that you were a vandal only that actions would be interpreted that way. I certainly have no abiding interest in feuding or carrying on vendettas, so I do consider you one of the brotherhood, as your other contributions have repeatedly shown.
As to some of your concerns, I will address each issue. First another major canard is the use of the citation templates in Wikipedia. They are NOT like the MARC record templates that I had been using as an example of the successful use of reference templates. The MARC record template instituted by the US Library of Congress was meticulously designed and provided a precise output into the style of preference for the library collection of materials. This does not happen with the citation templates as they first of all were created with only one referencing style, or I should say a hybrid style, based on the APA or American Psychiatric Association.
In a few words, the issues are:
Useage in Wikipedia is highly influenced by the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome.
Cite templates are presently incorrectly formatted and have "bugs" that were never addressed properly by their designers. despite many efforts to re-draw the templates, they are still rampant with errors in format. I can actually re-write the templates, but it takes so much time and effort, that I finally have abandoned that practice.
Cite templates were intended for neophytes and casual users (certainly not someone like you who is attempting to make a difference!) to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.
Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.
Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Wikipedia, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
Once a referencing style is in use and accepted as it was in this article, it is contingent on all other editors to maintain and follow that style guide consistently. It is a difficult thing to "mix" style guides for editing purposes and it is recommenced to establish a style guide, which was done and stick with it, unless there is an overwhelming reason to change to another style.
The old canard that cite templates produced meta data that would be somehow in the future, melted into the templating systems to come is long discarded.
Your perceptions of style differences in cataloging information is entirely accurate as each editor works from a master or "house style" guide to punctuation, spelling and use of idioms, idiosynchroncies and non-standard useage. In Wikipedia, there is a "house guide" of sorts wherein that editors typically instill "order" or "consistency" via the use of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style or MOS, which again is an ever-changing and updated "guideline" but does help set some parameters of use.
The style issues are:
Identifying the title, when there are two or more titles cited has led to the standard use of "quotation marks" to isolate the first title of an article, excerpt or section title, from a main source title such as a magazine title, encyclopedia, website or other. Where you see a difficulty in that punctuation falls inside brackets or other punctuation is sometimes referred to as North American convention, but it is actually the standard for most publishers worldwide (again, most, but not all). I can certainly see you apprehension as to adding a full stop/period inside a bracket where you may not have been familiar with academic referencing styles that use this style. In Wikipedia, I have seen both, either or a combination of the styles, and when that occurs, it is usually reconciled by reverting to one style only.
Dates are written out in words rather than ISO or numerical format in Wikipedia when there is an overwhelming use in the article body of the written style. Due to the difficulty in many readers and editors identifying an ISO date or some configuration of numerical dating, as in 11-12-08, 2008-11-12, or even 08-12-11. Is the date November 12, 2008, December 11, 2008, November 8, 2012, August 11, 2012 and ad infinitum... Many editors simply choose to eliminate the confusion and write out the date: 12 November 2008 (military, international format) or November 12, 2008 (American/US, familiar/popular format).
In looking at your two examples, I see lots of style issues that have to be addressed. In the first example, is the author really the Wikipedia editors? or is that a made-up "fill-in-blanks" entry, which I suspect is the case. In the absence of an author or a clearly established author, the next entry point is the title. The style I would choose/advocate/prefer would be classed as "scratch editing" and would show the output as: "Kay Ryan".Wikipedia, 28 July 2008. Retrieved: 28 July 2008. (You may have to read the citation in edit style to see where the punctuation is placed.) In the second example, a very confusing dual source is being introduced. If the original URL is no longer able to be accessed, an archived version is acceptable but having both simply serves to confuse the reader. Using "scratch editing", I would show the output as: Perens, Bruce. "The Open Source Definition (Annotated)."Open Source Initiative, originally cited in 24 July 2006, retrieved via webcitation.org, 27 May 2008. (Since the citation template output uses the term "retrieved", I often replace "accessed" with "retrieved", and the placement of the periods is a bit arbitrary as I have used the period falling outside the punctuation, but that change is so incidental that it can fall outside the punctuation with no substantial impact on the output.) FWiW, more to come, let's keep in touch. Bzuk (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:2010 Winter Olympics men's ice hockey group A, B and C standings
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Hey. You must be kidding. Are you accusing me of vandalism? First of all, do you really prefer that chryptic name, "2010WOIHMStandingsA", over "2010 Winter Olympics men's ice hockey group A standings"? Well, if you really do, that's your opinion, but I wouldn't dream of calling you a vandal just because we have differing views. Now get your act together, go back in your tracks, and see if you haven't made a mistake. Think twice before you go and call people names. I'll wait here. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First I am sorry if you think I thought you were vandalizing, you were not. Second this "template" was the best for the situation in my opinion. I am truly sorry if you think I was calling you a vandalizer, hope you accept my apology. I prefer "2010WOIHMStandingsA", because most templates in wikipedia are like that, they are named in short form and are meant to be written as fast as possible. In conclusion please consider my apology and I hope I have not offended you in any way. Intoronto1125 (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, apology accepted. Well, there will of course always be different views on things, but take a look at this category and its sub-categories: Category:2010 Winter Olympics ice hockey templates. You'll find that the templates are pretty neatly designed, named and organized. There is a system to it. About the "problem" of having long names: in this case it isn't a problem, because the templates in question will not be added to many more pages, if any at all. The pages that use them already exist. There is no point in going back to using the old redirects. So please don't. Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Intoronto1125 (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 20:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
You should read WP:ENGVAR. Some of your changes are good, but it is not Wikipedia policy to go around changing date formats just because someone is not from the United States. I figured maybe you'd not seen this. Clearly UK subjects use UK English, US uses US, all others leave in the original language/dating in which the article was written.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like some expert help with a couple of templates in Category:2008 Summer Olympics water polo group standings templates. As you can see, I've created a couple of analogue templates for men's and women's group standings in the water polo tournaments of the 2008 Summer Olympics. The strangest thing is that the national squad names of the men's teams left-align, while those of the women's teams center-align. I can't see why there is a difference. Ok, there is a center-align command – without which the numbers columns would look awkward – but then why aren't the men's squad names also center-aligned? Could there be something in the wp and wpw templates that causes the difference?
Those words do not exist in British English, which is what the articles to which those navboxes relate were written in. Please respect WP:ENGVAR. – PeeJay02:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I have the right to respond wherever I choose; as long as you can read it and respond to it, it doesn't matter where I reply. Second, if you look at the Oxford English Dictionary, you will see that words of that ilk are written as hyphenated words. Furthermore, FIFA uses hyphens in those words, as do the articles to which the navboxes relate. – PeeJay21:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{2012 Summer Olympics Great Britain men's water polo team roster}}
{{2012 Summer Olympics Great Britain women's water polo team roster}}
Article titles
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) 13:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop deleting proper redirects. 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) 13:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your speedy delete nominations of valid redirects is controversial. You are advised to immediately stop such practice or you may be reported to ANI. Dolovis (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please not get into a revert war with Dolovis over this? There are other ways to resolve the dispute, but constantly reverting each other over the speedy deletion tagging of redirects resulting from his page moves is unnecessarily disruptive: firstly, tagging a redirect for deletion causes it to get listed as an uncategorized article, which the categorization project then has to deal with — and secondly, if this keeps going one or the both of you is going to be at risk of getting a temporary WP:3RR block. And in case you didn't know this, tagging a redirect for deletion is only necessary if the redirect has more than one edit in its history; if there's only one edit, such as the page move itself, then the system will still let any editor just move the page back without needing an administrator to manually delete the redirect first, meaning that the only reason you can't just move the pages back to their original titles now is that you yourself added a second edit by the act of tagging the redirect in the first place. There are numerous administrators who are willing to step in and resolve the dispute if anyone gets out of line — but you really need to follow the proper processes for resolving the issue. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I'm not "constantly reverting" anyone. I have made a number of one-time reversions of Dolovis's reverts of my speedy deletion requests on the redirects that were created by his unilateral page moves. Dolovis ignores longstanding concensus at WP:HOCKEY, and at the same time he refers to guidelines that simply do not exist. So he's the one who should be blocked. See the discussion on his talkpage and the discussion here, just to mention a few places.
I will however stop reverting Dolovis, provided he stops making controversial pages moves, until there is either a new concensus, which I – contrary to Dolovis – would respect, or the existing concensus is agreed upon again. We can't have editors acting like Dolovis does. Blocking me and not Dolovis – if that indeed is the case – would be rewarding rogue editors, while blocking editors that try to fix what he's undoing, thereby cementing his rogue actions as faits accomplis. I don't see that he can obtain a new concensus (it's been tried before), so somebody will have to revert his moves sooner or later.
Believe me, Dolovis will get blocked too if his behaviour continues. But you were politely asked by two different editors, and given a block warning, to stop tagging the redirects, but chose to keep on tagging anyway — whereas he hasn't made any edits to Wikipedia at all since at least half an hour before he got his first polite request to cut it out. Which means you actively ignored multiple requests — but while it's still possible that he might ignore the request, as of right now he hasn't done so yet. The problem here is that we've got two valid naming guidelines that are potentially in conflict with each other — so it's not so much about who's right and who's wrong as it is about the fact that what you've been doing just isn't a productive way to handle the issue. I hope that's clear. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did, but – as I explained in the section below – I observed the orange line, but believed it was Dolovis who posted another message, so I didn't read it immediately. And it's absolutely clear. Sorry.
Concerning the conflicting guidelines, WP:AT is weak when it comes to recommendations on diacritics in article titles. The only mention is for the word canon versus cañon (for canyon), and there isn't even a recommendation for either one. That is what Dolovis relies on! The word isn't even a proper noun, so no conclusions whatsoever can be drawn from that concerning personal names.
If you look at his talk page, you'll note that I have advised him that WP:UE is a weak and non-overriding guideline which can and does have significant exceptions — and you'll also note that somebody has brought a complaint against him at WP:ANI. But again, it's not really about who's right and who's wrong here — I agree that on the basic principle, you are in the right and he's in the wrong — so much as it's about productive vs. unproductive ways to resolve the dispute (editwarring being the latter.) It would have been pointless for me to editblock him at the same time as you, because he wasn't online at the time anyway — it's only a useful thing to do if you actually catch somebody in the act, because if he doesn't log back on until two hours after I apply a one-hour editblock, then he's completely missed the "punishment" anyway. But that doesn't mean he's being given a free ride, because he is already facing a potentially much higher consequence than a mere 60-minute timeout. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Bearcat, what do we do now? I'd like to contribute to the discussion on the ANI, but I don't know if I should, as it would surely be viewed as biased, especially by Dolovis himself. I'll express my views here instead.
First, I think he must absolutely be stripped of his admin rights, as they have clearly been abused. He must have such rights, or he wouldn't have been able to revert page moves at that speed. My experience is that a db-g6 delete of a redirect "in the way" of a page move could take days to have executed, or at best hours. Absolutely not minutes. So he must have those rights (I can see no other explanation) – and he must have them revoked. Btw, I believe that his motives for his actions were not only to boost his created-articles count, but also to build up a nice "stock balance" of articles without diacritics to counter or disprove editors who say that diacritics aren't that uncommon in English language. In other words: he tried to kill two birds with one stone. Why else would he be adding articles on Czech and Slovak players specifically?
Second, a page move ban seems natural, as this is how he went on with his rogue business. 3 months would cool him off a bit. He could still keep on editing articles of course.
As the dust now is settling, we still have a problem. All the moves that Dolovis has made mean that a lot of articles are stored under a name that is not in line with WP:HOCKEY concensus. Lacking clear directions in WP:AT and WP:UE, they should be moved to their respective diacritic version. But if I go about preparing for those moves by posting db-g6's, it would be preceived as I continued editwarring (although it would only mean that I'd reach 2RR on the individual redirects).
Maybe the right way to go about it is this:
Review the WP:NHOCKEY criteria, and see if they need an update. If this raises the bar for notability, then maybe several of Dolovis' additions could be deleted, instead of moved. That could possibly be less controversial than moving the pages again (although I doubt it would make Dolovis happier).
Update: I just noticed that a previously uninvolved editor two previously uninvolved editors moved some of the pages involved in the dispute by copy-pasting the content. I placed a notice on his talkpage their talkpages. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DJSasso has also fixed one.
CSD nominations
Just a note, I'm denying your CSD nominations on the hockey redirects. They are not an unlikely misspelling (and really not a misspelling at all) and redirects are cheap. RxS (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did see "the orange line", but didn't read it until I was blocked. The requests for speedy deletions are due to page moves to spellings not supported by WP:HOCKEY concensus. Every now and then editors like Dolovis show up and try to impose his views without obtaining a new concensus first. If they are as industrious as he is, there will inevitably be lots of work to fix it, including reverts. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note; the one hour block was a warning, a shot across your bows, so to speak. The next one, if you persist in your recent behaviour, will be for significantly longer. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realised I was using the term loosely - but it doesn't alter my line of argument. Slavic diacritics are not well-known in the English language and should not be used until/unless they are widely adopted. But I accept others have a different view. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been making changes in many volleyball articles with this note: consistent date format (int'l). According to WP:DATE, both the format that I was previously used as first major contributor is correct, and I haven't found any int'l format. What about this? Oscar17:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two conflicting guidelines, one is "first contributor", as you mentioned, and the other is that date format should be selected according to context. The August 21, 2011, format is distinctly North American (United States and Canada), and thus suitable for articles relating to North American subjects mainly. Many articles appears to have been created by editors from North America, and my theory is that they, without giving it much thought, have applied the format that is natural to them, even to articles with no relation to North America. With two conflicting guidelines, one obviously has to yield, and a decision without much thought – my perception, I admit – is worth less that a conscious decision, at least in my world. I could add that most of the articles I've edited recently are small and stubbish, and so there is no distinguishable first contributor.
When there is "international format" dates in an article relating to a North American subject, I of course apply "consistent date fmt (us)".
When it comes to my edit summaries, I admit that there wasn't always inconsistent date format in an article I edited, by interpret it this way: I'm applying consistent date format. ;-) Maybe there's some room for improvement here, the "entry assist" function in the edit summary field makes you lazy, picking the best alternative. I'll see what I can do.
This is English Wikipedia, we have WP:MOS, this is the Manual of Style. We cannot go everywhere changing the articles because I just do not like how is look like. According to WP:DATE, for dates of birth and death: For an individual still living: "Serena Williams (born September 26, 1981) this is the format given, it is someone from northamerica we use this, and then for south america another one, not, we need every wikipedia article look with an apropiate format. Thanks for your understanding. Sometimes we need to accept advices, and check and recheck the guidelines. Oscar22:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in, but if you write encyclopedia articles based on a US-centric convention, that absolutely is not the recommended style, see the above point: date format should be selected according to context. An article on Concorde is written in "Britspeak" and would look entirely incongruous in any other style. Take a look at the article and you will see date, spelling and numerical equivalents are all in the "International" format. See: forum for a further discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oscar, I think you may have misunderstood some of the guidelines. The date format does not, for instance, depend on whether a person is living or not. Also, take a look at the "Strong national ties" section in WP:DATE. Yes, this is the English wikipedia, and there are several varieties of English, see WP:ENGVAR. I'm saying this, because it seems that English is not your first language (no offense intended, it's not my first language either). Date format in written English is one thing that differs from place to place. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talk back about Triple Gold Club
I made my research by myself , looking at each player's page . I think it would be helpful and it would be great to put it in a table
Gpetit89 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can't have this template included on every page mentioning volleyball. A template is typically included on the pages that it links to. "Template:Volleyball" does not link to the individual occurrences (years) of the tournaments. Thus, the template should be included on pages FIVB World League, FIVB World Grand Prix, etc, but not the indiviual years such as 2011 FIVB World League, 2011 FIVB World Grand Prix, etc. Please start a discussion to obtain concensus, but don't revert until one is reached (and only if it ends up favouring your opinion). Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
why we can't ? what's the logic ? I know the 3RR rule and I won't break it. it's common, if you have problem start discussion and then remove it from all sports pages. as of now, I will revert your edits as much as rules allow. then I wate 24 hours to revert it once again and I won't stop it. cheers. Mohsen1248 (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so childish. If you know the 3RR rule, then you know it should not be perceived as if everyone has "a right" to revert the same page 3 times within 24 hours. It's still edit-warring, and furthermore, it could be viewed as gaming the system. Besides, you can spend your time and effort more constructively than following me around and reverting my edits.
I'll explain the logic to you. If you have a template called "Events at the 2003 Pan American Games", it's logical that it links to all events of those games. It's also logical that it is included in the pages covering the events, e.g. "Volleyball at the 2003 Pan American Games", thus enabling simple cross-navigation between the different events.
Following the same pattern, "Template:Economy of Europe" links to articles like "Economy of Germany", "Economy of Greece", etc. It is included in exactly those pages, but not in every page mentioning "Europe" or "economy" (or possibly both).
The same goes for Template:Volleyball (although I think it should be named Template:International volleyball). It links to the main international regulatory bodies, the recurring international tournaments, etc. It does not link to the individual tournaments (years), and thus it should not be included in them. The reasons: 1) it's not logical, per above, 2) it will make virtually every single issue of every single tournament link to the pages in the template, thereby pointlessly overwhelming the "what links here" pages. If you take a look at Template:Economy of Europe, you'll find that the number of pages including that template is rather limited (to the number of countries in Europe, to be exact).
I'm childish and threatening is not childish ? OK, feel free to name me what you'd like.
your logic is lame, but the main reason I'm against it is simple, it's common in Wikipedia is sports page. (I show you some examples) so I want to keep these consistent. good, I see you open a discussion here. lets see the result. but remember you are the one who change a common thing, not me. and I won't let one user change something that everybody (at least so far) is ok with. Cheers. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your threat of reverting me forever is undoubtedly childish. Your only argument seems to be that "it has has always been like this". Well, that is no valid argument. It's just plain conservatism at its worst. Things have always been "like this" – until somebody changes them.
And "you won't let one user change something that everybody is ok with"? You don't own the articles (consider reading WP:OWN). Has it ever occurred to you that maybe no-one has thought about this question before? And since this is not one of wikipedia's most visited pages, not many people have read it, thus even fewer have contemplated whether or not that template should be there. It's not exactly the most important feature in the article.
Hi there! It is my responsibility as an administrator to uphold the guidelines the community has approved (in this case, WP:DATERET). Now, I don't occupy all my time here with seeking out the "date format violations", but I do make sure the guidelines are being conformed with once I stumble upon a situation that needs resolving. This isn't personal at all. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 14, 2011; 19:33 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation, but that guideline does not really interest me that much :) I'm merely upholding what it says—if it is changed to say something different, then that's what I'll be upholding. Best of luck to you, however. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 14, 2011; 20:20 (UTC)
I try to keep an eye on everything that happens in the Portal namespace, so I've seen the time you've spent fixing redirects there. May I draw your attention to WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN? It's probably not worth the effort.
Just a friendly bit of advice... It does not help to poke at someone the way you are right after your ANI report led to their block. Just leave him be. Resolute16:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allright. I was going to anyway. It wasn't mean't as poking at him, but rather a (somewhat immature, I admit) wish of not letting him have the last word, especially as that last word IMO was not reflecting the truth. Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If he wants to make himself look worse let him. It does you no good to bicker with him. Only makes you look worse as well. -DJSasso (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dj. But he's (deliberately?) saying the weirdest untrue things. What planet does he live on if he thinks that he can disprove diffs? He's using every trick possible, which is why I once asked "who'd buy a used car from Dolovis?".
Although I don't think this debate isn't getter any more fruitful by the number of editors, I just can't let Dolovis' allegations stand unanswered. I won't go into the diacritics debate here – since this is not what should be discussed on this page – other than noting how conveniently Dolovis always forgets the sentence "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources", when he refers to WP:COMMONNAME.
I don't know what I have done in wikipedia that could be perceived as FAITACCOMPLI. I am not the one who has double-edited redirects in order to prevent other editors from moving pages boldly. I have edited some double redirects after pages moves. Some redirects are the results of page moves done by myself, some are double redirects that I have come across by chance. Editing double redirects is what you are asked to do on the Special:Move result page, so it can't be that bad. Editing double redirects isn't the same thing as double-editing redirects, although I realize that Dolovis would love to confuse matters here (too).
Regarding my page moves provided by the diffs above (I'm numbering them 1-10, as their numbers will change when other sections above this one are archived):
Diff #1. Yumilka Ruiz to Yumilka Ruíz: the spelling is supported by an English language source in the article. Dolovis is always stressing the use of English-language sources, so what's the problem?
Diff #2. Louis-Leopold Robert to Louis-Léopold Robert: I "admit" to moving that article.
Diff #3. This is not a move diff. It's about the amusement park Six Flags. Although I recall having read the article, I can't find any trace of me having edited it, let alone moved it.
Diff #4-10. These moves were all done during the period 26 June–4 July, before I was aware of the WP:RM process. This is the beginning of the flare-up that eventually resulted in Dolovis' first ban for double-editing redirects. Dolovis moved the pages in the other direction, so who's he to blame anyone?
Hey. Yes, I know that Quebec is in North America, but I think I have seen names of Quebecois teams spelled with diacritics in en-wiki. So there might be an exception that neither you nor me know of. I'm not saying that there is one, I just don't know. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there has been Goodday since the league uses them we have typically left them on QMJHL articles. You have been part of discussions about this a number of times. -DJSasso (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, they're to be pipe-linked, removed etc, on all North American based hockey articles. Let's not start something up here, Dj. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not...you are well aware we use them for any league that uses them. You have been in this discussion countless times it is getting tiring that you "forget" that you agreed about that whenever it suits you. -DJSasso (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All North American based hockey articles, will have diacritics pipe-linked, removed etc. At WP:HOCKEY - the compromise says All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All North American based. If you want to argue this point at WP:HOCKEY? that's your choice. But, I'm continuing to follow the compromise. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been argued at wp:hockey. And has been decided the QMJHL doesn't fall under it. Which is why the team names etc all still have diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue to follow the compromise as is, All North American. Hopefully, you're not planning on starting an edit-spat with me. Forcing diacritics on player names at North American based articles - isn't exactly keeping the peace. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you will likely be reverted. You keep trying to provoke arguments where you know things are settled such as this one. Looks like you are already failing what you claimed you would do in your Rfc/U. -DJSasso (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who pushing the button on this topic. For 'bleep' sake, you've got all the non-North American based articles the way you wish them, so leave the North American ones 'without' diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You recently worked on the Stephen Harper template, eh? He looks so different from when I was in high school with him.
I just wanted to suggest to you that you create a user page. I didn't have one for ages either.
But serious editors should not be appearing in red.
{{2008 Summer Olympics United States men's volleyball team roster}}
Parameter df set to mdy:
{{2008 Summer Olympics United States men's volleyball team roster|df=mdy}}
As you can see, the date in the ref is rendered dmy regardless, while the birth dates within the table changes format according to the parameter.
I've been investigating at User:John of Reading/X2 and User:John of Reading/X3. I don't think this is going to work. The parser collects the reference text when it sees the "ref" tag, but only tries to expand the templates when it gets to the "reflist". At that point there is no "df" parameter available.
(coming here from VPT) I think that you're needlessly complicating things. These rosters deal exclusively with a US topic, so per WP:STRONGNAT only one date format is suitable. Pass the pure mdy date to the |date= in {{cite web}}, without pushing it through {{dts}}, and nobody should complain. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, each of these templates – there's one for each participating team of the tournaments, 24 in total – is transcluded from two articles: the "home" article (describing the own nation's participation in the Games), and either of the tournament articles. Since the Olympics are truly international, that kind of date format is used there. But in the templates concerning the US and Canada teams, the df parameter presents an possibility to display dates in the mdy format, which is used in the US articles, and sometimes also the Canada ones. I'd like that formatting to take effect even for the refs. Is there any possibility?
As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!
I removed them, so it doesn't anymore (it's not an inherent property). As you said yourself, consistent use either way is acceptable. If you want to revert me, you can do it yourself, I won't revert back. In that case, would you then please keep a missing comma that I actually inserted after a dependent clause? Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I like it the way it is, which is why I made that edit (the added missing comma aside). If you want to re-introduce the commas, you'll have to do it yourself, I'm afraid. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were having a nice and polite chat, but I was obviously mistaken. Are you sure you're not mixing up differing opinions with attitude? By the way, MOS:RETAIN refers to national varieties of English, such as British, American, Australian (no serial comma) or Jamaican English, not serial commas. Have a nice day. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. This is a copy of a note I left on Peterkingiron's Talk page, occurs to me that you also are familiar with WP:COMMONNAME and so on:
Hi, I need help with drafting a proposal for a simple addition to BLP which will advise accurate spelling (including diacritics for Latin alphabets, according to current citizenship) of Living People's names in ledes and title. I asked User talk:Prolog for help on his Talk page, and put a draft there. Your input would be appreciated before proposing at WT:BLP.
If you have anything to add also appreciated. Trying to close off future sports-stub generated conflict at wp, plus ensure respect/accuracy for Living People.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP
Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your recent edit at Royal Marriages Act 1772 to bypass a redirect link. No real harm done, just thought I'd point out that making an edit for no other reason than fixing a redirect doesn't necessarily improve the article, and it does add a history version that needs to be stored (see WP:NOTBROKEN). Of course, for the same reason, there's no need for anyone to revert your edit. --LarryJeff (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You scold me for asking an editor to stop his unilateral page moves & then you scold another editor for making a unilateral page move. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. I asked you – and had to ask again to get an answer – to clarify if the wording on your talk page was meant as a threat. I politely asked Leesw616 to at least temporarily halt his moves – n.b. without implying any consequences – and wait for a consensus. You need to look up scold in the wictionary. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Merely"? What does that mean in this context? Is English really your native language? If it isn't, your actions are even more weird than I've been thinking until now. Do you possibly mean "please"? In any case, the answer is no, since comments and discussions on talkpages should not be redacted. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a recent edit to the page Houla massacre, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk.
Apparently this is an issue which you have been called on also previously. Please realize that it is inappropriate to make your own delineation between what you apparently label "international date format" versus North American date format. That is simply not supported by Wikipedia guidelines. __meco (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not changed the variety of English in that article, and I cannot find that WP:ENGVAR applies to the date format. Please point out the specific sentence that supports your claim. Anyway, the date format in the article was inconsistent (and I'm sure you are aware that wp guidelines recommend using consistent format), and, having to choose one of the formats, I chose the most logical one: international. I assume you didn't revert that. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you have indeed reverted it. How childish. You are aware that the article now, thanks to your actions, is in violation of the wp guideline of date format consistency? HandsomeFella (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you are referring to is probably Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Retaining the existing format topic. While you, in some formal and bureaucratic way may be right, you reverted the article back to an inferior version, reintroducing 1) US-centric dates (to an article without any ties to the US whatsoever), 2) however inconsistently applied, and 3) missing commas after 2nd element (see WP:Copyedit, section Common edits, bullet point 9). You know, it doesn't hurt to read WP:IAR once in a while, in essence: "If a rule makes wikipedia worse, break it".
Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery.
Meco has now replied (on his talkpage) that he has no more comments. That means he cannot come up with any good answers.
The article had inconsistent date formats before my edit. From the two inconsistent formats in the article, one had to be chosen. By reverting my edit, Meco reintroduced the inconstistency to the article. When that was pointed out to him, he changed the article to obtain consistence. But Meco chose the format least suitable, the US-centric format – although the article has no ties whatsoever to the United States. One can only conclude that he did not want to admit he was wrong.
I respectfully ask you to reconsider your statement on the request for arbitration regarding GoodDay. What languages he speaks is not pertinent, and speculating based on his user name isn't helpful—it only fuels potential digressions into language-based bias towards diacritics, and distracts from open discussion on non-productive editing behaviour on GoodDay's part. isaacl (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I have no issue with the edits made at Template:Qc Uni, but I do have issue with the reasoning given behind. Camel-case is not the justification for your edits as there was no camel-case present, but MOS:CAPS would be what we follow for changes like this.--UnQuébécois (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hockey at the Commonwealth Games
Did you look at the edit history? It had been moved without consensus back in April, by a user who has since been blocked. That move had been reverted. So clearly there is no consensus for a move, and you need to use WP:RM. StAnselm (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I saw you moved this page to the "correct spelling", can you please give me your sources? I was not able to find good sources for this spelling... Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so you do not have a source for this... wikipedia can not be the source for wikipedia? Also Spanish wikipedia does not show a source for the spelling "Vallés". The source they have show his name as "Vallès"! Now also our English article shows a spelling which does not correspond with the source...
Actually, the source they have spells it "Vallès", the spelling before you moved the page in the first place. But this needs looking into, so I'll place a question at his page in es.wiki. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed a question at two users' talkpages, but so far none of them have edited after I placed the question. They have edited recently, so they are active. Just to let you know the status. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of them has finally replied now, and according to the team sheet he found, it seems to be spelled "Vallès". So I think we will have to move it again. And we could add the team sheet to the references section. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Los Angeles Kings edit (diacritics in player names)
Hi. Your recent edit at Los Angeles Kings, in conjunction with an exchange between you and GoodDay on the latter's talk page, suggests that you may have been collaborating with GoodDay to skirt his topic ban regarding diacritics, as imposed in his recent ArbCom case. Please be aware that this issue is being brought up at WP:AE. — Richwales21:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not collaborating with GoodDay. In fact, I have been one of his critics (which you would have known, if you'd followed the arbcase). This is why I have GoodDay's userpage on my watchlist, which in turn is why I noticed his comment. The corrections I've made follow WP:MOS and the project notice at WP:HOCKEY. It is not a personal thing between me and GoodDay, so I find no reason to abstain from correcting errors, just because GoodDay has pointed them out. But you can be sure that I won't act as his proxy. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your latest edit, as best I can tell, changed four names (Ian Laperrière, Anže Kopitar, Éric Bélanger, and Mattias Norström) to non-accented versions. Upon closer examination of the article, I see that these particular names were written inconsistently in the article (sometimes with diacritics, sometimes without) — so I'll concede that one might reasonably say that the names should be changed as needed to make them consistent. As for the statement in WP:HOCKEY (which I'm guessing you were alluding to) that player names in North American hockey pages should not use diacritics, this guideline appears to have been added via this 2007 edit by GoodDay, so I imagine it might not be on solid ice anymore in light of the ArbCom decision — though I'm not expecting that people in general would have kept track of when this edit happened or who had made it. In any event, I do still believe the timing here was curious enough to justify asking a serious question. — Richwales23:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was indeed GoodDay who added the notice, but it is nevertheless a long-standing consensus in the hockey project, a compromise as the result of a diacritics discussion. I assume you don't imagine that the project notice would have been there for five years, if it wasn't a consensus? So it's on "solid ice" allright. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The irony of the situation is the notice was created to stop GoodDay from warring with IPs about diacritics which he had been doing during that time period. With him now topic banned there probably isn't much of a need for the notice since most people in the project rarely touch diacritics to change them from one version to the other. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not want to touch on the subject during the Arbcom case, as it would have muddied the water but to a large degree the hockey compromise is not really enforceable if the larger community does object to it, as it could be argued it does not make sense to deliberately misspell the link target but then correcting it in the wikicode. But, and that is why sofar noone has really challenged it, the target audience of the articles in question does not know any better. I for one would not go out and change all those links, even if that was to be removed from the hockey guidelines but I might fix the odd one I do come accross in my wikitravels. Agathoclea (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was created in the absence of a wiki-wide consensus. We call it a compromise for that reason, it isn't a true consensus. It was just a truce to stop the edit wars and move wars that had been happening a few years back. It has actually been challenged a few times outside of the project but it always comes back to the no consensus on a wiki-wide scale which means its acceptable as a project MOS. That being said he was pretty much the only editor that was very strictly enforcing it. Most other ice hockey editors didn't care enough to change them in one direction or the other. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Enforcement isn't being sought against you, not sure why you added that section. You have no arbcom sanctions against you. That request is only about GoodDay. -DJSasso (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I can understand HandsomeFella's concern here, I don't currently believe any enforcement action is called for (or even being considered) against him at this time. I did initially (and still do) believe that the activity on GoodDay's talk page and the Kings article justified reasonable concern and a request for an explanation — but I am satisfied by HandsomeFella's explanation, and as far as I can tell, so is everyone else who has chimed in on the enforcement request. GoodDay's actions and explanations, on the other hand, leave significant worries regarding what he was thinking/expecting; and his stated intention to reject any limits regarding his talk page makes the matter all the more troublesome. — Richwales21:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the suggestion of having a navbox on the olympic football pages now we have septate pages for each of the groups and the Knock-out stages because it would really improve the look and standand of the pages that I have created and yesterday afternoon I tried to get one set up but sadly it was not sucessful and I have very limited knowedge on how to set these things up so I kindy ask you if you could help to set this up for me, I created the pages and thanks to a few people there have already made a few improvements but there is a long way to go and not much time untill the olympic Tournaments start. I know that here in the UK the Olympic tournments is not seen as high ranking event but it is still a major football event and it deserves the same coverage as other events like the UEFA European Championship and the FIFA World Cup. MOTORAL1987—Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is fantastic HandsomeFella and will really help to improve the pages, I was wondering if it was possible to do the same for the Hockey Tournament pages please. The only thing I think that needs adding to the Football pages navbox wise is a link for the squads otherwise thats it really good and I hope you will help me to make those pages as detailed as possible but I can only do so much.
Suggestion At the moment I have not created septate pages for the olympic football finals and Bronze Medal matches but I am wondering if they would add to the articles at all by creating such pages.
Suggestion Also I notice work is needed on the women's football tournament pages and wondering if more work is needed on the mens pages but I am very limited on what I can do, I can only really edit texts and add pictures and I am not capable of doing anything else as its too complex for me. ( MOTORAL1987 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC) )[reply]
I notice you are helping with all olympic pages HandsomeFella so I would also like to hear your view if it would be possible at all to create a detailed venues map showing all the venues which are hosting events during the 2012 summer olympics in central London. I propose three maps of the following locations all highlighted.
1. Olympic Park
2. River & Central Zone
3. Outside of Greater London
I see that Fyunck and Wolbo's insistence on, basically, the WP:TENNISNAMES counter to WP:OPENPARA on Sophie Lefèvre (and the 100x other BLPs with these Foreign-name/tennis-name ledes) has attracted on the infobox at Sophie Lefèvre a new variant from Kauffner, which is the "Common name" should go in the infobox here. You may not have seen this. I personally would wait on this. It is ridiculous but without a clear mechanism like RM there's not much can be done. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IIO.
Yes, I saw that. I hadn't seen the RfP though. Not much success with it he had (as the Jedi said). It was probably a mistake by me not to re-open the AN/I (and re-notify him) when he, more or less immediately after I closed it prematurely, reverted again. There was something in everybody's tone that made me believe that it was going to the talkpage. So much for assuming good faith. It could also have been imagination, I guess.
In the AN/I that I both opened and closed, I think there was a guy suggesting some sort of RfC. Do you think that would be something worth the time and effort?
Hey, good-looking fella. Sorry to pop up :) Can I suggest that rather than edit Toni Androic lede it might be simpler and more productive to just post an RM (it is after all the last remaining straightforward tennis BLP) and include in the RM that the result should also mean abiding by WP:OPENPARA? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right and that's a good thing. ;) No problem aswell, will finish the squads in the next minutes/hour(s) and then create the roster subarticle.. Kante4 (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Field hockey
Hey, why are we creating the templates if those aren't used like here and the men's counterpart? Small discussion going on here, maybe you can join? Kante4 (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thanks for asking. Obviously the templates are supposed to be used in the squads articles and in the respective country articles. I simply had not yet observed that someone created these articles. As you can imagine, my watchlist is ... big, especially now that we're nearing the opening of the Games. I have every "Country at the 2012 Summer Olympics" article that uses, or will use, templates of this type (which are created for the team sports of the Games) on my watchlist. That alone amounts to 52 articles. If you add all the templates and their categories and navboxes ... you get the picture.
If you want, please put these rosters/squads in templates. It's never too late to start saving maintenance (editing effort) and storage space consumption.
My key points for these templates are (and I know you already know this):
saving raw editing effort; instead of editing three articles – both countries' articles, and the tournament article – after the conclusion of a game, edit one template article, and the result is immediately visible in all relevant places,
saving storage space consumption in wikipedia's servers; instead of editing the three big articles (and they can be really big, e.g. for the UK and the US), thus creating another big version of each of these, one edits a much smaller template article, thus adding only another version of a much smaller template,
providing a means of obtaining uniformity, at least to some extent, between articles,
after the Games, and when editors' focus naturally changes to other topics, even low-profile countries with few athletes and non-English-speaking populations will be complete, at least with regards to the team sports, as this follows by using the templates.
As a bonus, there will probably be much fewer edit conflicts.
The example used above goes for game reference templates, which are used in three articles each. There are also group standings templates – smaller, but used in 5–7 articles each – and team roster templates – bigger, and used in two articles each.
Base on your comment, could one team make a big change in the squads after announcement? big ask about edit conflicts. Next, is about saving storage, may you see article size down to just 2KB, maybe is big save, but how about the creation of many templates, again server loading time could be save? The template can use in national article but for example 2010 FIFA World Cup squads which have 100KB also didn't use any templates to transform that article. We have every heading for each national, i don't think is hard to sort. --Aleenf116:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think the countries can make big changes to the squads now, you're probably right about that. But – the squads, whether in templates or "duplicated" over the relevant articles, are forever subject of future changes for a number of other reasons. For instance a water polo player that happens to have a unique name in wikipedia at this moment, might have a namesake that will rise to notability in just a few years (or even weeks) from now. Disambiguating this player – and other changes of virtually any type – might take place anytime, even long after the Games. If the squad is in a template, only one dab edit will have to be done, with the new version adding just around a couple of thousand bytes to wikipedia. If not, then both the squads article and the country article for the athlete in question will have to be changed, i.e. two edits that both will add substantially more to wikipedia, with regards to the number of bytes stored.
It's not just about the current article size, it's about how that size is repeated with each edit, even if the edit has nothing to do with a specific squad (or player). Not only will the article be smaller, it will also need fewer edits – as some of those will be made to the templates. Thus there will be a big save in storage over time. As I said above, it's never too late to start saving editing effort and storage consumption – but the sooner the better.
Now, you had to edit every squad by hand here, if you used the template there would have been no need for it. Just don't get it why it's not used there. Kante4 (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that the templates existed, and yet they were not used when the page was created? That's a waste of editing effort. Anyways, we'll fix it eventually. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They exist and yet are not used on the roster article. I think the roster article was made before the templates but still those should be used. Kante4 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'm assure is templates is not to saving editing efforts, but more for easy navigation and functionality, no point if i want to create a template for 3 articles (Olympic team, squads and national team). I'm more prefer for the style like {{Brazil Squad 1930 FIFA World Cup}}, it can be put in players, team article for long term. Sorry, I'm insist for the current and not templates for squads article. Maybe the template still can use for Olympic team page i can say. --Aleenf114:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those squad templates are different than the ones we use for the articles we mentioned. I start today/tonight working on those squad templates for the teamssports. I have yet to see a valid reason why the templates should not be used like you say. It saves time and it's easier and yes, it just needs 1 edit than 3. Maybe a discussion on WikiProject Olympics is needed to find a consensus. Kante4 (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat again, templates is making us easier to navigate, not time saving, creating 1 template for 3 articles, i think is a waste of database rather than is a save. --Aleenf115:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for widespread edit warring at Jelena Janković, as well as other articles, see Talk page at that article for background. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
Hello? I only reverted Fyunck's disruptive additions three times – a week ago. There's absolutely no reason to block me now (or for that matter earlier). Very much overkill. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It means that you are not being unblocked yet while I wait for a response to my message to the blocking administrator asking for clarification as to why you are blocked. Putting it "on hold" is a way of signalling to other administrators that the request is being investigated, so that they don't spend time on what is already being dealt with. I hope this can be sorted out soon. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ::: I've just woken up, glad to respond here. HF, as you're done with reverting on this issue, and I read here that you are and will take that on good faith, I've unblocked you.
But I do feel that the situation is just a tiny bit less clear-cut than you make it. First, I could five, not three, three of the five were after the full protection at Jelena: part of [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].
Additionally, it appeared from the later edit summary at Jelena that you were also aware that the Great Battle of Diacritics (more broadly construed) had ventured previously into ANI, dispute resolution, etc. The lack of continuing problems since the 17th at Jelena carried less weight for me given that that article was full protected during most of the intervening time, and given the edits at Androic *after* that full protection.
In any case, I've unblocked you. Thank you for understanding that future reverts regarding diacritics will, in my view, only serve to perpetuate, not "protect" or "resolve", the vehemently polarized set of issues surrounding said diacritics. --j⚛e deckertalk14:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for unblocking. Yes, I've previously removed the corresponding rubbish from two more articles, Sophie Lefèvre and Toni Androić, but I thought we were speaking about Janković.
Anyway, according to WP:BLOCK, blocks should not be punitive. As there was no ongoing disruption, at least not from my part, I should not have been blocked. In the light of this, you should probably lift other blocks too that you may have administered to other participants in this dispute, unless of course they continue editing disruptively (which I have not investigated). You may in that case want to look specifically for adding "or Diacriticless Nameversion" / "known professionally as Diacriticless Nameversion" / "also known as Diacriticless Nameversion" in article ledes.
Slapping of few of them with a warning though, is fully motivated.
Thank you for your response, given how frustrating blocks can be, I am grateful for your graciousness here, and I owe you an explanation. As I explained to James, I read your edits to Toni, which came *after* my full protect to Jelena, as a continuation of the same fight. i had not intended it, for what it's worth, as punitive, it was with an eye toward trying to prevent the continuation of what I see as a larger slow-burn war--not just Sophie, Toni and Jelena (although those were your points of involvement AFAIK), but a larger, neck-deep pile of this and related issues at dozens of articles and multiple behavioral noticeboards. That Sophie and Jelena came to me (at RFPP and my talk page respectively), and that Toni was the next no doubt influenced my perception of the situation badly.
It is the larger battle that troubles me far more than Jelena in particular, or for that matter, a putatively rubbish lead. There is clearly a contentious disagreement about the putatively rubbish lead, it is clear that there's no policy addressing that text of overriding importance (e.g., WP:BLP). You seem aware that this discussion has a long history of related disputes surrounding diacritics and the same opposing editor. Continuing to revert, even team-revert that lead does nothing to resolve the situation, but it does disrupt the community through having to protect articles, in terms of driving away other editors who might wish to improve the biographies in question, and so on. ANI, DR, consensus, and page protection have merely served to shift the battle, not resolve it. It needs to stop, and if you can suggest constructive ways forward beyond what I've suggested on Jelena's talk page, I'm all ears. Thanks. --j⚛e deckertalk17:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see what you mean. Thanks for your explanation (and your time and your trouble).
I agree that it's a bad situation. In this context, I'd like to point out that another user, GoodDay, has been the subject of an ArbCom for his repeated adding of "(English: Diacriticless Nameversion)" to the lede of articles on people with diacritics in their names, e.g. Zoë Baird – as if "Zoë Baird" were another language.
It seems to me that the examples I mentioned above are just simple variations of that, and that repeatedly adding this is equally disruptive. (Another similarity is that GoodDay also cried "censorship!" when his additions were removed.)
I would also like to point out that I reported Fyunck(click) to AN/I for his repeated re-adding of this rubbish (whether putative or not), but as I later sensed a change in his wordings, indicating to me that he was going to start a discussion on Talk:Sophie Lefèvre, I closed the report prematurely myself – just to see him re-adding the sh*t instead immediately after! So much for assuming good faith.
One thing that one might contemplate is why these additions are made only to low-profile tennis people articles, and not higher-profile articles, like Björn Borg for example... It's obviously to evade detection by the larger community, so the additions can "stick" to the article with the help of time: "it's been there since April...". (So what?)
Regarding edits such as this: please see WP:NOTBROKEN. Unambiguous links which redirect correcttly should not be "fixed" to bypass the redirect: this adds to the page code size while doing nothing to help readers or editors, as the underlying software is optimised to make redirects very cheap. Links should only be piped where the direct text does not redirect correctly. I'd appreciate it if you avoided doing this in future. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if redirects are cheap, they are "less cheap" than the real link. In addition, page navigation, such as "what links here" and "related changes", is affected. And adding 20 bytes to an article of 22k bytes is chickenshit, really (if you pardon my French).
Hey, it's the usual way to write the countries name in Caps under the flag. Look at other football tournament in the past. ;) Kante4 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but is that really right?
Btw, thanks for your great job with updating the game reference and – I assume – group standings templates!
I guess so. And Thanks. ;) It's a great timing as i have 4 weeks off now and got time for the olympics when i'm not out or at practise. Kante4 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what a coincidence! ;-) Where I live, fathers of young children often have their parental leave conciding with either the Olympics or major football tournaments. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's also great, i assume. ;) Will enjoy the olympics and watch the german hockey/volleyball games for sure and most of the basketball tournament i guess. Kante4 (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not sure that the templates replace the schedule page (it might, I don't know). The idea is to keep information that is common for several pages (and that otherwise would be duplicated over these pages) in one place, the templates, so it will only have to be updated there, and still be visible in all relevant places. This obviously reduces both the editing effort and data storage required.
The concept is usable mainly for events where you have a "matrix" of pages with overlapping content, such as "[Sport] at the 2012 blablabla event" and "[Country] at the 2012 blablabla event", where the information in the intersection between sports and countries can be kept in templates (for team sports, that is).
This is the case for the Olympics (obviously), the Paralympics, Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, etc. I'm not sure that there would be so much gain for a mono-sport event such as the UEFA Euro events, as you don't have "[Country] at the 2012 UEFA Euro", but maybe.
I guess you have seen that not only football/soccer is covered for the 2012 Olympics? The sports of basketball, field hockey, handball, volleyball and water polo are also covered.
Template:2012 Summer Olympics Russia men's volleyball team roster
I disambiguated Aleksandr Volkov in this template. Due to the difficult structure, I can only hope I did it correct. Could you please revise the internal structure of this template to make it more accesible for others? Preferrably ASAP, but I can live with it when you fix it only after the Olympics. And when I screwed up you template: sorry. The Bannertalk00:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coloring is really useful. At least the Win, Loss and Matches of Today.
I am thinking of adding it back. We can remove the reference table.
Prateek (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a notice that I have mentioned you in an ongoing WP:ANI discussion, regarding recent shenanigans on User talk:GoodDay. Not that I'd want to press for sanctions or anything right now, but you should know that your behaviour there was not really helpful. Fut.Perf.☼20:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw it, and thanks for noticing notifying. While I agree that they weren't helpful, I don't think it amounts to anywhere near harassing (nor was it intended that way). I just found his put-down comments of wikipedia being "written by experts" really odd. As if it were better, the less knowledgable contibutors are. And he keeps whining about diacritics forever. He's so pathetic. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read the sequence on his page and it certainly looks like you were harassing him to me. The last sentence above "He's so pathetic" certainly indicates either intent to do so or disdain for him that's not acceptable around here.
There's a difference between pointing out that users have problems editing (or using English, or Logic), and disrespecting or insulting or berating them. The community here and encyclopedia exist because large groups of people get together and cooperate to create and manage information. Behavior like that is fundamentally destructive to the community and to cooperation. Even if the editor has problems. Even if the editor may be about to get blocked for those problems.
We specifically have a ban on "tap dancing on another editors grave" - taunting someone who's been or is about to be blocked. It's considered a serious, blockable offense.
Given the totality of the situation - what you did, his Arbcom case enforcement that's active, etc., I would suggest that any further interaction with him would be a really bad idea on your part. Just leave him alone. Please.
It wasn't tap-dancing on anyone's grave (at least it wasn't meant that way), it was an exchange of arguments at their face value, although I realize it wasn't welcome (especially my 2nd and 3rd posts). I think his arguments and his way of reasoning are rediculous – I mean, just because diacritics are not banned across en.wiki, it's the Multiple Language Wikipedia? Yeah right. This was so silly that I thought it needed a rebuttal. And if he didn't want reactions, then why did he post the info? After all, this isn't facebook or twitter, where you "have to" keep your status updated. You can join simple.en.wiki without telling the whole world.
Regarding harassment, I wasn't mentioning anything about him being under restrictions, let alone rejoycing in it, which I don't. In fact, I just read that the proposal at ArbComEnf now is to block him for six months, and I think it's way over the top. Two weeks, or maximum a month, is what I'd go for. So I'm not at all happy just because he's blocked or under restrictions. I just wish he could stop dwelling on the matter of diacritics, specifically with his line of arguments.
However, I will take your (implicit) advice, and take him off my watchlist, so I will not be lured into engaging with him again.
I wouldn't say that it's evil, but I don't agree that they should be merged. They are two different events, and two sets of medals are awarded. You wouldn't wanna merge Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres with Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 4 x 100 metres, would you? Pretty much the same people there too.
But feel free to make your proposal at the articles. If you decide to go ahead, you can use templates Merge to and Merge from.
AH! But I suspected you'd make that comparison! (grin) I have no interest in having an edit war over the issue, so if WP Olympics insists that every separate set of medals gets its own article, then that's basically my question (i.e. is is a consensus rule). If so, I'm not going to beat my head against the wall and propose a merge. However, if there are combination articles allowed, and you look at the dressage rules, yes, two sets of medals are awarded, but the team competition weeds out the finalists for the individual. Does ANY other event do this? (Other than the other equestrian stuff -- Eventing is even more like this - uses the SAME rounds scores to determine both sets; jumping is more complicated, but seems individual medalists get to the finals using team scores too) And does it matter? Montanabw(talk)18:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The team and individual dressage competitions used the same results. Dressage had three phases, with the last being used only for the individual event. The first phase was the Grand Prix. Individuals advanced to the second phase, the Grand Prix Special, if they were on one of the top seven teams or were one of the top 11 remaining competitors. The top 18 competitors in the Grand Prix Special (ignoring Grand Prix scores) advanced to the final phase, the Grand Prix Freestyle. The results of that phase (again ignoring previous scores) produced final results.
August 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
I think you are not saving space but trying to saving your works. Of course, losing WP database and template loading bandwidth. Nevermind, i will revert 24 hours later. --Aleenf115:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Blocking admin obviously can't count. I have reverted disruptive reverts by Aleenf1exactly three times. Instead, as can be seen above, Aleenf1 is intent on dodging the formal limit by returning in 24 hours (he too has reverted 3 times). I request an immediate lift of this block, along with a removal of any traces it from the block log. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Firstly, it's plain to see you two are edit-warring. Secondly, over the two articles, I count six reverts. — foxj15:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
First (to quote you), you need to read up on the 3 revert rule. This is what it says: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period" (my bold). You can't add other reverts. Secondly, if you accuse someone of breaking the 3 revert rule, you need to make sure it's true. See instructions on reporting someone for this on WP:ANI/3RR. It says clearly there that you need four diffs. You have three. So what you are accusing me of isn't true. Are you a beginner admin? Now, this is a open and shut case, and you have made a mistake: unblock now. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Unfortunately HandsomeFella you need to have a re-read over 3RR. It does specifically mention that you can still be blocked for edit warring even if you don't go over 3 reverts. And it can cross over multiple pages. To quote WP:3RR "Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." You do good work, and generally I support most of what you do on the wiki. But the two of you were clearly warring over it when you should have stopped and talked. Take the time off and enjoy a summer's day. DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Hello DJ. However disappointing your decision was to me, I respect you, so I'll be politer. I'm not going to continue the edit war (one obvious reason being that the articles are now good). In contrast, the first thing Aleenf1 would do if you unblocked him, is to actually cross the 3RR line (as he promised above). Actually, I was preparing to report Aleenf1 on WP:ANI/3RR, had he done that – but then the blocks were applied on both of us. While the rules may in fact (much to my surprise) allow for blocks even without crossing the 3RR line, there is no need for a further block. Point is taken. I just don't know how to resolve things like this. It seems to me that the disruptive editor always gets his way, even if he's blocked. How else do you fix things, without reverting the last disruptive edit? Ultimately, the page needs to be fixed, doesn't it? Else the last disruptive edit will stand. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
A 24 hour block is no big deal. It's a tough sell to justify lifting a block that's a mere 24 hours. Although I agree the block was justified, since you seem willing to wait it out, consider this not a rejection of your request, but rather a procedural decline. The world won't end because a good editor is forced to leave for a day. Have a nice break, get something else done that you've been meaning to do. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Well the best way is to post to a related talk page asking for additional eyes in a neutral way. In this case probably the Olympics project or the Sports project in general. State that there is a difference of opinion and that the other editor won't discuss with you (if that is the case) and could some other people come and comment. I find more often than not you will get at least a couple people to show up and let their view be known whether it supports you or not you usually can get somewhat of a consensus and then that version can be applied to the page. And please don't take my denial personally, you are usually a fine editor. Sometimes we all just need to walk away for a bit because we got frustrated. 24 hours isn't that long. I won't action this most recent request since I already touched one. But if you promise to not continue edit warring perhaps the original blocking admin might remove the block. (or another admin) -DJSasso (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am part of an effort to get Wikimedians access to the 2016 Summer Olympics as accredited reporters and photographers. Part of this effort includes covering the 2012 Summer Paralympics. Two Wikimedians have credentials to attend these games as reporters through Wikimedia Australia. As English Wikipedia does not allow original reporting, this is largely through Wikinews with a project page found at Wikinews:Paralympic Games. If you are interested in helping to get Wikimedians to the next Summer Olympics,I'd encourage you to assist with Wikinews efforts, and also to work on all language 2012 Summer Paralympic Wikipedia articles before, during and after the Games to demonstrate a track record of success. Thank you. --LauraHale (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"known professionally as Charlotte Bronte"
Hiya, HT. Joe's RfC is on the back of WP:OPENPARA, but it was way too broadly worded and predictably at day 29 is just a talk shop for Makesense64 to advance his/her WP:TENNISNAMES ideas again and then threaten anyone disagreeing with him/her at ANI. I have left a message just now with User talk:Joe Decker. You may have noticed I have resubmitted a RM2 for your Talk:Dominik Halmosi RM, and it would be useful if someone, anyone, submit an RM2 at Talk:Stephane Huet. We've come to the end of the European "English names" and it'd be nice to tidy up the remaining embarrassments from WP's face. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HT, ay-oh, when I answered your question, and when I left a message with Joe I wasn't aware of the edits on José Benítez and Mario Rincón. I did specifically say on the Talk:José Benítez RM "advise to disregard current duplication "José Benítez known professionally as Jose Benitez," and "Mario Rincón known professionally as Mario Rincon" ..." a wording I discussed with Joe on his Talk page and gave him freedom to edit if there was a problem. It would have been better to let the RfC close on 30 days, as completely counterproductive as it has been, and go slowly. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've been here long enough to know that AIV is the right place for that, or maybe even AN/3RR ... but that neither of those will act whatsoever without valid warnings. As such, their reply is 100% accurate, fair, and valid ... ANI is the place of last resort, not first dangerouspanda15:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's no reason to comment that way, whether it's true or not. That comment displayed a non-negligable lack of AGF. I assume you remarked on that editor's talkpage too. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But, I don't see anything wrong with their comment ... only yours. You could, of course, point me to where there's a problem with their comment and I'll look at it again, but I've reviewed it 3 separate times and see no problems with it, so there's no need to bring it up with them, yet. dangerouspanda18:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'll ask you to point out where he was snotty? He simply stated the fact that you know how to do it the right way - nothing snotty in his reply at all dangerouspanda18:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have pointed you to what I disliked in his comment. I had not expected a prize for reporting vandalism, but I also did not expect that. It could easily have been said differently, but he didn't bother. Now, I'm sure you can make yourself useful somewhere else. Goodbye. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and I showed that you may have read it wrong. However, based on your response above, snottiness is simply in your nature. That won't go over well in the long run, and don't expect huge hurrying to assist you if that's your tone with people. Good luck dangerouspanda19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've showed nothing of the sort. You only showed that you read it differently. Who's to judge which perception is "right" or which is "wrong"? And that is only "my tone" with people if and when I perceive that people use it towards me. Now, if you'll excuse me ... ? HandsomeFella (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@HandsomeFella — TParis may have worded it a bit bluntly, but he's certainly right. When dealing with persistent vandalism, it is prudent that the vandalizing user is given a fair number of warnings prior to being dealt with via sysop action. That way, they can take the time to reflect on whether they could better invest their efforts in making constructive contributions. I recommend reading over our policy on vandalism if you haven't already, or perhaps for a second time if you've done so before; specifically, I think it would help you to check out this section. The issue EatsShootsAndLeaves brings up with regards to your tone is the fact that you seem to have difficulty in handling criticism when it is given. I can understand where you're coming from, as I am a very sensitive person myself and it hurts me when people are overly gruff or dismissive of my contributions, but I'm also aware that I am very capable of making poor decisions, and oftentimes people are "tough" not because they want to offend me, but because they want to help me improve on myself. That's why I also make a point of reassessing whatever it is I've been doing, reflecting on the points of those who disagree with me, and then figuring out whether I should reconsider my approach. Sometimes I have to admit when I'm wrong; that's life. Speaking as someone who's had the same difficulties himself, being able to handle criticism is a skill you may need to work on a bit. In any case, I hope you can learn from this experience and continue to be a productive contributor. Do not make the mistake of believing you're not valued here. Kurtis (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Greetings, as you see in my talk and Intoronto1125's, we are not agree about having just one article for Volleyball and Beach volleyball. There are interwiki, a template and just adding beach volleyball content under volleyball make it larger and difficult to read. His argument is make it like Olympics, and may be valid in certain way, but there should be another intermediate solution, making a template that links both articles volleyball and beach volleyball in every pan american game, just like Olympics do. I would like to hear from you, thanks. Osplace01:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about this for a compromise: why not make the main article "Volleyball at the XXXX Pan American Games" more of a summary, and create more detailed sub-articles on
"Volleyball at the XXXX Pan American Games – Men's tournament",
"Volleyball at the XXXX Pan American Games – Women's tournament",
"Beach volleyball at the XXXX Pan American Games – Men's tournament" and
"Beach volleyball at the XXXX Pan American Games – Women's tournament",
following the structure of "Volleyball at the 2012 Summer Olympics"? The main article could then easily harbour the summaries of both the beach and the indoor tournaments, without being so large. Then we would both have a common main article, with all four tournaments summarized, and separate detailed sub-articles. (I'm sure you can find the tournament details somewhere on the net.) This would also mean increased uniformity.
On your comment I realize that you agree with the creation and the use of the header's templates. What do you think about the layout? I am trying to do them more user-friendly as possible. Stigni (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Templates
HandsomeFella,
This is Raymarcbadz, one of WikiProject Olympics members. I know that you managed to create templates for rosters and other group and game play in order to minimize maintenance and storage space. I would like to show you something. Click this link here. Can I ask your opinion about this? Two people can't stop accusing me about the template, and I want this to stop and settle this dilemma, Thank you. Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HandsomeFella,
What shall I do to keep the roster templates intact? Honestly speaking, I didn't even start creating a navbox template, and neither I took the initiative to do it. I haven't even finished the roster templates and nation articles before this template exists. Message me on my talk page. Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have made our case. The only thing we can do now is to wait for an admin to close the case as either delete or keep. I believe that there will have to be a centralized discussion first, so the closing admin will probably close it as "no consensus". What happens after the centralized discussion, I don't know. But there are so many editors that have worked with these templates during the Olympics and Paralympics – and found them useful – that I doubt there will be a consensus for delete. But if the outcome would be "delete", then we will have to accept that, in spite of all work we have put into it. That's how wikipedia works, though I admit I would be disappointed to see much of my work go down the drain. But, as I said, that's life. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What shall we do to improve the articles from the old Games, not this year's Summer Olympics. In fact, I was working on the Beijing games for nearly a month. How are we going to assemble the team rosters, game references, and tournament standings in case the navbox templates and others are deleted? I don't know what to do. Can you create something in your sandbox? Thank you. Should I do a template that is exclusively designed only for team rosters? Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in, but as the templates were created three weeks ago, all you have do to to recover the information IF the templates are deleted, is to find a version of the article before the templates were added and copy the code. NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can keep working with the templates, at the risk of having that work too undone. Or you can do something completely different.
What NapHit urged you to do, I think, was to put back the nomination for delete discussion. If the result of the discussion is "keep", then the closing administrator will remove the nomination.
NapHit, if the nomination goes through, wouldn't it be better to copy the content of the templates? The old page versions are probably not as complete.
I'm assuming the contents of the template was copied from what was already in the articles anyway, but yes it would be quicker to just copy the content of the templates into a sandbox, so that's probably the best option. NapHit (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the content was probably copied from there – I can't say for certain, as I have not done all of them – but it has in many cases been updated there (in the templates) since. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better if I continue working on the rest of the football templates to escape the risk of the possible outcome. I shall not focus first on the roster templates for handball, baseball, and softball, in which they are still incomplete. I'll try my best to finish all of them, so that they can be easily saved. Sorry NapHit for a relentless drama in the discussion. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would wait until the discussion is closed before working on anymore templates. Only those listed at the page will be deleted, but if they are there is a precedent for deleting the templates. Therefore, it would be a waste of time creating more templates which could potentially be deleted. I would just wait and see what the outcome is first. NapHit (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get drawn into another discussion regarding these templates, but in short the answer is yes I do want to undo them, but its not up to me and I'd need a consensus, which might be hard to come by. FYI, I started a discussion at the village pump about these templates here. NapHit (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its fine, mudslinging inevitably happens when editors get involved with these types of discussions. I do regret some of the stuff said, so I apologise if you took offence at anything I said. Anyway, if the templates are kept, I would note that splitting those nation at Olympics pages should be looked at in more detail. As some of them are very large, no number of templates will adequately reduce them to a reasonable size. So once the TFD and Village pump discussion are closed/archived it may be worth exploring this option further with WP:OLYMPICS, as its an issue that will crop up in 2014 and onwards. NapHit (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Click this link here. No more red links. Everything is already done. I also created category links as well for easy access. Sorry, NapHit for saying the wrong things over the discussion. I'm sure we felt calm right now after countless days of misunderstanding and debate. Raymarcbadz (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Click this link here. No more red links. Everything is already done. I also created category links as well for easy access. Sorry, NapHit for saying the wrong things over the discussion. I'm sure we felt calm right now after countless days of misunderstanding and debate. Peace! Raymarcbadz (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore all of the links at Foreign relations of Russia
Hello HandsomeFella, I had seen that you had decided without any warning to edit Template:Foreign relations of Russia. You had decided to redirect and remove all of the other articles that have not been filled yet. Look HandsomeFella you must undo what you did because there is an overwhelming negative reaction to what you did just now. I urge to please undo your edit to that template. Please it has to be done. Even if there is no good thing to get the other articles will be filled in later in the future so please if you can undo your edit to Template:Foreign relations of Russia and all will be well.
Palestine194 (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
Edits are usually done without "warning", see WP:BOLD.
Where is the "overwhelming negative reaction" you are speaking about? I can only see the edit request you added yourself to the template talkpage. Are there any other editors involved?
Although the template is semi-protected, any auto-confirmed editor can edit it, and thus revert my changes (though I would not recommend that).
What is the particular problem you have with the edit? Maybe I can fix it. Is it that you'd like the red links back?
Yes I have a problem without the red links. There is absolutly nothing wrong with the red links there. Just take a look at Template:Foreign relations of China. In there the red links are the links where the articles about a country's bilateral relations with China have not yet been added. But don't worry HandsomeFella someone else will add that article. Also in the case of a very semi-protected article it will be much more easier for another user who is not a registered user to add an article if the red links are there. So yes I would like you to put the red links back and to undo what you did to the part about Diplomatic relations. That is where you combined the Diplomatic Relations part. I hope that you will also undo that part. I hope you understood what I had told you.
Palestine194 (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can add the red links back, no problem. But I'm not sure what you mean with the "diplomatic relations" stuff. Are you referring to the of / in combination? That's perfectly allright, see for instance Template:Foreign relations of Iran.
Btw, you haven't answered the "overwhelming negative reaction" question.
O.K. I will show you at Template:Foreign relations of China. In that template I have seen that the Diplomatic missions of and in are two separate combinations. I think that if it is alright in Template:Foreign relations of China, then it should be reverted back in this template. Otherwise if your reversion is correct HandsomeFella then either you or I will change what is in Template:Foreign relations of China to your format. Regarding the "overwhelming negative reaction" have you seen the Template:Foreign relations of Russia: Revision history in there I found out that it was -2,020 in red that is very negative. I also saw the bytes. That is the negative reaction. If you want you can just make your changes now and then give me advice on what to do with the Diplomatic Relations or just revert it as well if you can. But regarding Template:Foreign relations of China is in my opinion the best format for the Diplomatic missions of and in should be separate. But that is just my opinion. Just put those red links back in right now and we can discuss about what to do with the Diplomatic missions format.
Palestine194 (talk) 11:53 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I have added back the red links now. Regarding the "overwhelming negative reaction", I think you were a bit hysterical.
Ok HandsomeFella thank you very much but can I ask you another question? What about the Diplomatic missions of and Diplomatic missions in. Can you change it back as soon as possible to the format used in Template:Foreign relations of China. I think that that is a good format so please change it back if you can or if you still think it is right then I will change what is in Template:Foreign relations of China back to your format. Thank you very much and I hope that you make your changes or otherwise let me change what is in Template:Foreign relations of China to your format.
Palestine194 (talk) 12:32 30 October 2012 (UTC)
OK HandsomeFella I will do as you have wanted and I will change the format of the Diplomatic missions in Template:Foreign relations of China to the of / in format as you requested. Thank you very much for your help.
Palestine194 (talk) 12:44 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Edit war them, which 20 editors have tried, and 20 editors cannot out-edit 1. Plus the warning from an admin.
Try to add legislation to MOS like WP:UE or WP:EN - which I expect won't work because guidelines like WP:UE or WP:EN are not exactly magnets to multiculturally or internationally minded editors.
Reopen a separate RfC2 on wp tennis worded to "uphold/extend" the original RfC decision to specifically exclude these kind of ledes. Given that they were already rejected, but lacking clarity, clarification would get rid of them, since it was implicit in the original WP:TENNIS names RfC. The majority of tennis editors don't support them either. That's my suggestion, better than edit-warring, and less bytes. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, HandsomeFella. You have new messages at Talk:Financial crisis of 2007–2008. Message added 19:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It might not have been 3 (actually 4) straight reverts (and actually on more articles than those two), but there's no doubt that Fyunck (professionally known in Germany as Fyünck) has edit-warred against several editors to keep some sort of silly, WP:UNDUE and WP:POINTy mentioning – as illustrated above – of the well-known and distinctly unnotable fact that some sources lose the diacritic. I have collected the diffs, so I know. I was going to report him to either the AN/I or 3RR, but while preparing, I found that a warning was required. So I warned him. It's as simple as that. Can I ask you why you asked? HandsomeFella (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the R3 speedy deletion criterion, under which you asked for this redirect to be deleted. There's no three-year rule, but this criterion only applies to recently-created redirects, and "recent" is generally taken to be much, much less than three years old. You may take the redirect to WP:RFD, but please read that page's "When should we delete a redirect?" section — it's a bad idea to delete old redirects that aren't harmful, simply because deletion would break links to it, either at Wikipedia or on other sites. Linkrot isn't a good thing, so we shouldn't contribute to it unless we have a good reason. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, long time no talk, hope everything is fine. ;) I have a question: Will you (with my help if you want) create those Templates for Ice hockey (starting with the group standings as they are known now) and Curling for 2014 Olympics like you did in 2012? Kante4 (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kante, sorry for not responding sooner – in fact, now I remember that I did respond here, but some kind of wiki error occurred, and then I forgot to try again. Yes, I think that such templates could be useful this time around too. Are you willing to create them? I assume you will follow the structure from the previous Olympic tournament. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, i wondered a bit but did not wanted to bother you by writing again as there was/is still time left. I can start with it during next week and follow the 2010 templates with the necessary changes. Kante4 (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or the 2012 ones as they look even better, those templates with an overview to edit and view every other template. ;) Kante4 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice. A similar one for curling would be useful too, I'm sure. These templates will gives us a much easier job in keeping all articles up to date in a near live coverage, once the Games get going, that is my experience from the 2012 Summer Olympics. Great job. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ;) Yep, think so too. 2012 was really good with those templates, 1 edit instead of (at least) 3. Easier for the editors. The curling one will be done later on (Q tournament in December). Kante4 (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I deleted the tag as being unnecessary, on the basis that whether an editor uses an upper or lower case "s" to find the article they will still find it because of the existence of the redirect, which is as it should be. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"11:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You are invited to join Darius Dhlomo Drive, a project which aims to cleanup and resolve one of the oldest copyright investigations on the sire. We hope that you will join and help to clean what's left of the copyright violations. You are getting this invitation because you have helped out previously, and I am inviting you back to hopefully wrap this up. Wizardman01:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey HandsomeFella, can I boldly suggest that you disengage from discussions with Fyunck? I've worked with this editor for several years and really think you've become too close to the "action" perhaps. Maybe ask another uninvolved admin to take a look, just as Fyunck has done. It's Friday, there's no point in going into this weekend with any kind of agenda. Let's chill it out a bit and see what a third-party thinks? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm not looking for trouble. Haven't interacted with him for at least a couple of days, I think. Only problem is that Fyunck refuses to abide by consensus. Although he is more soft-spoken than his "predecessors" Dolovis, GoodDay and LittleBenW (of whom 2 are currently blocked), his methods follow the same pattern: reverting or re-adding material against consensus, WP:IDHT, disregarding WP:BRD, etc, and when several editors contact him, calling for him to respect consensus, and ultimately warning him when he doesn't, he calls it "harassment", "threats" and "intimidation".
His tactics are now following the all too familiar pattern of banning editors from contacting him, and reverting their posts to his talkpage, labeling it vandalism and lies.
In my view, he is lucky not to have been reported to ANI a long time ago. If he continues down that path, it will end up with him being reported sooner or later.
Thanks. If you really think a WP:SPI is required, then you should file one. Otherwise, I'd drop the "predecessor" thing, it's only antagonising the situation. Have a good weekend. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No no, I'm not saying that. I don't believe any of them to be sockpuppets of each other.
I dropped by because of the conversation on Talk:Frédéric Vitoux (tennis), to say that the Swedish example was very sensibly presented. Will have however to resist WP:BRD reverting Fyunck's latest TENNISNAME lead/footnote to Mervana Jugić-Salkić. These duplicate name edits are on top of 105 BLPs, so No. 106 won't make any difference. Also it looks bad to have only 2 or 3 of the 20-30 editors who have reverted these leads reverting them. Most have reverted once or twice only. Eventually, incrementally, slowly, the weight of consensus will be accepted. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just caught your reply. Yes pretty much as you said. Unfortunately while there's been 30 or so editors willing to revert Fyunck's "Björn Borg professionally known as Bjorn Borg" type BLP leads once or twice, we don't have the mechanism beyond to address content other than RfC. Following Fyunck's last comment at Talk:Frédéric Vitoux I posted RfC note there, but you see the response.
As far as the editor above The Rambling Man (was he asked by Fyunck?), he's made his views very clear on the WP:MOSBIO discussion on Talk:Ana Ivanovic (you missed a pointless RM) to the effect that MOSBIO is optional. If MOSBIO is optional then project MOS such as WP:MOSSR is even more optional. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, HandsomeFella! You can close the RM at Talk:Hans Johan Andersson#Requested move 2, and move the pages according to your proposals, if you want to. As you can see in the discussion, only one user is against the proposals, and several users have shown their support for moving the pages. Best regards, HeyMid (contribs) 18:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, HeyMid, but I think I've heard somewhere that it is isn't considered entirely by the book to close one's own RM. Let's wait for an uninvolved person to close. There's no big hurry. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On 8 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brittany Bowe, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that American speed skater and Olympic hopeful Brittany Bowe previously played elite-level basketball, and at the age of two gave dribbling exhibitions at halftime of college games? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brittany Bowe. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for leaving the note! I'm fine with having a new article created there.
"Higab" comes from http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2006/11/26/seeing-clearly.html (The Daily Beast prints Newsweek articles: " For liberal Western societies, the debate over the higab --a scarf that covers the head but not the face--crystallizes a key modern dilemma:"
I noticed that in this edit you used the {{xt}} template to quote an earlier post ("It makes little sense to punctuate a forward-looking adjective with a pause at the end of it"). The correct template to use for this purpose is {{tq}} (which appears like this: "It makes little sense to punctuate a forward-looking adjective with a pause at the end of it").
By default, these look very similar, which I have complained about (see Template talk:Tq). I have modified my CSS so that they appear quite different to me, although that meant that the text you quoted looked even more like is was being given as an example of correct grammar or formatting!
So, you're going to write an article on him in en.wiki? Well, I think I would choose Gustav, provided that would not be counter the WP:COMMONNAME in WP:RELIABLESOURCES. There's always the 17th century king Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, whose common name for some reason has become just that, but I think most Swedes, kings or commoners, are named Gustav, both in WP:RS and here in en.wiki. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. However, since you feel so strongly about the uniformity, I expect you will change the page of each and every foreign MMA fighter and not just Gustafsson, correct? Udar55 (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about my feelings, or anyone else's. We should follow guidelines. And if I come across foreign – assuming by "foreign" you mean non-American, foreign is a relative concept – fighters, I might copyedit those articles, as well as I would any other article.
2013–14 ISU Speed Skating World Cup – World Cup 2 – Women's 1500 metres
Hello HandsomeFella,
I've just added a reference to your above article, which I think will help to improve the article as it gives more insight into the game with a brief mention on its history. I'm also looking for a suitable reference for the earlier article that I tagged "ref-improve". Please bear with me. Best regards. (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)) [reply]
Hello, and thanks for responding, but your source doesn't add anything that isn't already covered by the source issued by the organizer. I know, more than one source is good, but 1) the first source is authoritative, and 2) your added source was only on a superficial level. As such, it's better suited for the main article, 2013–14 ISU Speed Skating World Cup, which is why I added it there.
Thanks for using the source I cited for another article. Hopefully, we come across each other again for more talks in the time to come. Have a good day, Sir. Best regards, (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
WikiProject volleyball - invitation to discussion
There is a discussion in WikiProject Volleyball about the proposal for Notability Guide for Volleyball Players. Participation of editors outside the project are welcome, please join the discussion. Osplace17:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Scott Carpenter 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:
which caused him to overshoot the planned splashdown point by {{convert|250|mi|km|abbr=on}}. ("The malfunction of the pitch horizon scanner circuit [a component of the automatic control system]
Could someone who's an expert on wikitables please help?
I think the default margins in the table cells in the first table below are too small, the text the cells is too close to the borders. The second table looks better, but I think the wikicode becomes too messy with lots of non-breaking spaces. There must be a smarter way to achieve that – right?
Thanks, but that widened the table, which was not what I had in mind, and it also didn't increase the margins, if you look closer. Well, the margins increased where there now is excessive space, of course, but not on the left side; the text is left-adjusted.
HandsomeFella (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I reread and saw that, so I've replaced the banner and will continue to work on it. There are several options if we don't go with the "wikitable" class, but it appears that the "cellpadding" style has no effect on "wikitable". I'm checking into it. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!13:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I suspected, the "cellpadding" parameter was once usable in wikitable class, but has since been subdued. So there is another option, shown above, that uses "cellpadding='10'" to replace all those non-breaking spaces. The only other thing I can suggest if you want to continue with the wikitable class is to use the {{pad}} template in place of the non-breaking spaces. It's a little more elegant, and it will probably work better where accessibility issues are concerned. I'll leave the "workin' on it, boss" banner in place just in case others can help you. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!15:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reinserted a table that is Wikitable class and that uses the {{pad}} template instead of the html code. As you can see, the code looks a lot more elegant, and it will help with accessibility issues as well as transwiki issues. Your next step if you want to try to change the script that governs the Wikitable class is to bring it up at the Village Pump. They might reinstate usage of the cellpadding= parameter, or they might just pad the cells permanently within the class, for example with "cellpadding=10", or so. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!21:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. After reading the documentation on the pad template, I discovered that {{pad|0}} is doing just what I wanted, but as you say, with much more elegance. Many thanks for your research. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smart! That way, you don't have to settle for the 1em default width. You get zero width followed by an automatic "non-breaking space". I wish there were a better way, but at least now we know the work-around. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!00:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock IP
This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Scottsdesk". The reason given for Scottsdesk's block is: " Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully. Why can't I edit Wikipedia? Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy. Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username? Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. What can I do now? If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following: Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must: Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked. Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked. If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ".
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bob de Jong may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
{{PersonalRecordsMiddle| 5,000 m | 6:08.76 | 12 December 2009 | Utah Olympic Oval, Salt Lake City]] | }}
Comment: this inflammatory "warning", given for no good reason (as there was no ground for anyone to assume that I would continue moving pages after realizing that my page moves were contested), resulted in Dolovis being reported to WP:ANI. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has come to my knowledge that, since September 2014, this disruptive editor is now himself indeffed. By now, I think we can expect that he will not return, which is a significant benefit for the project.
On 26 December 2013, you made a minor edit to the Lleyton Hewitt article, but it appears that you have just deleted one word and then re-added the same word. I am curious as to why you made the edit, or have I missed something? Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I replaced the grave accent (à, which was wrong), with the acute accent (á). It's "leaning" the other way.
Hey, because in the infobox is listed which sport/country she represents. Thats why it is useless to have it at the medaltemplates again just a few lines down... (PS: Can you tidy your talk page please as it takes ages to load at times) Kante4 (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Triple Gold Club
Hello, thanks for the edits to the page, but I should warn you that the page is the center very nasty dispute. A lot of the section you edited will be removed because the players in question are not recognized by the IIHF. They will be mentioned in the article, but not included in a table as full members. Actually, if you are familiar with the topic, I'd be curious to know what you think about the issue of including the players. Is a brief mention like this enough? Or do you prefer the page as it is? -- Scorpion042202:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm aware of the dispute, I was just trying to trim the disputed section a bit, so it didn't appear that they actually were members, or that they had won three tournaments, when they had won only two (albeit one of the doubled as the WC), if the section was to be kept. I wouldn't mind if it was dropped altogether. The problem, I think, with the version you propose, is that the info about "the five" doesn't belong under the "Components" heading. Placing it in the lede would give it undue weight. So what to do? Create a separate article, and refer to it in "See also"?
Yeah, that is something of a problem. I definitely oppose a separate article, since it wouldn't be based on verifiable fact. Perhaps it could go in the World Championship section. Or the best solution could just be mentioned in the members section. Would you mind reverting the user, or would you rather stay out of it? -- Scorpion042212:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind about the reverting, I was given permission to do it, but I'm not allowed to make changes for a while. Are there any changes to the current text that you think should be made? -- Scorpion042215:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nicole Hosp 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:
{{Medal|Bronze|2002 Tarvisio]|Downhill}}
'''Nicole Hosp'''({{IPA-de|niːkɔl hɔsp}} (born 6 November 1983) is an Austrian [[FIS Alpine Ski World Cup|World Cup]]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Janica Kostelić 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:
{{Medal|Gold|[[FIS Alpine World Ski Championships 2005|2005 Bormio]]|Slalom]}}
Thanks for your edits to Bart Bunting. I can't believe that my mistake of linking to 2010 Summer Paralympics instead of 2010 Winter Paralympics lasted for over 17 months ... especially since it would've stuck out like a sore thumb for sighted users (I'm blind and use a screen reader). I guess that's why it's not a good idea to edit while angry. Graham8704:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. And I'm impressed that a blind person actually contributes to wikipedia. Yes, it did indeed stick out as a red link, and I didn't understand why the link was red, as it looked ok when I hovered with the cursor over it, until I realized that it should be "Winter" instead of "Summer".
Any changes would probably be best discussed at infoboxes talk page, but in regards to changing the formats of the date i'd prefer we just left it the US style. Although there are players from Cuba, Japan, etc, Major League Baseball is still a US-based league so I believe the mdy format would be best used. Others may disagree though.--Yankees1016:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I quite agree that Ipswich serial murders is the better place for that Cat. And I certainly did not mean to imply that you were trying to "excuse" him in any way. I'm very sure you weren't and sincere apologies if I gave that impression. I'm probably better off sticking to Barry from Watford. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Martin, and thanks for your message. I'm not sure I follow on the Barry-thing, but I didn't really think you were implying that, only that the part "he murdered five prostitutes?" might seem like it. So all's well.
Apologies, again, if you are unfamiliar with inane characters from UK afternoon BBC Radio 2 shows ([14]). p.s. had you ever considered archiving some of your Talk Page threads? - it's a mighty long way down here! Although those block notices are a nice collection of trophies, I guess. Ouch. Cheers, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks + invite
Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!
See WP:COMMONNAME. Much as Cat Stevens is not known here as Yusuf Islam or Steven Georgiou, Lady Gaga is not known here as Stefani Germanotta and Bono is not known here as Paul Hewson, Kakan Hermansson is her professional name and the only name by which the Swedish public knows her. Her birth name is included in the Infobox for (and only for) reference. If you disagree or can show us a specific policy that contradicts this, please discuss at the article's Talk page. DwpaulTalk 16:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I do see that in the lede, versus the article title, the full birth names are used on the examples I cited above. So perhaps I am mistaken and will not revert again. But would still be helpful if you would discuss this on the article's Talk page, rather than simply reverting, to offer guidance for future editors of this article. DwpaulTalk 16:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I question if she's notable at all, at least in en.wiki. She might possess some notability in Sweden – locally, or in her "line of business" – but I doubt even that, given that I've never heard of her, don't recognize her from the photo – and I am a Swedish person, living in Sweden. So, I'm contemplating nominating the article for deletion, though I guess it could be kept in sv.wiki.
You could atleast had the decency to wait with putting the article up for deletion after it was featured at DYK. It is really untimely. Anyeay the nomination is sure to fail at this time. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how the article passed the DYK process. What's remarkable about a fairly unknown media personality having held an art exhibition? There must be at least some level of notability required. But we'll see. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a person who "never heard of her" before, you seem to be a person with many strong opinions about this particular person. Interesting. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any strong opinions about her. What on earth gave you that idea? Why would I? As I said, I've never heard of her. I only try to stick to the point. Maybe you should try that too. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been speedy kept even if it was so by the fact that you placed it up for AfD during a feature at DYK. I would suggest that we continue the discussion at the articles talk page and try to improve the already decent article. And please try to not take comments to personal. I just found the AfD quite pointless, and I stand by it. It is not a reflection of you or your "all around" editing skills. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I have been involved in this Wikipedia far to long to be bothered discussing small stuff, and I can smell an impending meta-debate a mile away. Please keep the discussion from now on focused on how to improve the Kakan Hermansson article. Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's generally seen as a strength, not a weakness, to admit to one's mistakes. So why don't you admit that you, quite unnecessarily, and without any basis whatsoever, made it personal? You don't have to apologize, I don't expect that, and I don't demand it. Just give it a thought. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite funny, because the only one who keeps making this personal is you. But OK you want it to be a biting game so as you wish... I won the AfD and it was kept.. na na na naa.. I win :) *irony*. Good night.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a more serious note, I would suggest that you read WP:POINT. And again, please OK your AfD nomination failed and I was hard on you for making a AfD at the wrong time. But please it is time to move on, biting will not help. I wish you a great weekend. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do so if that pleases you. Seem about right. :) I tried to defuse the situation and tried to reason that we should move along, but the user wanted to continue the "discussion" and frankly I had nothing better to do :). Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hans Peter Holm may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"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:
he planned and executed patrols along the western coast, which brought him recognition from King [[Frederick VI of Denmark|Frederick VI).
Hi there, as a recent editor of the page in question, you may wish to contribute to the discussions: ==Merge discussion for Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority ==
I have a concept which I put forward from time to time that, to my mind, would solve the category problem under discussion. I have put it on that page and I would be very pleased if you would read it and comment. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category split for vehicles by manufacturer versus brand
I think Category:Vehicles manufactured by VDL Nedcar and Category:Vehicles manufactured by Karmann look absolutely great! They categorize the different cars those companies manufacture in a way that groups the articles in a logical way that wasn't accomplished before. For the other 4 categories though, these categories just add an extra layer of clutter to the existing category. Maybe we selectively apply this approach to brands where it doesn't just regroup the exact same articles?
I think you missed the discussion and the image license...
But the image on User:Coat of Many Colours' user page is public domain and is perfectly acceptable to be used on their page. There is absolutely NO copyright on any part of this image at this time. Even the text used is from Les Misérables was published in 1862.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mexico national football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United States national soccer team. 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.
Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C☎17:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please respect WP:CITEVAR and do not arbitrarily change the ref layout to reflect your personal preferences. You may be assured that nobody will be so arrogant as to try to change those of any articles you originate, take through peer review and FAC etc. Best wishes, Tim riley talk13:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you didn't like parts of my big copyedit, which actually took some time and effort. Contrary to what you seem to believe, I was not "arbitrarily [changing]" the reference layout to reflect "my personal preferences". What I did (among other things) was applying consistency; you may not have noticed that other references indeed had a period at the end before I edited the article. Let me quote the guideline you linked to above: "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style" (WP:CITESTYLE)
There were also some other corrections I did to references, e.g. inserting a space between "p." and the actual page number, with the same purpose (consistency). In order to achieve consistency, I had to choose one of the existing formats. I chose the format used in all examples in WP:CITE. You may actually want to read it.
When it comes to articles that I have created (or contributed significantly to), I actually expect that, sooner or later, people will change them. When that happens, and I notice it (I usually unwatch them after a while), I try to assume good faith, and see if the change is an improvement. Sometimes I adjust the changes, sometimes not. There is rarely a need to perform a total revert. I'm a bit troubled by your mentioning of the word "arrogant" in this context, implicitly saying that my edits were just that, without actually saying it. I hope you will retract that.
In this particular edit (or rather pair of edits), applying consistency to the references wasn't the only thing I did. I also removed some unnecessary piping, an unnecessary line-break, fixed a couple of redirects, added the {{London Gazette}} template for one ref that was citing it, wikilinked Lady Louisa Russell, removed some whitespace, etc. Now that I look through the diff, I see that I still missed several such occurrences.
I've also noticed that you seem to have your own "personal preference" when it comes to periods in general. In particular, your way of piping links to people with initials in their names – like [[B. J. Vorster|B J Vorster]] and [[D. R. Thorpe|D R Thorpe]] – is unique, and caught my eye. I've never seen that before. It appears you have an aversion to periods. I'm curious as to why, but the important question is: does this follow the guidelines? If so, which one?
You haven't answered the questions I put to you in my edit summary, so I'll put them here for you again:
Why specifically delete the last period?
What's the logic in deleting that, and keeping other punctuation in the refs?
It makes absolutely no sense to me.
And I'll add a couple more:
How do you comment on the fact that the style that I changed to – and that you reverted from – were the style given all examples in WP:CITE? Are there alternative styles, and howcome WP:CITE does not reflect that?
Given your own implicit declaration of having "originated, take[n] [this article] through peer review and FAC etc", are you sure you're not displaying symptoms of ownership?
If you're not going to self-revert, is there a possibility that you will re-introduce some of the other changes I did, or do you object to them too?
Lastly, please respect other editors' good faith, and contemplate the shocking possibility that you may actually be wrong.
Thank you for your recent interest and very full exegesis, above. The existing format was approved at PR and FAC, but your personal views are, of course, valued, and can be proposed at the article talk page. Tim riley talk00:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, this is not a satisfactory answer, and you know it. The reason is probably that you don't have one. This seems to be about your personal preferences, rather than mine- Please answer my questions. I'll add another one: do you think that an article that has passed PR and FAC cannot and should not be edited anymore, because it's perfect, and cannot be improved?
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity fraud 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Warm Worm (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category changes
Hello, HandsomeFella. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
That could be a solution. Or an article about the scandal could be written – if it's notable enough. Or a redirect could be created, pointing to the person article, and categorized in the scandals category. That way it could be found through the scandals category system. I guess the last option is the quickest.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:
This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Template:The and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015–16 ISU Speed Skating World Cup – World Cup 2 – Men's 500 metres, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kim Jun-ho. 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.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Nezi1111, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to wikipedia? A belated welcome, to say the least. I've got 44k edits under my belt, and have been around since 2010. But thanks anyway. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Jeezum crow. That's what happens when you fly through your watchlist without paying enough attention to who what you're actually doing. I actually had someone else in mind altogether... not even vaguely like your moniker. Is there a word for dys-moniker-lexia?
In all seriousness, though, I thought I was head honcho of the pedants. An own talk page stalker who corrects other people's spelling mistakes? Could that be about 22k over the limit?
Why did you take out references from the article? The article is on the main page at the moment, this is completely unacceptable behavior! Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Sorry, this happened yesterday once before as well, and it was a pain in the ass getting them back in twice, so I hope you forgive my little ragestorm... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Synchronized swimming categories for Brazil, China
Re: "If you ask me, the full stop/period can be dropped too." – The period/stop actually has been interpreted as a legitimate WP:ENGVAR matter lately; British/Commonwealth style guides fairly uniformly recommend dropping it for abbreviations that begin and end with the same letters as the whole word (Dr, Jr, St), but not truncations (approx., abbr.), while American ones uniformly call for the dot in both cases (Canadian ones are divided on which usage to prefer, but lean American on this).
A strong case can actually be made for retaining dots in both cases in encyclop[a]edic writing, since it is easier to parse them immediately as abbreviations, especially when they form constructions that could be pronounceable words in theory and a non-fluent reader might think that's what they are (ste for suite, ca for circa, inc for incorporated, etc.), and such abbreviations can also coincide with real words (e.g. apt for apartment, cat for catalog[ue], no for number [from Latin numero], etc.). Our audience is the broadest in history, the sum total of all people who can use English at all and have any form of Internet access, at any time, on any device capable of reaching a URL and presenting textual content from it.
MOS used to advise using the dot in both types of abbreviation, but ENGVAR pundits pushed through a questionable "accept either style" change some time in the last three years, and it probably should be revisited (especially since one of them has been indeffed for disruptive ENGVAR punditry). It's far more important than our material be correctly parseable than it be some particular group of editors' most desired way of punctuating. Zero people capable of understanding English have any difficulty with abbreviations followed by ".", but the same is not true at all of those from which that mark has been dropped. The dropping of it is British journalistic expediency, that has crept into other, more formal, Commonwealth writing, but it is not universal in it, and WP has no reason to allow it, given its problematic nature. Just because something is usually a feature of a particular English dialect doesn't automatically make it an ENGVAR issue; only when WP has no reason to prefer one version over another. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's longer than intended, and looks like a lecture. I'm caffeinated but tired, and was doing a brain dump on the matter for later discussion. Sorry to use your talk page as the sandbox for it. I didn't really realize it was that long until looking at it after saving. I have a really wide monitor so everything looks short in edit mode to me. Heh. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reversion of some of your changes in the Inge King article
Thank you for your interest in the Inge King page. I am the author of the Inge King page and with my wife have constructed most of it. You have made some changes that I disagreed with and reverted, however I am open to discussion on these points. You reordered the list of major works out of date sequence. I could not see the point of this and I have put them back in date order. Also you added some "Clear" tags which added large amount of white space to the page which I thought looked unsightly, and removed them. dnw (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dnwilson: I assume you mean that you're one of the major contributors of the article. We are all editors, and we're all "authors" of the articles we've edited. You make it sound like it's your article. It isn't. You have donated your contributions to Wikipedia. You may want to read WP:OWN.
Regarding the order of the sections, the following can be observed about the items, listed in chronological order:
1) Royal Australian Air Force Memorial was installed in 1973 (according to the article)
2) The Forward Surge commissioned in 1974, completed in 1976, and installed in its present position in 1981 (but the infobox says 1972; there's some discrepancy that you might want to work on).
3) The Sun Ribbon was installed in 1980 (infobox says 1980–82)
It appears that the wiki software puts the first infobox in the rightmost position. Since English is a language that is read and written left-to-right, this makes the infoboxes appear in the wrong order, which is why one reason I moved them. The other reason is they only partly overlapped horizontally, which made the page look awkward. See the link above to the last version before I edited.
There are many others phrases or words in the infobox that aren't proper nouns, but are capitalized regardless. Is it because there are numbers in front of them, which leads you to think that they're different than the others? Be careful, we're both on the edge of violating 3RR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for May 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015–16 ISU Speed Skating World Cup – World Cup 5 – Men's sprint combination, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kim Jun-ho. 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. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Compound modifier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Single-word modifier. 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.
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hockey on the ice. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. . Right now this links to bandy, which is quite ridiculous if you ask me. Hockey on ice is ice hockey, and the redirect should justifiably go to that page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Of course. It's here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Wikiproject notice. Now that I read it, I don't see the particular wording I'm referring to. There was a long-standing agreement that articles related to North American hockey leagues and teams – except for QMJHL and "similar" leagues/teams – should pipe player names with diacritics to avoid redirects. Has someone removed that recently? HandsomeFella (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that, of course it's there. I thought something had changed, perhaps. The applicable rule here would be "All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey)." And then MOS:NOPIPE which states "Piping and redirects. As per WP:NOTBROKEN and § Link specificity above, do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text." My interpretation of the WP:HOCKEY notice and MOS:NOPIPE is that on North American hockey pages the diacritics should neither be applied nor piped (ie, link to Nicklas Lidstrom, but not to Nicklas Lidström or (piped) Nicklas Lidstrom. Cheers, Rejectwater (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Full name v common name
Hi, A number of your recent edits have just cropped up on my watchlist. These edits include shortening the names of candidates to exclude a forename. Some of these edits are in articles where all the other candidates have their names listed in full. In those instances I have restored the full name for consistency. In other instances I have left your edits unchanged. Graemp (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is Wiki
a Protected space? First Amendment rules ought to work here like everyplace else. How is that some of you can control or say what you want, while other cannot post verifiable information, on crowd-sourced, crowd-funded pages? Why do you have authority over what passes off for truth and not others. Just because Lemongirl942 claimed I was harassing someone, it becomes "my conduct"/ You folks take you self too seriously. Lemongirl942 believes I was pinging that user, with KAutilya3 and Chunnubhai. Well right after the ban, Kautilya3 thanks Lemongirl942 for "watching over JNU pages from goons and vandals". Posting two facts: One Umar Khalid is the son of SQR Ilyas, who was one time chief of the banned Islamic-terror outfit called SIMI, and the secondly, that in the India Today conclave Shehla Rashid Shora says she would say "Pakistan Zindabad" if they had a better record of protecting women and minorities." The student-anarchists at JNU do not want these two facts made public as it reifies and supports that well-accepted notion that both Umar Khalid and Shehla Rashid Shora, who are Muslims by birth, support Islamic separatism, which is being passed off as a struggle against caste, social inequality. That is bullshit. If this went to a court of law, the preponderance of evidence will win. These student-anarchists are extremely good at obfuscating facts, twisting the truth, and being shrill. Sadly, some editors of Wiki, who have nothing better to do, believe and support that. That is abrogation of First Amendment and a RICO Act.2602:30A:C7D7:E590:50AF:9526:857E:BC60 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I previously said: wikipedia is not a public space or noticeboard. It's a private website. You need to understand that. If you were running a website, I'm sure you'd like to have a say on what was being published there. It's the same thing really. And if you removed something from your website, you wouldn't care about someone whining about the first amendment, would you? "You're perfectly free to go and express your views some place else", you'd say. I'm sure you understand that if you think about it really hard. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Template:The, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Hi. I was going through the list of translators that can translate from English to Swedish and vice-versa. I am getting ready to deploy User:InternetArchiveBot to the Swedish Wikipedia. Since I can't read Swedish, I would appreciate if you would assist me in becoming familiar with their manual of style and policies, and where I can request bot approval.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access21:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first step is to seek community approval. During the community tech wishlist, a bot to combat WP:LINKROT was the number one most supported request. As such it currently runs on this Wikipedia. The next step is to move to the next largest and get it set up there. Where can such a community discussion take place?—cyberpowerChat:Online09:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a page corresponding to the Village pump, Bybrunnen, where it actually says that you can write in English:
"Welcome to Bybrunnen! The Swedish equivalent of the Village Pump. Feel free to write in English. For permissions to execute bots on Swedish Wikipedia, please go to Wikipedia:Robotansökan."
My guess would be that at least 99% of all people active there understands and can express themselves in English. If you're still having issues, I'll be glad to help out.
Hi there Fella. I agree regarding the comma after Prague. On the issue of whether it's necessary to point out that Prague is in the Czech Republic (or Czechia?), perhaps it's a generational difference: My age is such that I remember the Soviet invasion of '68 very well. And, BTW, when I visited Prague three years later there were cops on every corner. Sca (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know, I was too quick on the undo button. I had previously reverted another IP blanking the talkpage in question, and I saw too late that it was the "owner" himself. My mistake. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appeared to me that your intention was to revert 100.34.209.153's blanking (allowed as mentioned), but instead inadvertently reverted A Train's edit, the one that informed 100.34.209.153 of their block. As far as I can see, they are still blocked, so why remove that information?
The Swedish Wikipedia seems to favor the bot being introduced on their wiki.
I'm now developing the support for it, this is probably going to be one of many questions I have to help me setup the bot there. The first question is, what if any are the equivalent templates used on the Swedish Wikipedia for Template:Use mdy dates and it's sister templates?—cyberpowerChat:Online16:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Swedish-language text, the most common date format is "13 september 2016", which is read like thirteenth September 2016, for today. You probably know already that month names, just like weekday names, aren't capitalized.
Fairly common is also [20]16-09-13 (sometimes without hyphens) and 13/9 2016 (or -16), but I think in running text, "13 september 2016" is generally the preferred format. The mdy format does not exist.
Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Emdash
Thank you very much for your comments and advice. I'll do so accordingly.
I did not "try" to blank it, I actually blanked it, while also mentioning why, while you didn't when you broke WP:BRD. Did you take offense by my listing of a category of your creation? It does look that way. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You created Category:Lethbridge baronets. Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? Or are you just mixing the categories up? The family category is not being discussed, as you seem to believe above.
I haven't edited the baronetcies category in over a year.
So which category are you complaining about? Because if I'm "angry because I created it" (for a category I've already said at CfD that we might as well delete!), how am I edit warring over it when I haven't even touched it? You keep deleting relevant and appropriate links from the category we ought to keep. Why? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, it appears that I have made a mistake. I didn't see that you added other stuff; the commons cat link and the main link. I only saw the addition of the category, and didn't notice that I removed other stuff too when I reverted. My mistake, and I apologize for it. I must go and have my eyes checked.
I saw that you made edits to Fractional Reserve Banking recently. I wonder if you would like to vote or pass comment on this rather important proposed change to the page => Time to change which theory gets prominence? - BTW, yes I know that this has been discussed before, but I think that there are good reasons why this issue should periodically be reviewed. Cheers Reissgo (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Because he's not a North American. The mdy format is used mainly in articles relating to a North American topic. This guy was a French-born Lebanese. Regarding "arbitrarily", see WP:BOLD. All edits are more or less "arbitrary". Best regards, HandsomeFella (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, HandsomeFella. 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.
The following discussion 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.
This is a repetition of a request that's been made several times on this page. All the useful work that you do here is greatly appreciated, of course, but when several editors independently express the same concern over a period of time, it's time to take notice that you need to change your behaviour. I've undone a couple of your recent changes ([15] and [16]) because you've neither explained the changes nor provided a reliable source. —SMALLJIM12:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(1). Deleting the earlier messages on this page as you've just done, here, won't stop scrutiny of this problem. (1a). This page is a bit too long - if you want to archive its contents see Help:Archiving a talk page. (2). Important! Please let me know what source you used for Julia Pellew's date of birth in this edit. —SMALLJIM14:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You found it at thepeerage.com and (perhaps) didn't provide the reference because you know that it's not considered to be a reliable source. If that's what happened, then that is not acceptable – please don't do things like that! In fact this case is a good example of why we don't trust thepeerage.com: if you follow the footnotes at her entry, her date of birth is taken not from Burke's Peerage but from wikitree.com, which is created from user-contributed content with no editorial control, so it's definitely not a reliable source for us. However, someone added to that WikiTree page a scanned extract from a page of "The Peerage of the British Empire", which with a bit of searching led me to this page on archive.org. Her birth date is stated there to be 28 Nov 1787. The other dates on that page agree with the ones in Burke's Peerage so I've added that birth date (and Emma's) and amended the reference. Please be very careful in selecting and citing references. —SMALLJIM16:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. If I thought it was wrong, I wouldn't have added it in the first place. I'm not in that line of business, and you know it. So no more insinuations, thank you very much! HandsomeFella (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No no, I'm not suggesting that you thought the date was wrong: it's obvious that you're here to help Wikipedia. But when any editor adds significant new information to an article, they should include an edit summary, ensure that a citation is provided, and ensure that the citation is to a reliable source. Especially when they're an experienced editor, and especially after what they added has already been queried or removed. —SMALLJIM22:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't realize that I had changed Julia's date of birth twice – although the first time wrongly to 31 December – until I checked the article history now that you mentioned it. My memory apparently fails me if more than two days pass. Anyway, I made a mistake, I admit that, and your point is made and taken. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Sorry about the revert—I actually misread the direction of your change (and since the original author introduced dmy, that's what the article should continue to be using). However, I must point out that the rationale you provided in your edit summary is a bit off—mdy use in articles about Russia is absolutely valid, as long as that's the original choice of the first major contributor (per WP:DATERET). What country the article is about is completely irrelevant (as long as it's not one with strong national ties to an Anglophone country where a certain format is preferred). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 9, 2017; 14:16 (UTC)
Please observe social conventions expected for editors
To suggest that I'm "not in (my) right mind" is way off the charts. Please don't say this about me or any other Wikipedia editor. Thank you. Activist (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kareldorado:YOU explain yourself! I accepted your revert, only I fixed some inconsistencies in the refs, because some month names – in particular, month names in |archivedate=, were NOT abbreviated. Do you dislike consistency? You need to look further than the edit summary, and you also need to read the edit summary properly. You misread it as the same as my previous edit, and you also didn't observe that the result was −213 bytes instead of +797 bytes. So, if anyone needs to explain themselves, it's you. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you overrode the article's status quo of using DMY dates in refs at Rhode Island banking crisis and added {{use mdy dates}}. While I thank you for improving the article, I want to ask why this is an improvement? From what I gather, what constitutes "strong national ties" isn't clearly spelled out anywhere, but it seems like there are people who would interpret any person, place, thing, or event from a given country as having "strong national ties" to that country, and then use that template to secure their own preference. I am an American who sometimes writes about subjects from/in America, but I prefer DMY in most instances. I've settled on using MDY in prose but DMY in refs in such cases, though I can appreciate the perspective that it should be the same. I'm opening this thread (and have not reverted) to ask your perspective, as best practices are unclear to me. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thanks for asking. The guideline WP:DATETIES prescribes that articles with strong national ties to American topics should use mdy dates, and there's no doubt that the RI bank crisis article qualifies as "American". Another guideline, MOS:DATEUNIFY, prescribes that the format of dates in the references should be consistent with that of dates in the article body. Best regards. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point regarding DATEUNIFY. My big question, however, is about the "strong" in "strong national ties". Putting aside when there are competing national ties for a subject, what constitutes a [less than strong] national tie such that DATERET would take precedence? Is any tie to a country automatically a strong national tie absent a competing claim? If an event happened in the United States, it seems that the simple fact of its location, absent other reasons, would make for a pretty weak national tie, no? (I'm arguing in the abstract more than about the bank crisis article). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. How strong is strong? How big is a pile? I guess any ties, as you say, absent competing ties, are considered strong – at least in comparison. If something happened in the US, I think it's widely viewed by editors here as enough to qualify as "strong", at least absent other reasons. But I'm not an expert on these matters, so I think you have a better chance of getting authoritative answers to your questions if you put them on the talk page of the guideline page above. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, HandsomeFella. You have new messages at Talk:Rhode Island banking crisis. Message added 16:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I disagree. An error in one place does not justify an error in another place. If there is an exception to the guideline, it needs to be documented somewhere. By the way, that template wasn't even consistently used by the Fulham season articles. Most of them didn't have it. One solution in order to avoid breaking the guideline would be to merge the templates. There could be an expandable portion of the XXXXXX F.C. templates linking to the seasons. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may be posting to the wrong editor. I have actually removed that template from 100+ articles per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, where it had been added by user:Claíomh Solais. I then added it to a handful of articles that were linked from the template, but did not transclude it. I now see that you have reverted some of those additions. I don't have a big problem with that, but how can you say that they have no connection when they are linked in the template? HandsomeFella (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies.... I saw your additions, but not the one's you were trying to clean up. As to your last question, I don't know why these articles are linked in the template... they shouldn't be. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your reverting immediately. I have used the sidebar games event template, and adapted the design to this set of articles. There is no law on now to use it, and how to combine the paramaters, and every application is unique. Your preferred versions are inferior, and also hold inaccuracies.
And don't be silly, how old are you? Posting a warning is not a threat. You need to read up. This is going to be reported now.
I won't be playing your silly revert tactics. When this is over and done with, the error-free versions can easliy be obtained from the history.
Ok I will try once more to have a civil conversation with you. WP:BRD says that at this point the next step is to DISCUSS the change, which is what I suggested you do. Start a conversation on the templates. If a consensus is reached to do things your way, that is fine. You made a bold change, I reverted it. You entire tone from the very get go has been hostile. Rather than attempting to start a dialogue with me, the first message you left me was to stop immediately or you would report me. Threatening or not, is does not instill a sense of wanting to work together in a constructive manner. Of course the version can be obtained from the edit history... That is how a wiki works...
It would be nice to try to work together rather than immediately jumping to reporting me for following WP:BRD. If you are interested in working together, I'm happy to bury the hatchet and discuss the best solution. Sounds like there are 2 issues. One is factual inaccuracies, the second is style. We can disagree on style, but facts are facts. If I have introduced factual inaccuracies, that was 100% a mistake and I welcome those being corrected. Let me know if you are willing to work together and we can discuss the different approaches to style. I think the best solution would be to start a discussion with a side-by-side comparison. Get other user's to voice their opinions and go from there. Let me know! Have a good Tuesday. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only one with a hatchet here, leading the reverts 7–2, and now also trailing the start-a-discussion 0–1, so of course you can bury it, preferrably where you dug it up. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, HandsomeFella. 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.
Greetings: I see that you have removed the Template:SCOTUS horizontal navbox from six SCOTUS "Court" articles, citing WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. As I have added all 17 "Court" articles to that navbox template, I ask that you undo your reverts and restore the template to those six articles. Please know that I appreciate your (apparent) concern for the proliferation and over-use of navboxes, and share in it. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello HandsomeFella. There are a TfD for a couple of templates in wikiproject Speed Skating. Feel like commenting on it ? Best regards Migrant (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I didn't misunderstand, but I did misinterpret what I was looking at. I thought you changed it the way I ended up changing it to. I blame lack of coffee. Thanks for fixing. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Patrol?
Hi HandsomeFella,
I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.
All right, it was just a suggestion, so we will not have to read the same items – for this particular day – year in and year out. I didn't say it was "one of the most important dates" – I think you meant "events" – as I said, it was just a suggestion for good variation. As for the article, I'm sure it can use some more references, but in my view, it's fairy well referenced already. There are "some" paragraphs that don't have citations, but not "many" – although I realize one is too many. Some of the existing references could probably be used on those paragraphs, which may have been divided that way mostly for issues of readability.
Hello HandsomeFella. I see that you are recently active on wikipedia and are listed as a contributor to the Speed skating wikiproject. What do you think of the external link-template {{Sports links}} and mass-adding it to the Personbiography-articles added to that wikiproject ? Or do you know anyone that can do it with a bot or something ? Best regards Migrant (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incompatible categories on Murder of Gwen Araujo article
Hi, I noticed you're rather experienced at removing incompatible categories from articles, particularity those related to people. I've attempted to remove incompatible categories to fix the Murder of Gwen Araujo article, but an editor is taking issue with this. Perhaps you could take a look? Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, HandsomeFella. 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.
Hi,
I see that two people have been trying to change the designation of Rupert Carington, 7th Baron Carrington from British to English (an article you have made large contributions to). I thought I might bring it to your attention as I think that is a factual error and I am not sure whether it is better to request someone else return it to the original format rather than me.--154.59.156.157 (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen it, but thanks for pointing it out. I think British better covers it, I was just waiting to see if anyone else would have a clear and well-articulated opinion either way.
Hello HandsomeFella, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Everedux (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Please do not arbitrarily change the reference format of an article like you did here and here - copyediting or removing templates is not an excuse to force your personal preference on other articles in contravention of WP:CITEVAR.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "forcing" anything, I'm just copyediting articles that come up in connection with my main edit driver, removing the guideline-violating routine thoughtless inclusion of a certain navbox. Neither is an "excuse" for the other (as if that would be needed), I'm just simply just doing it in one edit, as I see no particular point in spreading changes over several versions. If it pleases you, I will skip that particular copyediting. Thanks for assuming good faith.
I don't know really, but in lists that are like timelines, I have found that the present tense feels appropriate, but I'm good with past tense too, if applied consistently. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of consistency in referencing. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
I first noticed HandsomeFella when he fixed some references to an article I was working on. Having fixed the occasional reference error myself over the years, I was impressed that someone would take the time and make the continuous effort to search these out and fix them. 75K edits, 70% main, 6% talk, Since AUG2010, solid consistent work, averaging about 6000 edits a year with almost 300 pages created. By way of WP:CITESTYLE this editor continues to bring consistency to references. Member of WikiProject:Olympics, WikiProject:Paralympics task force and WikiProject:Speed Skating.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 199.247.32.0/20. I have fairly recently installed fibre broadband, and I now come across this message intermittently (so the block does not seem to work properly anyway), sometimes in the middle of an edit. I don't think I have an open proxy, but you may want to check that. Please unblock, or advise me of actions to be taken. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
It is not permitted to use a proxy or VPN to edit; you will have to turn it off and clear your browser's cache if you want to edit. The fact that you sometimes can edit only means that there is probably additional IP ranges associated with the proxy that have not yet been blocked. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@331dot: I don't get it. What difference does it make if I edit from an open proxy if I'm logged on? You know who I am regardless, and that's the main thing, isn't it? HandsomeFella (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the policy regarding proxies. If you have an exceptional, unusual need to use one(such as living in a country like China that restricts internet use), you can request an exemption- but the need must go beyond a general interest in privacy or security. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Kobe Route span collapse requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
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. Fram (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I recently put back the categories you moved to what you intended to be a redirect link, but was marked by another user to be deleted. I'm a bit confused about all of what's going on with all of that. Since there's no article for the collapse of the highway itself, wouldn't the categories apply to the main article since it describes the incident? I just went off of the precedent of what I've seen for similar situations - like the collapse of part of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Mccunicano☕️15:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this thing with categorization is not easy, but if you read WP:Categorization, in particular the part about distinguishing between set categories and topic categories, you will find that a set category describes – by their names, basically – what articles should be there. For instance, Category:Belgian artists contains just that – (articles on) Belgian artists. Set categories are always in plural, though a category in plural is not necessarily a set category (although that's mostly the case).
So, in order to be in the Belgian artists category, an article would have to be about ... a Belgian artist. And in the category Bridge disasters in Japan should have ... well, (articles on) bridge disasters – not articles on bridges.
Thus, the Kobe Route is a route/road/bridge, etc, but it kind of goes without saying that a route/road/bridge isn't a disaster or an incident (other than figuratively, which does not fly here). If there were an article on the span collapse, possibly named Kobe Route span collapse, it would obviously have disaster and incident categories – like the ones I moved to the redirect I created.
In short, the Kobe Route isn't a disaster or an incident – its span collapse was. (In this particular case, there's a pretty obvious difference between a physical object and an event.)
An alternative way of avoiding miscategorization – if the span collapse itself isn't notable enough – could be to create a category named :Category:Roads damaged by earthquakes. That would not violate WP:Categorization.
Hej! I am working on translating the article TCO Certified from Swedish to English. My English is fluent but I don't have any previous experience translating articles. I have two questions for you:
Would you like to proofread this article once I'm done with the translation?
There is an interest of conflict since I'm getting paid for this contribution. I will make sure to follow all the guidelines related to being a paid contributor. But maybe it is better if somebody else would translate this article, to avoid the interest of conflict. What is your opinion on this? Thank you! Ellasoderberg (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am an editor of music articles, and I'm currently working on "Jag kommer" by Veronica Maggio. I read on Wikipedia:Translators available that you are one of the translators for Swedish to English and I was wondering if you could translate some comments Veronica said about the music video of the song on this YouTube clip. She talks first between the 0:33 and 0:55 marks and then between the 1:14 and 2:03 marks. I would be really grateful if you could help translating her comments, because this is the only reliable source I have found of her discussing the making of the music video. Thank you so much, and I hope you have a good day! Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. This is what she says.
First bit (between 0:33 and 0:55):
Swedish: "[crosstalk] med videon är att jag är fast i en lägenhet som inte vill släppa ut mig, helt enkelt. Jag försöker ta mig mot utgången [crosstalk] så att allting rör sig ... [unintelligible] står man still, man åker bakåt, det är lutande Lustiga Huset [unintelligible]"
English: "[crosstalk] with the video is that I am stuck in an apartment that will not let me out, quite simply. I try to get to the exit [crosstalk] so that everything moves ... [unintelligible] you stand still, you slide backwards, it's the inclining Lustiga Huset [unintelligible]"
Note: Lustiga Huset (Eng.: "Funny House") is a visitors' attraction at the Gröna Lund amusement park in Stockholm. It's a house where everything, walls, stairs, floors, etc, are at skewed angles.
I removed this edit[17] of yours. The IC does not say the person is Geiberger's father. The name may be the same, but that comes under WP:SYNTH. Find a WP:RS that says he died there....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?23:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
My apologies for the edit. Would it be appropriate to include both the last holder of the first creation and the current holder of the most recent creation? I feel that having a "Last Holder" incorrectly indicates the title is now extinct, which it is not. Glad to hear your thoughts and guidance on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 003FX (talk • contribs) 16:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@003FX: no problem. Actually, if you look again, there are two titles described in the article, as it has been created twice. The first creation is extinct, while the second is not. There are also two infoboxes on the right-hand side, and if you scroll down, you'll see the second one, and it already has the information you mention. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Translation — question
Hello, HandsomeFella. I found this reference from Aftonbladet that could help to upgrade sales for albums Hard Candy (HC) and Confessions on a Dance Floor (COADF). Writer says: "Senaste skivan ”Hard Candy” har sålt platina i Sverige, vilket innebär 40 000 exemplar. Förra skivan ”Confessions on a dancefloor” har sålt trippelplatina." That's means she obtained Platinum and Triple Platinum respectively or means she only reached equivalent sales of platinum and triple platinum respectively? You may clarify what's the correct meaning. Thanks in advance. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:09, 16 March 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. 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. LizRead!Talk!16:12, 21 April 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 HF. Thanks for this removal. It is possible that whoever added it also assumed that because Marina has webbed toes that she is a mermaid. It is one of those fun Bill Forsyth "this might or might not be the case" moments. Either way the cat did not belong on the article. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk16:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm looking at improving the history section of Kubb, and I wonder if you'd help me out with a Swedish source (from 1878, if that matters). The text, plus a Google translation provisionally tweaked by me, is:
Kägelkrig Man delar sig i två flockar. Hvarje flock har fyra käglor, som uppställas i rad midt emot hvarandra. N:r 1 af första flocken kastar klotet och söker träffa någon af motflockens käglor. Lyckas detta, kastar n:r 1 af andra flocken icke allenast klotet, utan äfven den kullslagna käglan öfver till första flocken, sökande dermed nedslå några käglor. Käglan kastas först, och så väl den som de käglor den kullslagit måste resas der de ligga, innan klotet kastas. De käglor klotet kullslår återkastas på samma sätt. Så snart en flock förlorat alla käglorna, lånas kungen, och om äfven denne kullslås, är spelet förloradt. Spelet lämpar sig bäst för blott två, men äfven flere kunna deltaga deri.
Skittles War The players divide into two teams. Each team has four pins, lined up opposite each other. [Player] number 1 of the first team throws the ball, attempting to hit any of the opponent team's pins. If successful, [player] number 1 of the second team throws not only the ball, but also the felled pin, over to the first team, seeking with it to upset some pins. The pin is thrown first; it, as well as any pins it knocks over, must be raised where they lie, before the ball is thrown. The pins hit by the ball are thrown back again, as just described. Once a team has lost all its pins, it acquires possession of the king [pin], and if it too is felled by the ball, the game is lost. The game is best suited for only two; nevertheless, several may play.
Of course, I'm interested in any mistranslations I or Google may have made. At one or two points, the translation appears illogical to me, but I wanted to present it to you initially without specifying my misgivings. Thanks in advance. Happy to provide any further information I can, if useful. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The translation is very good. I can find only one possible (minor) issue: the word "andra" can mean both "second" and "other" – like in "den ena och den andra" ("the one and the other") and "den första och den andra" ("the first and the second"). In the original text, it's maybe a little illogical to first use "första" and then "andra" – as opposed to "ena" and "andra" – as if there were more than two teams. But on the other hand, using the "ena"/"andra" combination might suggest to the reader that the teams are doing different things (like in baseball), which they aren't. They are doing the same thing, but in turn.
So, maybe "the other team" is marginally better than "the second team", but as you can see, this is a matter of nuance.
I'd be interested to know which points you think are illogical in the translation.
Thanks much for your speedy response. OK, so, apologies for the following dissertation... surely way more than you wanted. I actually suspect the illogicality may be in the original text, but of course I can't judge that myself -- also I'm finding some consistencies with other sources, so possibly the application of what I take to be strict logic to historical lawn games is misplaced! The main point is "seeking with it to upset some pins". In the English (rightly or wrongly) "it" pretty clearly refers to the felled pin. This is contrary to the rules of Kubb (which, of course, this game is not obliged to follow); but I find it illogical on 2 counts: 1) Team A has just scored against Team B by knocking down 1 of its pins; the apparent consequence is that Team B is rewarded by doubling its active projectiles (ball + pin). This "even-handed justice" (as Shakespeare might say) seems contrary to how sports work: teams are not penalized for successes by rewarding their opponents with special privileges. That is, it is perverse to disincentivize winning. 2) The very next rule seems to utterly undo what was just done: all pin-toppled-pins are simply set up again! What was the point of knocking over those pins in the first place?
From a Kubb perspective, the felled pin is thrown to the other side, not to fell pins but to be set up as yet another pin on side A that Team B must now topple (i.e. the rule incentivizes winning). But there may be strategic reasons for Team B to want it set up near other standing pins -- so, throw it near them, and if it happens to topple one in the process, it and the thrown pin are both stood up as a matter of course. Thus my first assumption was that the text may be mistakenly transforming a strategy and possible outcome into a rule and phantom objective (to topple pins). Or, conceivably, this is to ensure that Team B throws the pin far (harder for them to topple) rather than near to themselves. BUT, I seem to be seeing similarly illogical (sez I) rules in some other early texts. Possibly the game mechanism of "throw projectile toward opponent pins, but not to knock them down" was just too unusual for casual writers to get right. Possibly there's something about this rule I'm just not getting. Possibly the progenitors of Kubb just sucked, and Kubb has fixed their problems. I fear, whatever the answer, that we're running into the first rule of rules: "Historical games rules are inadequate, always." But if there's anything in the Swedish that you can tease out, I'll of course be much obliged. Thanks again! Phil wink (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, that's actually something I missed. "[S]eeking with it to upset some pins" is incorrectly translated. "[N]edslå" literally means "down-strike" (ned + slå), a verb in infinitive, in this case to fell the other team's pins. In modern Swedish though, you separate the two words: "Slå ned" ("Strike down").
The reason for the translation error is that there is also a figurative meaning: "han är nedslagen", which literally means "he is down-struck" – i.e. he's a little low, depressed, sad (or indeed upset). But in the figurative meaning, it's unusual in other cases than past participle: "nedslagen"; or present participle: "nedslående" (as in "that was depressing news").
In addition to felling another team's pins, the literal meaning can describe a brawl: "Han blev nedslagen utanför puben"; literal translation: "He was (lit. became) downstruck outside the pub". It (in most cases) does not mean that a person became depressed or upset, though that was likely the result (hah); it rather means that the person was punched by another person.
I may get back to you later with the rules issues, I desperately need breakfast now.
Just to clarify, you're recommending changing "upset" to a more idiomatic English expression like "knock over", "fell", or "topple" -- is that right? I'll do that. I didn't really mind "upset" since it has these meanings in English too, but yeah, better to go with an unambiguous sports-appropriate term. Hope you had a nice breakfast. Phil wink (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I mean misspellings aren't a big deal, but here you typed
Undid revision 1119167890 by Herostratus (talk) is there no article? What is [this] then? Have you even read WP:INCOMPATIBLE? If there is no article, create a suitably named redirect, and put the category/categories there.
when I'm sure you meant to type something like
Undid revision 1119167890 by Herostratus (talk) But there is a article, [here]. If there hadn't been, I would have created a suitably named redirect back to this article an moved the category there, per WP:INCOMPATIBLE.
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.
Thanks for the tip, but can you do me a favor please, can you amend all of them for me please and that included the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain please as there are over 100. 86.191.237.115 (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rihanna is woke. Gay people are woke. Different skin pigmentation in movies or tv shows is woke. Women’s concerns are woke. Men who aren’t traditionally masculine are woke. Trans people are woke. Socialism is woke. Getting Covid is woke. Liking cats is woke. Women bosses are woke. Men who admire any women are woke. The Last of Us is woke. Climate change is woke. Did I mention that gay is woke? Unions are woke. Everybody to the Left of Orban is woke. Canada is woke. Taxes are woke. Critics of Elon Musk are woke.
-Michael Belyea, Facebook, Feb 25, 2023 HandsomeFella (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2023 (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!01:54, 18 March 2023 (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!01:26, 19 May 2023 (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!01:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Presented to HandsomeFella on June 12, 2023, for your tireless persistence in editing with precision and style. When I see you performed an edit, I never have to worry that you are making some type of POV or sneaky edit. You consistently improve our articles. Thank you so much. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hawke, 12th Baron Hawke until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
I'm sorry, I can't say. The link leads to some kind of table of contents (similar to a wikipedia category tree), and to read the article, you have to press the button "Läsesal" (Reading Room). This adds the article to a "shopping cart". But when you click on the cart, a login popup appears, and an account is required for reading documents younger than 110 years. I don't have one, I'm afraid. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
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.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mollie Dent-Brocklehurst until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
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. Bensci54 (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Help with translation
Hi,
I am not sure this is the right forum, or if I can even reach you here. I need help with a translation. Are you available? I have done all the work, I just need someone to 'confirm' it. Oliviahageus (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to see the translated drafts? I'm new here, so I am struggling a bit with understanding the functions. I hope you can help!! Oliviahageus (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, HandsomeFella. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Timeline of the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
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.
I don't see any point in using it anywhere, I'm afraid, at least not as it is designed now. By the way, the name is misleading. None of them bear the surname Halifax – unsurprisingly, since they're not related. You'd expect at least some of them to bear the name.
What would be the point in using it in the Earl of Halifax article specifically – to show that they're not related? In my view, it makes no sense whatsoever.
You may take that up for discussion elsewhere if you wish, maybe at the Peerage and Baronetage and/or Royalty and Nobility wikiprojects. It could be interesting to see what other editors think.
If you look at {{Goschen family tree}}, you see that 1) they're all related, 2) they all bear the last name Goschen, and 3) there are three titles involved: a viscountcy and two baronetcies, and those are the two articles that transclude the template.
I suspect that you're as interested as I am in relationships in notable families, and I hope you can take my reverts in the stride (just as you have done so far). I know how it feels when your work is reverted, especially if you have put a decent amount of work into it. It's definitely not personal.
Actually, instead of looking at familial relationships, I'm trying to track the history of the title. I've seen the chart at Goschen baronets, but that's just about the family. These templates I've been editing use the language of "Family tree" but that's just one part of it. In fact, {{Halifax family tree}} uses colors to denote the different families have used the "Earl of Halifax" title. The name of the template is the title, not the family. I completely understand what you're saying, and I agree that we don't want to cause confusion about which "families" are related. But there is some value in including non-related families in these templates: it shows that non-related people used the title… that sometimes a title went to people who had no familial connection to their predecessors. Some examples include: {{Earls of Plymouth family tree}}, {{Dukes of Montrose family tree}}, and {{Marquess of Northampton family tree}} —GoldRingChip15:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it shows that non-related people used the title"? It's already shown in the articles. Why would you need a template for that when you have the various creations in separate sections in the respective article?
Please see MOS:POSTNOM: "If a baronetcy or peerage is held, then commas should always be used for consistency's sake, as the former are separated from the name by a comma." I actually wrote that sentence, so quoting it back to me is quite amusing! It's referring to the commas between the postnoms, not one after them! This is made perfectly clear by the previous sentence: Post-nominal letters should either be separated from the name by a comma and each set divided by a comma, or no commas should be used at all. Frankly, I can't be bothered to argue about this, although I will say that the vast majority of articles on peers or people with postnoms do not use a comma after the dates and in my opinion this is correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take this step by step.
Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild was a British peer.
No comma should be there, I guess we can agree on that.
Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024) was a British peer.
The patenthetical expression doesn't change that, which I guess we also can agree on.
Let's add the peerage and the postnominals, but temporarily remove the parenthetical expression:
Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, OM, GBE, CVO, was a British peer.
Is it here we disagree possibly? Without the closing comma, you have "CVO was a British peer". That's obviously wrong.
The peerage and the parenthetical have to be set off with a (final) closing comma.
And inserting the parenthetical expression obviously doesn't remove the comma. Why should it?
Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, OM, GBE, CVO (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024), was a British peer.
QED.
Consider the possibility that many peerage articles actually may be wrong in missing the closing comma.
Cf. the expression "On September 13, 2000 construction workers came across a ... "
Must have been a big construction site if there were 2000 workers.
Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild was a British peer.
This is wrong because it misses the closing comma per MOS:COMMA: "Always use a pair of commas for this, unless another punctuation mark takes the place of the second comma".
Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, was a British peer.
This is correct.
Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, OM, GBE, CVO, was a British peer.
Postnominals added, the original pair of commas in yellow, and the separating commas (one for each postnominal) in turqoise.
MOS:POSTNOM: "If a baronetcy or peerage is held, then commas should always be used for consistency's sake, as the former are separated from the name by a comma."
Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, OM, GBE, CVO (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024), was a British peer.
Adding the parenthetical doesn't change the need for a closing comma.
MOS:COMMA: "Don't let other punctuation distract you from the need for a comma, especially when the comma collides with a bracket or parenthesis".
Amusing or not, this is correct per your own guidelines.
No it isn't. You've entirely misread the guidelines, I'm afraid. They in no way refer to a comma afterwards, only between. This is very, very clear. You don't need to explain your reasoning to me. I understand it. I just don't agree with it stylistically. And neither, clearly, do many other editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Maybe you missed it (despite my colorization effort above), but the separating commas are actually between the postnominals (and between the peerage and the first postnominal). The comma after the parenthesis is the comma that is closing the entire expression (that which begins with "4th Baron Rothschild"). It needs closing per MOS:COMMA. There are more than one guideline involved here, and they make perfect sense, even together.
"[M]any other editors" have indeed missed this, but that doesn't mean that they have actively formed an opinion, they have just overlooked what the result of the guidelines is, and most (if not all) have realized that I'm right after I've explained it to them.
The comma that closes the peerage was there all the time. It was there before the lifespan parenthesis and the postnominals were added. Your guideline (and surely no other guideline) doesn't say that an existing comma – placed on the other side of the parenthetical lifespan(!) – should be removed, does it?
Location of the closing comma, the one you object to.
here: v
Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, was a British peer.
After adding the lifespan:
here: v
Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024), was a British peer.
After adding the postnominals (preceding the lifespan, which in turn is preceding the closing comma):
<postnominals> and here: v
Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, OM, GBE, CVO (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024), was a British peer.
As I said, you really don't need to patronise me with endless examples. I understand what you're getting at. I simply don't agree with you. I should note that I'm not the only editor by a long shot who has removed these unnecessary commas. Please don't assume that we're doing it because we're too ill-educated or stupid to understand the rules of the English language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What to Ask a Question
Can you give me some advice on this: at article Robert Peel in section Prime Minister: 1841-1846 there is an inconsistency and lack information in “ Economic reforms “. I want to put in additional information and context concerning those reforms and the much background to give a sense of understanding. Since I read Wikipedia’s policies, it seems that altering current texts is considered vandalism, so how can I edit this page without getting myself into trouble? Davecorbray (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism is intent-related. If your intent is not vandalism, just go ahead and edit. That's how articles develop.
If someone objects, they will just revert it. Then there will be a discussion, and hopefully a consensus, whether to keep your addition, improve/amend it, or to discard it. Don't take it personally if it gets discarded. And consensus might change over time, so it might get in there somehow later. Also remember that claims need to be verified by reliable sources.
Do you mind reverting the mistaken addition on Menendez's page that says he left the Democratic Party? I have reverted too many times and need to steer clear of 3RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted it as being a country which invaded/colonised Britain, but now I think I'm overthinking it and you actually just meant Britain in the first place, lol. — Czello(music)15:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
