User talk:Andrwsc/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Andrwsc. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Dual internationals

If you are prepared to use usenet, the info is at [1] Fasach Nua (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That says he was born in Falkirk, Scotland, which disagrees with this page ("born in Ireland but raised in Scotland"). I don't think we have a reliable source that pinpoints his county of birth.

If we could get the 1935 who's who.....:-) Fasach Nua (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, are you ok with my suggestion for resolving the dispute on that page? I hate to see flag warring, and I hope that my idea of listing the counties instead of mere flag icons is more informative and also satisfies the original intent of identifying which of those players were born in the 26 counties versus the 6 counties. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think dispute is overstating it, the union flag was a wp:point on my behalf, more demonstrating the potential problems than anything else, I knew it would be undone in seconds, I am happy with the current arrangement. I'm a little woried about User:Djln, he is a very good editor when working alone, but reacts badly in disagreements, if he reverts back, I would maybe leave it for a few days, I think he is suffering wikistress, and a few hastle free days are maybe what he needs. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would certainly advise against "pointy" edits to communicate your point, and edit summaries are often too brief also. I don't necessarily advocate a drawn-out talk page discussion before making edits, as I prefer to be bolder than that. But in this case, a bold edit to the article combined with a sufficiently detailed talk page explanation might have averted a lot of stress. Anyway, it looks like things are settled now, and the salient points have been mentioned on the talk page, so I can't imagine this page under dispute anymore. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Help

Please allow me to ask for your help. Isn't it right that we want to start every Olympic event page with the medalists? There is one user who delete the medalists again here Athletics at the 1988 Summer Olympics - Men's High Jump and here Athletics at the 1988 Summer Olympics - Men's Long Jump. I have already written him a message but without success... By the way don't you think, that both pages had to be moved? Isn't the standard without capitalization? And the next question is the order of the results. All 2004 pages start with qualification, than semi-finals and at the bottom the final and not the other way round. Many thanks and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Darius Dhlomo is a very prolific editor for sports articles, but strangely, works in total isolation. He doesn't seem to engage in any collaborative discussion, but just plugs away by himself. Most of his edits are very good, so we should assume good faith, but he often adopts his own personal formatting style for pages, against consensus or convention. I shall drop another note on his talk page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help! Yes, I know, he is very good. Maybe you have seen, that I have also written to him that I respect and like his work. Cross your fingers for James Barker (athlete)‎! Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Winners template

Hi there pal. Not sure if your the right person to ask this, but i see your name int he history of the Winners template. I've been having a play and although it seems to work fine for men's ice hockey, for the women's it seems not to work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Women%27s_European_Ice_Hockey_Championsihps#Champions is the page where I'm look at this. Unfortunatly it's beyond my techinical skill to look at it so if you have a mo that would be great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpo1982 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Template:ihw-big needed to be created, which I have done. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks pal really appricate it Carpo1982 (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied

I've replied to your comment on my talk page. Why not have a look? thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The answer you seek is nearby. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 22:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I sense good news. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Check my talk page, if you dare! thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 09:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Status update. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 21:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Great news! thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 11:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User box User:Ahunt/XCski

Hey thanks for updating the image in my XC skiing userbox! - Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries! The .png image will be deleted from Commons soon, so I'm working on many wikis to update all the links to use the superior .svg file format. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite right. We don't typically delete superseded PNGs at Commons. Yes, it's possible... but what's 10kb of data that each one takes up going to hurt? Leave em be. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 11:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed the recent discussion thread about the deletion process on Commons. I'd still say we want to deprecate the png versions, perhaps by removing them from galleries, categories, etc. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Bb

Hello, I noticed that some of my subpages had the {{bb}} removed and that there were several other articles that this had occurred on too. Is this template being phased out of use? If not, I'd like to continue using it as I think it's a helpful template. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

Well, no and maybe... I made those substitutions because many of the the templates in Category:Formatting templates (where I found {{bb}}) are supposed to be substituted per Wikipedia:Template substitution, and this one seemed like a textbook case. Now, I focused on this one in particular because I actually do have an ulterior motive to use that name for something else. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template, we have a series of flag formatting templates for national sports teams. They are used when formatting international tournament results. We have {{fb}} for football, {{bk}} for basketball, {{ih}} for ice hockey, {{fh}} for field hockey, {{ru}} for rugby union, {{cr}} for cricket, {{vb}} for volleyball, and many, many others. There are many editors who work with these templates, and they are familiar with the consistent naming, using a two letter abbreviation for the sport. In fact, the International Olympic Committee's two letter abbreviation is used where possible (e.g. [2]). So that brings me to {{bb}}. I would like to use that template name for baseball. It is the last remaining sport that lacks national team templates. However, I agree with you that the "big bold" formatting template is helpful, and I don't want to delete it as such. Unless there is massive objection, I'd propose renaming it to something like {{bgb}} and then sometime later I can change the meaning of {{bb}}. Note that the "big bold" template still ought to be substituted, no matter what happens. Editors should use {{subst:bgb|Title goes here}}. Please let me know if you are ok with this idea. Thanks! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that all instances of the big and bold template have already been removed, they isn't much point in trying to get them all back when I have now idea the amount of usage the template had before. If a new template is going to made in its place, I ask that the name be somewhat intuitive to the terms "big" and "bold", and that the number of characters for the usage be significantly under 17 characters. At first glance, "bgb" and "bbd" don't make much sense to me, but I got them after thinking about it. Something like "bgbd" comes to mind, but I'm not a mind reader so I don't know if that will be intuitive to everybody. For more input regarding the name, I would either go to Wikipedia talk:Template namespace or possibly the editor, User:Patrick, who originally made the "bb" as big and bold. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the comments. I wouldn't say that we need to "get them all back" — this kind of formatting template should always be subst'ed anyway. The only issue is what the most useful name for this template usage looking forward. Is {{subst:bigbold|...}} too much typing? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Flag

Hi!

JethroOlympiad asked on my talk page:

Spain's Olympic flag yet to add on Spain at the 1980 Summer Olympics article

Could you pls add the flag of the Spanish Olympic Commitee on the infobox on Spain at the 1980 Summer Olympics for me and also in the participating nations section of the 1980 Summer Olympics for me, thanks.

File:Spain Olympic Flag.JPG

Do you think we can add this flag? Many thanks and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. On Commons, JethroOlympiad claims he is the copyright holder for this image, which I greatly doubt. This is most likely a non-free image, which could only be used on the Spanish Olympic Committee article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh! Great to have an expert like you! Many thanks and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Country data New Zealand Māori

{{Country data New Zealand Māori}} has a flag that was designed in 1990. However, there are/will be instances where usage prior to 1990 will be showing an incorrect flag. Could you please modify it accordingly to a flag that was used prior to 1990 such as a New Zealand red ensign or the New Zealand flag itself. --Bob (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

James Barker

Why is it possible to redircet this article? 17 voted for Keep, 8 voted for Delete, and 5 voted for Redirect/merge. It looks like that this discussion was worthless, because it was from the beginning on clear to delete or redirect the page!

This is of course an earthquake for wikipedia and the end for the Wikiproject Olympics because we have thousands of athletes bios like this.

I do not agree with the redirect and I want this article back... Kind regards and :) Doma-w (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "merge" was a very bad decision. I have contacted the closing admin, and will bring the issue up at Wikipedia:Deletion review if this decision is maintained. Stay tuned! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page. Note that I don't agree. This is not "the end" for anything, though..... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Many, many thanks for your help! I am really sad about the redirect... You know, that I am specialized in Olympic bios and in that bios I am specialized in DoB+place and DoD+place. For me it is very important to save all these stubs, because this is the only possibility to bring different parts of their life together. And for me this is the basic of wikipedia...

Only in the last month I was able to bring already existing wiki-bios together with the Olympics. E.g.: Manfred Curry, Matt Wells (boxer), Rex Beach, Mehmet Ali Aybar, Kiyoko Ono, and Jacques Forestier.

This is only possible because the articles already exist and they give a DoB and/or DoD so I can "identify" them. But Mr. Barker can not be identified any more. All information I have collected (middle initial, DoB, place of birth) is gone... I love to give all these persons a "face", but I do not know all... To keep our Olympic bio stubs mean that everyone is able to add new information. I cross my fingers for all the Olympic bios. Kind regards and thank you again. :) Doma-w (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please allow me to write you again. Have you seen this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeley Dorsey (2nd nomination)? With the vote: 5 Keep, 5 Delete, and 1 Merge the result is keep in the 2nd nomination! I am sorry, but is this fair? Kind regards and :) Doma-w (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Flags used at the 1980 Olympic Games

Could you do a big favour for me, could you pls upload the flags of the Spanish Olympic Commitee and Portuguese Olympic Commitee because both of them competed instead of their national flags at the Moscow 1980 Olympic Games, thank you.

Here is the link of the flag of the Spanish Olympic Commitee: http://www.fotw.net/images/e/es@coe.gif

Her is the link of the flag of the Portuguese Olympic Commitee: http://www.fotw.net/images/p/pt@cop0!.gif

(JethroOlympiad (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

I cannot do that. The images on the Flags of the World website belong to them, so it is against Wikipedia policy to take them and upload them here. We have to create our own images for them to be free content. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

country names

Hello.

Regarding your changes in the List of countries by Human Development Index:

Would you accept a fair compromise contradicting neither your basic attitude nor my basic attitude?
The republic of Macedonia wants to be named "FYR Macedonia", i.e. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, thus annoying her neighbouring countries which have made up the former republic of Yugoslavia. My basic attitude is that Wikipedia should be neutral - i.e. shouldn't use the word "FYR". Would you accept a fair compromise with regard to the republic of Macedonia , e.g. adding the word FYR in parentheses?
The name "Timor Leste" is in portuguese, meaning in english: "East Timor". We are in the english wikipedia, not in the portoguese Wikipedia, and my basic attitude is that the english Wikipedia shouldn't use the foreign version of country names - but the english version of the country names; e.g. the english Wikipedia should use the word: "Spain" - not "Espania", "East Timor" - not "Timor Leste", etc. Would you accept a fair compromise regarding East Timor, e.g. adding the portuguese version of the name - in parentheses?
Regarding "Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire)": this version of the name (i.e. the english name accompanied by the french name in parentheses) - was achieved by the editors of "List of countries by Human Development Index" - after a long discussion on the talk page of that article. Let me quote from that talk page:
- " The english speakers (including the BBC etc.) don't say 'Cote d'Ivoire' - but prefer: 'Ivory Coast'. Furthermore: The english name is the original one! It was changed into French by the Ivorian government who wants the french name to be used universally by all people in the world, but the english speakers (incl. the BBC etc.) still prefer: 'Ivory Coast'. "
My basic attitude has been (and still is) that the english Wikipedia shouldn't use the french name at all, but the editors of "List of countries by Human Development Index" - have accepted the compromise of putting the french name in parentheses. Would you accept this compromise which has been accepted by all editors of "List of countries by Human Development Index"?

SSnormal (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are not stating anything that hasn't already been debated endlessly on Wikipedia already. The correct thing to do is follow Wikipedia consensus. If you want to challenge that consensus, this particular article is not the place to do it. To address your comments on each of those three countries:

You are incorrect about the Republic of Macedonia. See Macedonia naming dispute. More importantly, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles), and in particular the third bullet under "Naming conventions (country)", for the Wikipedia consensus about the name to use. On this page about UN-sourced material, any variation that includes "FYR" is acceptable, such as "Macedonia, former Yugoslav Republic of", if you prefer something like that. But just "Macedonia" is unacceptable per MOS guidelines.
For Timor-Leste, there is growing opinion that the article needs to be moved from East Timor (see the talk page), although it hasn't happened yet. I think the consensus we have is to use "Timor-Leste" on any UN-sourced list, as that is the designation they use.
For Côte d'Ivoire, there is a similar long-standing debate, although I note that the consensus seems to be for "Côte d'Ivoire" instead of "Ivory Coast", as that is where the main article is now named. Again, I note that the UN designation is consistently used on all UN-sourced articles, such as United Nations member states.

This article should not contradict the primary source for the article. The names as used by the UN in Table 1 of that document are the names that should be used in the Wikipedia article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello.
Thank you very much for your detailed response. I much appreciate your effort to exhaust the issue.
Unfortunately, not all of my questions have been answered by you. My most important question was - and still is - whether you principally accept a fair compromise contradicting neither your basic attitude nor my basic attitude, but you haven't answered: "I principally accept", nor have you answered: "I principally reject", so I'm rather embarrassed now: don't know how our discussion can go on.
Your basic attitude is, on one hand, to "follow Wikipedia consensus", and on the other hand: "not contradict the primary source for the article", but your attitude is (in my opinion) apparently CONTRADICTORY: for example, on one hand - the UN list uses "Timor Leste", while on the other hand - the current position in the english Wikipedia adopts my basic attitude (which is not less reasonable than yours) - to prefer the english version "East Timor" (just as the english Wikipedia uses the english name "Spain" - not the spanish name: "Espania").
Your (second) attitude is that "there is growing opinion that the article needs to be moved from East Timor (see the talk page), although it hasn't happened yet". On the other hand, my parallel attitude is that "there is growing opinion that the article needs to be moved from Côte d'Ivoire to 'Ivory Coast' (see the talk page), although it hasn't happened yet".
You haven't answered whether you accept a compromise in which the word FYR be put in parentheses, just as it is in the UN list. You are definitely authorized to answer: "I definitely reject that compromise", but please let me know that, so that I can know how our discussion is going to proceed - regarding this issue.
You haven't answered whether you accept a compromise in which the portuguese version "Timor Leste" be put in parentheses - as long as the english Wikipedia uses the english version as the name of article East Timor. You are definitely authorized to answer: "I definitely reject that compromise", but please let me know that, so that I can know how our discussion is going to proceed - regarding this issue.
You haven't answered whether you accept a compromise in which the french version "Côte d'Ivoire" be put in parentheses - as long as the english Wikipedia uses the english versions of country names, such as Spain (not "Espania"), East Timor (not "Timor-Leste"), etc. You are definitely authorized to answer: "I definitely reject that compromise", but please let me know that, so that I can know how our discussion is going to proceed - regarding this issue.
Thank you in advance.

SSnormal (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First, can you please use the "Show preview" button when editing? It took six edits each for your two comments here, which results in the "You have new messages" notice in my browser popping up over and over again. Thanks.

As for your request, I think my position is simple. That article could not exist without the primary reference from the UN. It is not a synthesis of multiple sources. Therefore, it must adhere to the naming conventions that the UN uses. That means using any of "FYR Macedonia", "Macedonia (FYR)", "Macedonia, former Yugoslav Republic of", etc. It means using "Côte d'Ivoire" without "Ivory Coast" in parenthesis or anywhere else. The UN hasn't used "Ivory Coast" in more than 22 years. It means using "Timor-Leste" only. This is all consistent with other articles that are based on UN sources, such as United Nations member states. If the English language source document uses each nation's preferred name to identify itself, who are we to rewrite that? If you have issues with those names, this one article is not going to satisfy anything. If you desire additional input for consensus, then I'd suggest going to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello.

Sorry for having bothered you with my continuous edits of the same message, and thank you for your helpful advice.

Thank you very much for your clarification regarding my suggestion: "Macedonia (FYR)".

Your basic attitude is clear: the article must adhere to the naming conventions used by the primary reference from the UN. On the other hand, my basic attitude is clear too: the article must adhere to the english language, thus transforming any "Timor Leste" (in the UN document) into "East Timor", just as the article would have to transform any "Espania" (had it been mentioned in the UN english list) into "Spain", etc. However, one simple issue is not clear yet: whether you principally accept any compromise between your basic attitude and my basic attitude.

Thank you for your readiness to clarify your positions.

SSnormal (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For "Timor-Leste" and "Côte d'Ivoire", I do not think any other names can be used or should be shown. It is not a matter of English language or not; these are proper nouns, and proper nouns should not be translated as though they were plain prose. Just a question — why are "São Tomé and Príncipe" or "Burkina Faso", for example, not problematic for you? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello.

"Spain/Espania" too is a proper name, but if the UN english document had used the spanish proper name "Espania" - then we would have transformed it into "Spain" in the english Wikipedia articles, right?

The difference between "São Tomé and Príncipe" (or "Burkina Faso") - on one hand, and "Timor-Leste" (or "Esapania" or "Côte d'Ivoire") - on the other hand, is quite simple: the english speaker doesn't say "Timor-Leste" (nor does he say: "Espania", nor: "Côte d'Ivoire"), but rather: "East-Timor" ("Spain", "Ivory Coast"), while the same english speaker does use the foreign proper names: "São Tomé and Príncipe", "Burkina Faso" (or "Benin"), etc.

I'm still embarrassed, since you haven't made clear your position regarding any principal acceptance of compromise.

Thank you for your patience and polite answers.

SSnormal (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer your hypothetical question about "España" — if that is how the nation was identifed in English-language publications of the United Nations, then yes, I would use that name in this article. And I dispute your statement that the "english speaker" doesn't say "Timor-Leste" or "Côte d'Ivoire". I am an English speaker who uses those names exclusively, and judging from the discussion on the talk pages for those two nations' articles, I'm not the only one... Really, I don't see how any "compromise" is necessary. But this isn't really up to just you and me. This discussion ought to be on the talk page, and I think a Request for Comment ought to be started. We need more people to weigh in on this discussion. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello.

Your answer regarding my hypothetical question about "Espania" - is a direct necessary conclusion from your basic attitude: to prefer the naming conventions used by the primary reference from the UN, just as my opposite answer for that very question - is a necessary conclusion from my basic attitude: to prefer the english speaker's usage. So a third party would say we still need at least a "temporary" compromise - untill more people weigh in on this dispute...

When I talked about the "english speaker" - I referred to the average english speaker, i.e to the majority of the english speakers: Indeed, the term "Ivory Coast" had been the original name, before the Ivorian government changed it into the french name, and most of the english speakers still use the original name - i.e the english name. Anyway, if you hold that the majority uses "Timor-Leste" or "Côte d'Ivoire" - rather than "East Timor", "Ivory Coast", then we hereby arrive at a second dispute, which is very easy to check out. Meanwhile, a temporary compromise should be suggested - untill more people weigh in on this dispute.

You say that you "don't see how any 'compromise' is necessary", and you probably mean your attitude should have been adopted without any compromise; It could have been a wonderful solution - had there not existed one little problem: I, too, think my attitude should have been adopted without any compromise, so I, too, "don't see how any 'compromise' is necessary". Do you see now the new problem - when one tries to ignore the option of compromise?

I don't reject your suggestion that "more people weigh in on this discussion". However, meanwhile (i.e. untill more people weigh in on this discussion) I suggest a "temporary" compromise. What do you think about that?

Thank you very much for your patience.

SSnormal (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Temporary compromise" like what? You can't just assume that because two people agree to something that it will "stick". Consensus demands more input than that. You are also focusing on this single article, and there are many lists of nations articles that have the same issue. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello.

As to your first question: the suggested temporary compromise is: 1. using both the english version "Ivory Coast" and the foreign version "Côte d'Ivoire", as it had been used in the article by the moment you decided to change it into the foreign version only. 2. using both the english version "East Timor" (as it had been used in the article by the moment you decided to change it) and the foreign version "Timor Leste".

Of course consensus demands more input than mutual agreement between me and you; However I haven't talked about a constant consensus - but rather about a "temporary" compromise (regarding the question "whose attitude is more justified?"), and meanwhile - I and you are the only persons debating that issue - as long as we haven't got the opinions of other people.

My basic attitude (like your basic attitude) is principal, and does not refer to a single article.

SSnormal (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put a Request for Comments on the talk page of the article. My talk page is not the correct forum for this discussion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for putting the request on the talk page, but unfortunately you haven't well represented my attitude: Your attitude is to totally ignore the english version of the names (due to the reasoning you've indicated there), while my attitude is to totally ignore the foreign version of the names (due to the reasoning I've indicated here). Please give the full reasoning for both attitudes. Thank you in advance.

Note that the whole issue (regarding "Ivory Coast"/"Côte d'Ivoire") had aleady been discussed on the talk page, and the compromise which has already been arrived at there - has been: to use the french name in parentheses.

And meanwhile, would you reject that temporary compromise - untill we get a third opinion on the talk page of the article whether the name which should be omitted is the english one or the foreign one)?

SSnormal (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So add your comments to the RfC discussion. Please continue all discussion there; it is pointless to continue on my talk page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello.

I accept your recommandation that I add my comments (in favor of my basic attitude of adhering to the english versions only i.e. of omitting the foreign versions). However, you haven't answered my last question - which is relevant to you only - not to the talk page: " Meanwhile, would you reject that temporarry compromise [of indicating both versions in the article] - untill we get a third opinion on the talk page of the article (whether the name which should be omitted is the english one or the foreign one)? "

Looking forward to your quick response.

SSnormal (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've stated my opinion. I'm not interested in a "temporary compromise". I want a lasting consensus for that article, and two people's opinions is insufficient for that to happen. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello.

Thank you very much for your clear answer.

Your opinion is now absolutely clear, but as a result: another, more difficult problem, has now arisen: If you are really not interested in a "temporary compromise" (of indicating temporarily both versions of name in the article - until we get a third opinion whether the name which should be omitted is the english one or the foreign one), so how will we be able to know meanwhile how the article should meanwhile look like - until we get a third opinion (whether the name which should be omitted is the english one or the foreign one)? i.e. if (meanwhile) we don't temporarily indicate both the english name and the foreign name, then how will we be able to know whether - until we get a third opinion - the article should include the english name only (thus adopting my basic attitude) or the foreign name only (thus adopting your basic attitue)?

In my opinion, just a temporary compromise (of indicating temporarily both versions of name in the article) - can solve the before-mentioned problem. What do you think?

Looking forward to your clear response.

SSnormal (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

ireland flag

[3] - shouldn't the old variant still be used to show "Ireland (FAI)" when used for periods in which this is ambiguous? Just change the link. —Random832 19:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to change those instances to {{fb|IRL|name=Ireland}}, for consistency with how we use {{fb|IRL|name=Irish Free State}} for some other years. That will also reduce the clutter in Template:Country data Ireland. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

flag templates

Hi.. I've transfered flag templates to sr.wiki, and now I'm trying to make the templates for sports (like this one). Now the problem is that Serbian language has cases so we don't have Srbija [nominative] national football team, but National football team of Srbije [genitive]. My initial plan was to use a bot to add another field (genitive - генитив) in the country data templates, but when I add this extra field it won't work (something wrong with altlink, see here at the top). Do I have to adjust something in the Country showdata, or somewhere else. If you're able to help me, please do (we can meet on the IRC), and if you can't help me, could you tell me who should I address? Thanks in advance. -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 02:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've come to the right place, as I wrote all the sport team templates. I'll take a look and see if I can figure out what's wrong, and I'll post back here. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, it works now :D I looked at the code so long, and couldn't figure it out (it puzzled me why it stopped working when I added an extra field, and it complained about different field (the one I added worked fine)). I'm very grateful for your help :) -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 05:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad it's working for you. Take a look at the implementation notes I wrote at Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template for more explanation, but in brief, here's what the problem was:

The "formatting" template (in this case, Template:country flaglink) uses some parameters set from the individual country data template, such as alias and flag alias, and some parameters set from the flag template (e.g. {{fb}}), such as altlink and size.
The internal mechanism of these templates is that the country data template is responsible for the transclusion of the formatting template. Therefore, some parameters need to "pass through" to the formatting template. That's why you see code such as size = {{{size|}}} and name = {{{name|}}} in every country data template. With respect to the national team templates, an additional "pass through" parameter is required. You need to have altlink = {{{altlink|}}} in any country data template for which you want a national team link.
Your test case used Template:Country data Utah, which on the English wiki, does not have the altlink = {{{altlink|}}} code fragment, because this U.S. state does not have a national team! I've only put the altlink into the subset of country data templates that actually need it.

Hope this helps! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cristal clear now, thank you. I got confused because control test examples (where I didn't add genitive) (Romania and Hungary) worked. It appeared to me that adding another field made Utah stop working, which made no sense. -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 15:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Yesterday you were active in Wikipedia, but you probably forgot to look at my message. I'm still looking forward to your clear response. Thank you in advance. SSnormal (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian national football team results

Good work with correcting those flags to "fb|?" links instead of the way I had done it. Only thing is, I am not sure how to create those links, and whilst just observing the changes, I noticed that the home and away games played between Australia and Iran in 1973 have the current Iranian flag. Is there any possibility you can create a "fb|?" link with this flag: , which is the flag for 64-79?? Cheers for the help, I will get back to trying to finish the exhaustive list! Rac fleming (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This already exists, and is explained reasonably well in the template documentation for {{fb}} and all the other flag templates ({{flagicon}} etc.). The main project page, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template also explains a lot about how to do this. See Template:Country data Iran for the list of all flag variants specific for Iran, and simply use {{fb|Iran|1964}} for

Iran. Hope this helps. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

1906

Hi! I am surprised. I had in my mind to create the country pages for 1906. Don't we want to do that? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, those articles had sat there for months and months, so I presumed that nobody thought they were important enough to complete. I'm not so sure that they are worth completing, to be honest. Since the IOC doesn't consider them official Games anymore, they aren't as important as the "real" ones. Certainly none of the country pages are linked from the rest of the respective nation pages. I think that perhaps the per-sport medal summary pages are sufficient and we don't even need per-event results pages. This is probably the approach we ought to take for the "second tier" multi-sport games, like the Commonwealth Games, Pan-Am Games, etc. I note that most of the CG pages are top-level articles only (e.g. 1978 Commonwealth Games) with all medal summaries lumped together. Only for 2002 and 2006 did editors try to create "Nation at the year Commonwealth Games" pages, but that work seemed to stop in a horribly incomplete state. I think it's better to have a more complete smaller set of articles than a big mess of stubs. Perhaps we should only leave the "gory detail" article structure for the Olympic Games and nothing else. The Intercalated Games can be treated like the other "second tier" games. What do you think? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that those articles sat there for a long time. But up to now I have never created such a country page, so I am not familar with. I was also pondering about the importance of those pages. And after the loss of Mr. Barker I am very careful...

I support the 1906 Games! For me the historical view is very important. In 1906 this Games very full Olympics. And for the next 90 years they were also "full". For dubious reasons they were now only "second tier". But for me it is not so important what is now (may be the IOC will decide in 50 years that this Games become "full" again?). All the athletes had their medals still in their hands and the most important fact for me is, that this Games were the first important Games. This Games were the start of the hugh success of the Olympics. For the first time the Games were really recognized from the public. I would like to say, that this Games were the start of the modern Olympics...

This is only my opinion and may be I am alone. This would not be the first case... Kind regards and :) Doma-w (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to work on the 1906 Games, who am I to stop you! ;) I appreciate your enthusiasm for the project! But I might suggest that you start first on the per-event results pages instead of the per-nation pages. Completing the event pages adds new information to the encyclopedia, whereas the per-nation pages are mostly just an alternate view of the same information found elsewhere (i.e. on the per-sport medal summary tables and possibly the per-event results). You may decide that the 1906 Games coverage is "complete" by finishing off the full results and that you don't really need a set of "Nation at the 1906 Summer Olympics" pages on top of that. The other thought is that we seem to have a set of semi-standard formatting styles for the event pages, but I think the per-nation pages need some work.

The other suggestion I had thought for you is that since you seem to like writing the athlete articles, I note that we still have hundreds of redlinks in the various Lists of Olympic medalists tables. Certainly I cannot imagine any article for a medal winner being deemed "non-notable" like Barker! I think these pages need to be double-checked for accuracy against the main per-sport articles, and also the per-nation articles. I think there are quite a few instances where the name is not spelled exactly the same in all three locations, and I know you are good at that sort of thing.

Whatever you decide to work on next, you have my support! Cheers — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support. I am happy to read that! Wikipedia is really a interesting place. Up to now I have done only very few work on the nation pages (only China at the 2004 Summer Olympics) and also on the list of medalists pages (only Handball at the Summer Olympics). Both are not complete... In this moment my focus is not on the 1906 pages but I try to create pages for the medalists in shooting up to 1936. Therefore I have created the result pages but I still need to do some pages for 1920. When they are ready I will start with the medalists. Many thanks and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

2006 Asian Games

Andrwsc, can you help me solve this conflict? Recently i have a conflict with Carl.bunderson about 2006 Asian Games. With all the references i provided, all the information should be notability, but he just come to said he "THINK" not notable.

All the progress, incident, doping during the Games are covered just like Olympics article. I don't understand why he said closing ceremony, criticism, venues, problems are not notable, while generally i read WP:NOTE, i think those of that are not offense that policy.

Please help me Andrwsc, i want to solve this matter, i hope this can end quickly. Thank you. --Aleen f1 17:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Move

Hi! Can you please help me to move this article Yeoryios Theodoridis to the correct spelling Georgios Theodoridis? I have corrected the article but the move is impossible for me... Thank you and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Done — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, but I need your help again. Can you please move Charles Waldstein (archaeologist) to Charles Waldstein? I have merged the archaeologist and the Charles Waldstein (shooter) because they are one and the same person so we do not need the brackets anymore. Kind regards and :) Doma-w (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Done — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks again! Kind regards and :) Doma-w (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Episode Notability statement

Something like this is already done. Star Trek articles are linked to MemoryAlpha, Family Guy articles to Family Guy wiki, Scrubs articles to Scrubs wiki and so forth. These wiki are filled with content that would be considered non-notable or otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know about any of that. I'm not a "regular" of any of the TV-related wikiprojects, or of any wikis outside Wikipedia, for that matter. Good to know that this idea already has some merit. ;) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It gets recommended periodically. I don't think it has come up in the RFC, however, prior to your comment. Thanks for advancing this one. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hockey and Ireland

Hello Andrwsc, I'm hoping this Ireland dispute ends soon (no matter what the result). Perhaps a straw-poll or something will do. It's hurtful to see a hockey article get politized. PS- In agreent with you, let's get this Ireland thing overwith and move on. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A straw-poll is overkill, in my opinion. Just a bit of common-sense copy-editing is required. It seems that nobody is willing to try, however. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this Irish episode will 'go away'. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Football teams infobox

Thanks for that, I figured that was the way to do it, but I didnt have the technical ability Fasach Nua (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I was writing to your talk page at the same time! I'm glad you approve. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Libya at the 1972 Summer Olympics

Libya did actually compete in the 1972 cycling events. If you look at the Sprint resuts in the Official report you see some cyclists are listed in brackets <>. This means "Did not finish" rather than "Did not start". - Topcardi (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you've got it backwards. On page 15 of this part of the official report, the <> brackets are said to mean "did not compete", and the >< brackets mean "gave up/injured". Every instance of an entry from LBA is marked with the "did not compete" brackets. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, you're completely correct and better informed than some of the NOCs concerned... -Topcardi (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 09:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Chile at the 1956 Winter Olympics

pLease tell me why 15 months after this articles was created it is still empty? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Because nobody has worked on it. It is a valid stub article for now, and we all know that Wikipedia:There is no deadline. You could help complete it... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Too late. I finished it. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of footballers

Hi, you contributed to the discussion about football notability criteria in November, so you will be delighted/appalled that I have restarted the discussion here. Please give your opinion so that we can move towards formalising the criteria. Regards, King of the North East 15:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Flag

Hello, I have noticed that you are able to edit Template:Country data Gozo, but it has the standard flag of Malta not Gozo... here is Gozo flag, Image:Flag of Gozo.png. Will you put it in please, it won't let me edit the templat. - S.Azzopardi (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Done — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Roger Byrne

Hi! I think this page needs your help. There is one user who have changed the DoB again and again, but I can only find sources saying "September" and I have added three of them. Is there any possibility to protect this page? Thanks in advance and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have this article on my watchlist now, and will help if I see those bad edits made. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, now there is ONE source for September and plenty of others saying February. Wouldn't it be better to write the date with February and add only a footnote for September? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too. I think a published book may trump a website with respect to source quality, independent of source quantity, but I agree with the footnote idea. I obviously don't have that book available to look at page 115, and we should assume good faith from that editor, so I would stick to September in the infobox and article intro, but add the footnote for February. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

One book can also have a typo... Findagrave and the ManU sources also look good to me. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's certainly possible. I'd support any edit that didn't remove or disregard any source, and that pointed out that there is a discrepancy between all the sources currently provided in the article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Basketball at the Olympics

Sorry, I was trying to bring the categories in line with the article entitled "Basketball at the Summer Olympics". I will revert all changes relating to this. --Oldak Quill 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ok, I just fixed them all. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Next problem

I had prepared all categories for the 2008 Summer Olympics started with Category:Competitors at the 2008 Summer Olympics and all the sub-cats from Category:Athletes at the 2008 Summer Olympics to Category:Wrestlers at the 2008 Summer Olympics. All deleted - empty!!! Of course... Well, nevertheless I think we need them :) Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, categories are deleted if empty, so that's natural. You don't need to create them all in advance so that they will be populated someday. I know that several athletes have qualified for the Games, so you could add those articles to 2008 categories and they will be kept. But you don't need to set up the category infrastructure before it is needed. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we still have a lot of work for the 2008 Games. And creating cats is possible NOW so we have not the hole work on the opening day. :) Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

Your constructive edits have been incorporated into my edits. Renaming countries due to a technicality is not constructive. Please do not make sterile warnings; Eliko and I have been actively discussing the matter and we haven't reached a deadlock yet. Abusing your position as administrator can be seriously punished. Have a good time. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I'm talking about. Look at the history of the article - you have each made multiple reverts in the past 24 hours, and you have been edit-warring for much longer than that. This is what is disruptive to this project. I have done nothing to "abuse my position as administrator". I am giving you the same 3RR warning any competent editor would do. I suggest you and Eliko continue your discussion without edit-warring on that article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew: Let's assume that these edits are really "reverts". However, my friend CieloEstrellado has not made more than three "reverts" in the past 24 hours: at 17:38, at 23:36, and at 3:12 (whereas his other edits are not reverts at all, but rather are simple corrections agreed by all parties, e.g. correcting the word "three" etc.). Furthermore: I (i.e. Eliko), too, haven't made more than three "reverts" in the past 24 hours: at 18:15, at 23:58, and at 11:07 (whereas my other edits are not reverts at all, but rather are simple corrections agreed by all parties, e.g. deleting needless spaces etc.). Neither of us is going to make a fourth revert during the current 24 hours - because both of us obey the 3RR.
However, the more important point - is another one! Look Andrew: what you call "reverts" - are not reverts at all (except for one edit as I'll explain soon), nor does either of us (i.e. CieloEstrellado and Eliko) consider this controversy between us as an "edit-war" - on the contrary: this is a constructive sequence of edits upon edits, each of each constitutes an improvement relative to the previous edits: Indeed, note that on 8 February, the dispute between us (i.e. bewteen CieloEstrellado and Eliko), included not less than eight points, but since then: thanks to continuous efforts of common discussions on our talk pages, and thanks to constructive edits (which you mistakenly call "edit wars"), both of us succeeded to bridge the gap by 50%, and now the dispute is over four points only (as indicated at my previous edit summary made at 23:58). Let me give you two examples from the past 24 hours: if you look at the edit summary of my "revert" at 18:15, you can see that this "revert" succeeded to bridge the gap - from six points of dispute (summed up at the last edit summary of 9 February) - to five points only! Furthermore: if you look at the edit summary of my "revert" at 23:58, you can see that this "revert" succeeded to bridge the gap - from five points of dispute - to four points only! My sole real revert which was made during the past 24 hours - is the last one (made at 11:07), however this revert is constructive too, since it reflects (as indicated at its summary) the unability to understand literally CieloEstrellado's recent comment at his recent edit summary, and I'm sure that now CieloEstrellado will clarify what he has meant by that illegible comment, thus we'll be able to bridge the gap - from the current four points of dispute - to three only, or even less than three, so that this constructive process of edits upon edits (which is by no means considered by either of us as an "edit-war") - will eventually end up with no points of dispute between CieloEstrellado and I. To sum up: We've made a long way since we'd had the big gap (which had included eight points that have already been bridged to four only), and I'm sure that (after your having read my explanation here) you will now agree that this constructive process should continue - untill CieloEstrellado and I and you and other editors reach the optimal version, accepted by all parties.
Of course, both of us will keep obeying the 3RR, and will keep avoiding edit-wars.

Have a wonderful day.

Eliko (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

First, please get my name correct — I am User:Andrwsc. User:Andrew is someone else. Second: holy crap! It took you twelve edits to drop a message onto my talk page! Please learn to use the "Show preview" button. It will also help in your mainspace article editing immensely. Finally, and most importantly, while it is helpful that you think you are making progress, your claim of "not reverts at all" is blatantly false. This edit (by Eliko) is a direct undo of CieloEstrellado's edits. This edit by CieloEstrellado reverts that, with a couple of minor changes. This edit by Eliko is the next direct revert. This edit is CieloEstrellado's next direct revert. Finally, this edit is Eliko's third revert is less than 17 hours.

I caution you both to read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule again. You claim to be "obeying the 3RR", but please take note of the following: Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. The 3RR policy is not an entitlement to three reverts every 24 hours. Given that you have both been at it for a few weeks, I am sure that any administrator reading a report filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR would act appropriately. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:MedalWinner

A tag has been placed on Template:MedalWinner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, long obsolete. I've deleted it for you. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection at List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

You cannot protect this page as you were involved in the editing. Please unprotect immediately or I will ask for your de-adminship. ☆ CieloEstrellado 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons on the talk page, and my edits were entirely unrelated to your edit-war with User:Eliko, so I am not "involved". Take whatever actions you feel are necessary. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect, please. We were actively discussing the issue and I was today going to request mediation on some specific issues. I assure you I won't revert back to my version if the page is unprotected. You can block me for a month if I do. Thank you. ☆ CieloEstrellado 21:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have each been working through each other's talk pages, which is a very good sign, but you have both also been making blind reverts to that article with no apparent movement towards consensus. I think you'll agree that page protection on that article is a much better alternative than blocking both of you. Please take my advice and work out the issues on the talk page before you go back to editing the list itself. You can still request mediation, request for comments, etc. while the page is protected, and if you are at a stalemate on your remaining differences with each other, those options are a good idea. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What if we work out all the issues today and arrive at the conclusion that parts of my version were better and parts of Eliko's version were better? We still can't edit the article according to the new concensus for six more days. We've been slowly moving towards concensus this whole time, but you've halted this progress now. With your protection you're only making one party happy and the other angry, thus making it difficult for both parties to discuss with a cool head on a leveled ground. This is going to do a lot of damage to that progress and may get worse after it gets unprotected. I urge you to reconsider. ☆ CieloEstrellado 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We've both (Eliko and I) have agreed on not making any further progress until the page is unprotected, as a sign of protest to your protection. If this means the page will be protected a year, we don't care. We're just not going to make forced progress just because you said we should. In any case, the current version doesn't bother me as much to tell you the truth, and you're just depriving the community of making edits to that article. Cheers. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The above means that as soon as the page is unprotected we'll start working out the three remaining issues we still have (one was resolved today, before you protected it). ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Please note that I have not "halted this progress now". You are free to continue discussion on the article talk page or your user talk pages. You are free to work on a sandbox version of the list in user space, if that would help. You are free to do most anything — except continue to blind revert each others revisions. If you decide to do nothing for a week, you are free to do that too. Also note that protection is not an endorsement of the current version, so someone was going to be upset anyway. If things "get worse after it gets unprotected", then there are remedies available to stop that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You've failed to understand the dynamics of Wikipedia. ~~You're a failed admin~~. Cheers. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As soon as you unprotect the page Eliko and I will begin making edits at List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎/temp, and we will work hard to reach a concensus within 24 hours. List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎ won't be touched by any of us. This is best offer I can give you for the sake of the community. I just want pages to be free. I believe progress can be made without dictatorial measures. Waiting for Eliko to approve. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a great idea, but you should put your sandbox version in user space (e.g. User:CieloEstrellado/List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎). You don't need the mainspace article to be unprotected to do that, and you don't need to have a self-imposed 24 hour limit. Take your time and reach consensus. If you both agree on a version in 24 hours, or 48 hours, or any time before the protection limit on the main article, let me know, and I will unprotect it then. I can also merge the sandbox into the main article to preserve the edit history per GFDL. Or maybe you can find an admin who hasn't "failed" to help you out. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the offer is to unprotect first and then we will work on the temp page. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the main space. I don't want to make it appear as my version. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a negotiation. As for the sandbox name, how about Wikipedia:Sandbox/List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎ for something neutral? But it shouldn't be in the main space while under development. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You should have blocked us both as you warned in your first message instead of punishing the rest of the userbase by protecting a page. We were the disruptive users, we should not be making edits. Why allowing us to make edits while the rest of the ... world cannot make edits to a page because of our fault? I seriously suggest you to unprotect now, not when concensus is reached. Concensus will be reached in a different page and additions made to the article since will be incorporated into the concensus version. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You two have the vast majority of edits in the past few weeks. Any editor can ask for changes to be made by using the {{editprotected}} template. Nobody is being "punished". I'm surprised you advocate a solution to the disruption (blocking) that doesn't give you the opportunity to work towards a consensus. Any admin is capable of merging page histories. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

While blocked I can still use the Talk page (in some blocks). ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Eliko has agreed. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on. We've agreed not to make edits to the article. Do you even get this from real edit-warriors? The point in protecting is so those involved in the dispute cannot make edits. We've accepted not to touch the article and work for a concensus in a temp page. Can you really please consider this as a good thing and take back your protection? Are you really that stubborn? ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about this: you both agree (by positive confirmation on my talk page), that if I unprotect the page now, you both agree not to make any edits to that list until you have reached consensus on the version at Wikipedia:Sandbox/List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎. You will let me know that you have consensus by both stating so on the sandbox talk page. At that time, I will merge the pages to preserve page histories. If either of you fail to abide by this agreement, you will be blocked for 7 days. Sound reasonable? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree without hesitation. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too.

P.S. The time here (where I live) is 1:25 after midnight, so I'm going to sleep awhile. see you tomorrow. Goodbye. Eliko (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done! I wish you success in reaching consensus here. (And goodnight, Eliko.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Input needed

I would really like your input on the three issues in dispute here. I think it will be important for both of us to have an external voice in the matter. Please give us some wisdom. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could take a look, but I'd also suggest going to WP:requests for comment (in the "Economy, trade, and companies" section) to see if the wider community has input. Best of luck — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppetry?

Can you please investigate on whether User:SSnormal is a sockpuppet of User:Eliko? I suspect this because a) He uses the same —(.)— summary text when copyediting, b) Began editing List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita today after no edits in two weeks, just when Eliko has agreed not to edit that page. Cheers. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much convinced by now. His latest message at Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita (the one that starts I don't know why you mentioned the absence) pretty much gave it away for me. It's the same kind of mind numbing way of writing that I had become used to from Eliko, and his use of bolding was obvious too.

So now that Eliko is probably going to get blocked/banned for violating the agreement, how am I going to reach a consensus version with someone who can't edit? Unless he's allowed to edit Talk pages, he still won't be able to edit the Sandbox version. What happens now? Can I just go ahead and edit the article? ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also had similiar — and additional — suspicions, and I am preparing a WP:SSP report right now. Please wait to see what the outcome of that is, before editing the mainspace article, as per our agreement. I would like another admin to confirm this and apply any blocks. Thanks for the heads-up, and thanks for continuing to "play by the rules". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Eliko for details. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's very disturbing; almost as if he suffered from multiple personality disorder (just kidding). Funny how he kept saying on nearly every comment that he was an "honest" person... I'll wait for the outcome, and then, please let me know when I'm ready to edit the article. Thanks! ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on ~~Cantus~~ CieloEstrellado, multiple personality disorder...? I vaguely remember someone was blocked (log) when CieloEstrellado emerged and continued on Chilean topics and economic lists. I don’t think you should be that "disturbed" here about what Eliko might have done. --Van helsing (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Names

Hi Andrwsc, I tried to bring all the athletics pages in line but in three cases I need your help:

Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics - Men's Long Jump - no capitalization
Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics - Men's High Jump - no capitalization
Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics - Men's Pole Vault - no capitalization

The only differences are now:

The three "walking"-pages 2004 where it is written "kilometre" but all other years have only "km" in the title
The four relay-pages 2004 - they have 4x100 or 4x400 (without spaces) in the title but all earlier years have 4 x 100 or 4 x 400 (with spaces) in the title

Do you think we will move these seven 2004 pages or all the others to bring them in line? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I now saw that the early "walking"-pages also write "kilometre". So the pages from 1980 to 2000 have "km" in the title and the others have "kilometre". So I would say that it is better to move the "km" to "kilometre"?

The same is for the relay-pages. Only 1980 to 2000 have 4 x 100 or 4 x 400 (with spaces). Maybe here it is also better to move the years with spaces to bring them all in line without spaces? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello?

You haven't made an edit in more than three days, Eliko hasn't showed up either, Eliko's sock puppetry case hasn't advanced an inch... And I still can't edit the article. Am I supposed to keep on waiting forever? I think I have a case here to be allowed to edit the article. What do you say? ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it was the weekend and I didn't get to the Internet. I prefer to get a second admin to look at this, so I will escalate the case and see what can be done today. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Brazil fc 2/doc

A tag has been placed on Template:Brazil fc 2/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No progress

I've been obeying our agreement to the letter. I've made my points in the Sandbox talk page and no third party has shown up to comment. I sit here patiently waiting for the outcome of Eliko's sock puppetry case but nothing happens. I really don't know what else to do. What I do know is that I think I should be allowed to edit the article purely as a matter of principle. It's been eight days already. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I, too, have been obeying the arrangement.
I, too, have made my points on the Sandbox talk page, and none of my recent comments have been referred to yet.
Why does Cielo Estrellado say that "nothing happens" with what he calls: "the outcome of Eliko's sock puppetry case"? Much has happened and been progressing towards the outcome - as one can see here.
Note that I'm not the person who initiated the arrangement: I've just agreed to whatever Cielo Estrellado requested: He asked me: "Can we agree on not making any further progress until the page is unprotected...? I'm just not going to make any forced progress just because the page is protected. Do you agree?", and I answered him (not initiating anything): "Yes I do agree, my friend...". Later, Cielo Estrellado asked me again: "Do you agree that as soon as ANDREW unprotects the page we begin making edits at List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎/temp, and...List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎ won't be touched by any of us. Do you agree?", and I answered him (again - not initiating anything): "Yes I do". Later, Cielo Estrellado asked me again: "The admin who protected the page is now offering this:...agree not to make any edits to that list until...have reached consensus on the version at Wikipedia:Sandbox/List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎....Do you agree? If so, please tell him on his talk page.", and I answered Cielo Estrellado (again - not initiating anything): "I've just approved on Andrwsc's talk page".
If the sockpuppet allegation had been true (although I know it's actually mistaken) - then the arrangement would have been void; However: assuming that the sockpuppet allegation is mistaken (although I don't assume that but rather know that), a very severe question arises: if one party breaks the arrangement unilaterally (i.e. without getting the other party's permission) - is the arrangement void then? Note that I'm not the person who initiated the arrangement.
Have a successful day.

Eliko (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The original protection on that article was for a week for you two to sort out your differences, and that week has expired. Consider our agreement expired too. I will not block either of you for resuming editing on the article — but please try to avoid edit-warring again, and that includes blind-reverts, even at a rate of less than three per day. Good luck — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Move

Hi! Can you please help me to move Jerome Thomas (boxer) back to the correct spelling Jérôme Thomas? Thanks and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Done — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help again! Doma-w (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sorry, but I need your help again for two more moves...

Marcus Wright to Marc Wright - his name was Marc, there is no source for Marcus.
Michael Gross (swimmer) to Michael Groß - his correct German name is Groß. A user moved the page with the reason "Naming conventions (use English)", but both Gross and Groß are not English :) so I think we had to use his correct name?

Many thanks in advance and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you google for "Marcus Snowell Wright pole vault 1912", you find a MS Word document on the United States Olympic Committee website that lists him as Marcus, so I think it might make sense to keep that in the introduction. The page move still makes sense, as Marc appears to be more common. As for Gross, there have been prior wars over that page name, so it would not be an "uncontroversial" move. You should list it at WP:Requested moves for additional opinion. Thanks, — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. And thanks for the move. OK, maybe his name was also Marcus. Thanks for your help in this case also. Well, I will add Michael Groß there... I understand, that this is necessary in this case. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template:NO

Check Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:NO. ; - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. I have a script that tells me which templates have 1 or more transclusions and which don't. I don't generally pay attention to specific cases when deleting, only when tagging. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'd advise adding Woohookitty's pages to your script if possible, as those should be treated as "false positives" for actual usage. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with Woohookitty's page, it had to do with the template being used (i.e., transcluded) on a talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Hi! Today I have a very special question. You have added a optional third place match to this template Template:32TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds. Could you please be so kind and add the same to Template:16TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds and Template:8TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds? This would be very usefull, because we have several Olympic competitions with third place matches where I would like to use them. I tried to change it myself, but I was so confused... :) Many thanks in advance and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done (partially). I've updated the 16 team template, but I can't do the 8 team template. Because of the "compact" layout, there is no room beneath the gold medal match to fit another header and the two extra boxes. Maybe just use Template:Round8-with third instead. The syntax is different (positional instead of named parameters), and the layout is slightly different, but if you use team-width=11em and score-width=2em, they will look similar. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! This is really great! I will use them within the next hours. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)