User talk:HandsomeFella


Many thanks! That's exactly what the stop is for! Rich Farmbrough, 11:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, HandsomeFella. You have new messages at Talk:Croydon Athletic F.C..
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent s, 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 s 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[reply]

Retrieval dates[]

Using non-print or electronic media is fraught with problems, especially since so many ors 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 ors 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[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?
HandsomeFella (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 ing. 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[reply]
I haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about. Are we talking about the same thing? You have reverted my 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[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[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[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[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 summary); that it was your last revert? Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Started a section for discussion on the Gripen talkpage. Let's continue there. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
Now, you are just a plain vandal and will be treated as such. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]


I'm not a vandal, and I will *not* be treated like one. I make constructive s, 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 ing 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 or's input, but not yours? Maybe you're not so good at explaining as you think you are.


HandsomeFella (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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:


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?

Friends again (and not vandals)?

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Example pasted from Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style#Webpages (plain, permalinked, and archived) (indentation added):
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:
  • Wikipedia ors (2008-07-28). "Kay Ryan". Wikipedia. Retrieved 2008-07-28. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
If there is no permalink for a webpage, consider creating an archive copy of it yourself by using an on-demand archiving service. WebCite ( 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 or on 2008-05-27:
End of example.
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:
  1. Useage in Wikipedia is highly influenced by the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut ing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.
  5. Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Wikipedia, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
  6. Once a referencing style is in use and accepted as it was in this article, it is contingent on all other ors to maintain and follow that style guide consistently. It is a difficult thing to "mix" style guides for ing 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.
  7. 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 or 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 ors 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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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 ors 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 ors 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 ors? 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 ing" and would show the output as: "Kay Ryan". Wikipedia, 28 July 2008. Retrieved: 28 July 2008. (You may have to read the citation in 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 ing", I would show the output as: Perens, Bruce. "The Open Source Definition (Annotated)." Open Source Initiative, originally cited in 24 July 2006, retrieved via, 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[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 s did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test s you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please do not change the name of the template. Intoronto1125 (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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[reply]
Ok! Intoronto1125 (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia![]

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia![]

Enjoyed having an argument with you lol. Looking forward to working with you in 2011! Intoronto1125 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

read WP:ENGVAR[]

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[reply]

I can't see that WP:ENGVAR says anything about date format. Btw, I certainly hope that more than "some" of my changes are good. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikitable expert help wanted[]

{{help}} Hello anyone!

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?

Thanks in advance

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! You are just missing a little code, I'll correct it and show you if you don't mind :-)
Kind regards, Captain n00dle\Talk 13:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, that would be great! please go ahead, and I'll check the diff. Thanks! HandsomeFella (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are the two diffs: [1] & [2]
You had set the entire table to align="center", you then have to specify the cells to align="left"
Each cell has an "options" field before it seperated by a pipe "|" that's where you put it.
Hope that makes sense! Have a nice day, and happy ing, Kind Regards, Captain n00dle\Talk 13:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must be blind. Why didn't I see that? Many thanks! HandsomeFella (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, HandsomeFella. You have new messages at Basement12's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


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. – PeeJay 02:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[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. – PeeJay 21:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template tests[]

{{#switch: {{{2}}} | 1 = [[Space Shuttle {{{1}}}|Space Shuttle ''{{{1}}}'']] | 2 = [[Space Shuttle {{{1}}}|Space Shuttle ''{{{1}}}'' (OV-{{#switch:{{{1}}} | Pathfinder = 098 | Challenger = 099 | Enterprise = 101 | Columbia = 102 | Discovery = 103 | Atlantis = 104 | Endeavour = 105 | ??? }})]] | 3 = [[Space Shuttle {{{1}}}|''{{{1}}}'']] | 4 = [[Space Shuttle {{{1}}}|''{{{1}}}'' (OV-{{#switch:{{{1}}} | Pathfinder = 098 | Challenger = 099 | Enterprise = 101 | Columbia = 102 | Discovery = 103 | Atlantis = 104 | Endeavour = 105 | ??? }})]] | 5 = Space Shuttle ''{{{1}}}'' | 6 = Space Shuttle ''{{{1}}}'' (OV-{{#switch:{{{1}}} | Pathfinder = 098 | Challenger = 099 | Enterprise = 101 | Columbia = 102 | Discovery = 103 | Atlantis = 104 | Endeavour = 105 | ??? }}) | 7 = ''{{{1}}}'' | 8 = ''{{{1}}}'' (OV-{{#switch:{{{1}}} | Pathfinder = 098 | Challenger = 099 | Enterprise = 101 | Columbia = 102 | Discovery = 103 | Atlantis = 104 | Endeavour = 105 | ??? }}) | [[Space Shuttle {{{1}}}|Space Shuttle ''{{{1}}}'']] }}

The following is the British roster in the men's water polo tournament of the 2012 Summer Olympics.[1]

Name Pos. Height Weight Date of birth 2012 club
1 Edward Scott GK 1.97 m (6 ft 6 in) 85 kg (187 lb) 28 May 1988 Spain CE Merrani
2 Ciaran James D 1.93 m (6 ft 4 in) 93 kg (205 lb) 5 July 1991 Germany SV Cannstatt
3 Glen Robinson D 1.88 m (6 ft 2 in) 90 kg (198 lb) 26 January 1989 Germany SV Wurzburg 05
4 Sean King D 1.93 m (6 ft 4 in) 91 kg (201 lb) 3 May 1989 Germany SV Weiden
5 Craig Figes D 1.83 m (6 ft 0 in) 90 kg (198 lb) 14 August 1978 Italy Pescara
6 Jack Waller CF 1.87 m (6 ft 2 in) 95 kg (209 lb) 6 October 1989 Spain CN Sant Andreu
7 Alexander Parsonage D 1.80 m (5 ft 11 in) 87 kg (192 lb) 30 April 1985 Netherlands UZSC
8 Jake Vincent CB 1.97 m (6 ft 6 in) 98 kg (216 lb) 24 June 1989 Germany SV Bayer Uerdingen
9 Robert Parker CB 2.00 m (6 ft 7 in) 100 kg (220 lb) 4 December 1987 Spain CN Terrassa
10 Adam Scholefield CF 1.89 m (6 ft 2 in) 99 kg (218 lb) 24 May 1985 Hungary PVSK
11 Sean Ryder D 1.88 m (6 ft 2 in) 94 kg (207 lb) 18 June 1987 Germany SV Weiden
12 Joseph O’Regan CB 2.03 m (6 ft 8 in) 104 kg (229 lb) 22 June 1991 Hungary PVSK
13 Matthew Holland GK 1.94 m (6 ft 4 in) 96 kg (212 lb) 22 June 1989 France Aix-en-Provence
Head coach: Cristian Iordache

The following is the British roster in the women's water polo tournament of the 2012 Summer Olympics..[2]

Name Pos. Height Weight Date of birth 2012 club
1 Robyn Nicholls GK 1.78 m (5 ft 10 in) 65 kg (143 lb) 8 May 1990 United Kingdom City of Manchester
2 Chloe Wilcox D 1.72 m (5 ft 8 in) 62 kg (137 lb) 20 December 1986 United Kingdom City of Manchester
3 Fiona McCann CB 1.72 m (5 ft 8 in) 70 kg (154 lb) 13 May 1987 United Kingdom City of Liverpool
4 Francesca Snell CB 1.75 m (5 ft 9 in) 63 kg (139 lb) 28 March 1987 United Kingdom West London Penguin
5 Alexandra Rutlidge CB 1.70 m (5 ft 7 in) 62 kg (137 lb) 12 November 1988 United Kingdom City of Manchester
6 Frances Leighton CF 1.82 m (6 ft 0 in) 72 kg (159 lb) 30 March 1982 United Kingdom City of Sheffield
7 Lisa Gibson CF 1.77 m (5 ft 10 in) 75 kg (165 lb) 12 August 1989 United Kingdom City of Manchester
8 Hazel Musgrove CB 1.70 m (5 ft 7 in) 65 kg (143 lb) 6 February 1989 United Kingdom City of Liverpool
9 Ciara Gibson-Byrne D 1.67 m (5 ft 6 in) 59 kg (130 lb) 3 December 1992 United Kingdom City of Manchester
10 Angela Winstanley-Smith CF 1.79 m (5 ft 10 in) 66 kg (146 lb) 5 August 1985 United Kingdom City of Manchester
11 Francesca Clayton D 1.70 m (5 ft 7 in) 69 kg (152 lb) 7 January 1990 United Kingdom City of Liverpool
12 Rebecca Kershaw D 1.75 m (5 ft 9 in) 59 kg (130 lb) 11 August 1990 United Kingdom City of Manchester
13 Rosemary Morris GK 1.80 m (5 ft 11 in) 69 kg (152 lb) 31 January 1986 United Kingdom City of Liverpool
Head coach: Szilveszter Fekete

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[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 s to delete proper redirects which is contrary to policy. Please stop. Dolovis (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
You might have noticed the discussion on your own talkpage. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 in its history; if there's only one , such as the page move itself, then the system will still let any or 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 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[reply]

If you don't stop warring over this right now, I'm going to block you for one hour. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 ors acting like Dolovis does. Blocking me and not Dolovis – if that indeed is the case – would be rewarding rogue ors, while blocking ors 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.
Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Believe me, Dolovis will get blocked too if his behaviour continues. But you were politely asked by two different ors, and given a block warning, to stop tagging the redirects, but chose to keep on tagging anyway — whereas he hasn't made any s 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[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.
Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 (warring being the latter.) It would have been pointless for me to block 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 block, 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[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 ors 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 ing 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 warring (although it would only mean that I'd reach 2RR on the individual redirects).
Maybe the right way to go about it is this:
  1. 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).
  2. Then move the remaining pages.
What do you think?
Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: I just noticed that a previously uninvolved or two previously uninvolved ors 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[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[reply]

And I see you are continuing to tag them. Please stop as I mentioned, I'm denying them. RxS (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 ors 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[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[reply]
Note taken. But here's a friendly tip: take a look at Dolovis's actions and talkpage. It's not necessarily he who reports the other first who is right. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

Some praise[]

After looking over the discussion at Talk:Volleyball at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament, I wanted to let you know that you're doing a good job - and more importantly, you're doing so in a civil manner. Although I know nothing of your work in other areas, it seems that you have been giving the subject of volleyball considerable care. Keep up the good work, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, that was very kind of you to say that. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Test Czech[]

Date format[]

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? Oscar 17:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 ors 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 ed 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 summaries, I admit that there wasn't always inconsistent date format in an article I ed, 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 summary field makes you lazy, picking the best alternative. I'll see what I can do.
Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. Oscar 22:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otherwise, you have to change Fidel Castro and most wikipedia articles, because is NOT distinctly North American (United States and Canada) article. Oscar 22:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[reply]

Talk back[]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, HandsomeFella. You have new messages at Intoronto1125's talk page.
Message added 01:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]

Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for Move[]

Hi! I would like to join these discussions about Request for Move: Talk:Natasa Janics, Talk:Christina Vukicevic, Talk:Milos Raonic, Talk:Kristina Mladenovic, Talk:Alex Bogdanovic, Talk:Irena Pavlovic, Talk:Andrea Petkovic. Greetings and thanks! :) --Aca Srbin (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2011 (CEST)

Squads versus team rosters[]

I've replied at my talk page. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please stop removing Template:volleyball from individual page. it's common in wikipedia. the same situation in Handball, Basketball, Football, see 2010 FIFA World Cup, 2010 FIBA World Championship and etc. I will revert your s. Mohsen1248 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[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[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 s 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[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 -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 s.
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).
Hope you'll find this logical.
Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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[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.
One more revert, and I will report you. That is not a threat, it's a promise. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good. Keep your promise. Mohsen1248 (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)

Hey. I've started a discussion here. Your input is welcome. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)

2012 Winter Youth Olympics[]

Hi, would you be interested in creating the roster pages for the hockey events at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 22:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there. I just might. ;-) Do you have sources? HandsomeFella (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I have is the wiki articles (on the team participating) and Canada's roster [3] and the USA's roster [4]. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is Austria's [5] Intoronto1125TalkContributions 05:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All right, I'll see what I can do. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just an update, User:Prayerfortheworld has completed the USA roster over here. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixing redirects[]

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.

But full marks for finding and fixing redirects in navigation templates such as Template:Arab–Israeli diplomacy. You may like to try using the "link classifier" script, User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js, which among other things turns links to redirects from the usual blue to green, making them instantly obvious. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, thanks for the tip. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dolovis' talk page[]

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. Resolute 16:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
I'd just step away at this point unless he breaks his ban. Best to leave him be. -DJSasso (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. It was only that he IMO wasn't entirely truthful in the summary. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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?".
I'm contemplating a rebuttal (see below) of what he's saying of me at WP:AN. Do you think I should refrain from it? HandsomeFella (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by HandsomeFella[]

Although I don't think this debate isn't getter any more fruitful by the number of ors, 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.

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


FWIW, there's no exemption for Quebec-based hockey articles, as they too - are North American based. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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[reply]
I'm 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[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[reply]
Use some common sense. That refers to English leagues and you know it. -DJSasso (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
I'll continue to follow the compromise as is, All North American. Hopefully, you're not planning on starting an -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[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[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[reply]
No you brought the topic up, which is what you always do and why you got in trouble and had the Rfc/U. -DJSasso (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey HandsomeFella; sorry about this latest spat between myself & Djsasso, occuring on your talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This and that[]

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 ors should not be appearing in red.

It can be something really basic, like this. Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with template[]

I'm trying to render the date format in two templates, Template:2008 Summer Olympics United States men's volleyball team roster and Template:2008 Summer Olympics United States men's volleyball team roster, according to a parameter given in pages that transclude them by passing the parameter to the dts template. It works fine mostly, but when I use the dts template in the cite web template, it seems to ignore it. Can anybody find out why? If one experiments with changing the default value in the template, and then previews it, it works. So why does it not work when the template is transcluded in from another page?

Million thanks.

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No parameter given:

The following is the American roster in the men's volleyball tournament of the 2008 Summer Olympics.[3]

The United States team just before the group stage match against Italy. From left: Stanley, Lee, Hansen, Priddy, Ball, Touzinsky, Gardner, Salmon, Rooney, Millar, Lambourne, Hoff.
No. Name Date of birth Height Weight Spike Block 2008 club
1 Lloy Ball 17 February 1972 2.03 m (6 ft 8 in) 95 kg (209 lb) 351 cm (138 in) 316 cm (124 in) Russia Zenit Kazan
2 Sean Rooney 13 November 1982 2.06 m (6 ft 9 in) 100 kg (220 lb) 354 cm (139 in) 336 cm (132 in) Russia Dinamo-Yantar Kaliningrad
4 David Lee 8 March 1982 2.03 m (6 ft 8 in) 105 kg (231 lb) 350 cm (140 in) 325 cm (128 in) Turkey Halkbank Ankara
5 Richard Lambourne 6 May 1975 1.90 m (6 ft 3 in) 90 kg (200 lb) 324 cm (128 in) 312 cm (123 in) Poland AZS Olsztyn
8 William Priddy 1 October 1977 1.96 m (6 ft 5 in) 89 kg (196 lb) 353 cm (139 in) 330 cm (130 in) Russia Lokomotiv Novosibirsk
9 Ryan Millar 22 January 1978 2.04 m (6 ft 8 in) 98 kg (216 lb) 354 cm (139 in) 326 cm (128 in) Italy Sparkling Milano
10 Riley Salmon 2 July 1976 1.97 m (6 ft 6 in) 89 kg (196 lb) 345 cm (136 in) 331 cm (130 in) Italy Top Volley SRL
12 Thomas Hoff 9 June 1973 1.98 m (6 ft 6 in) 94 kg (207 lb) 353 cm (139 in) 333 cm (131 in) Russia Fakel New Urengoy
13 Clay Stanley 20 January 1978 2.05 m (6 ft 9 in) 104 kg (229 lb) 357 cm (141 in) 332 cm (131 in) Russia Zenit Kazan
14 Kevin Hansen 19 March 1982 1.96 m (6 ft 5 in) 93 kg (205 lb) 349 cm (137 in) 330 cm (130 in) France Stade Poitevin Poitiers
15 Gabriel Gardner 18 March 1976 2.09 m (6 ft 10 in) 103 kg (227 lb) 353 cm (139 in) 335 cm (132 in) Italy Sparkling Milano
18 Scott Touzinsky 22 April 1982 1.98 m (6 ft 6 in) 86 kg (190 lb) 344 cm (135 in) 330 cm (130 in) Slovenia ACH Volley Bled

Parameter df set to mdy:

The following is the American roster in the men's volleyball tournament of the 2008 Summer Olympics.[4]

The United States team just before the group stage match against Italy. From left: Stanley, Lee, Hansen, Priddy, Ball, Touzinsky, Gardner, Salmon, Rooney, Millar, Lambourne, Hoff.
No. Name Date of birth Height Weight Spike Block 2008 club
1 Lloy Ball February 17, 1972 2.03 m (6 ft 8 in) 95 kg (209 lb) 351 cm (138 in) 316 cm (124 in) Russia Zenit Kazan
2 Sean Rooney November 13, 1982 2.06 m (6 ft 9 in) 100 kg (220 lb) 354 cm (139 in) 336 cm (132 in) Russia Dinamo-Yantar Kaliningrad
4 David Lee March 8, 1982 2.03 m (6 ft 8 in) 105 kg (231 lb) 350 cm (140 in) 325 cm (128 in) Turkey Halkbank Ankara
5 Richard Lambourne May 6, 1975 1.90 m (6 ft 3 in) 90 kg (200 lb) 324 cm (128 in) 312 cm (123 in) Poland AZS Olsztyn
8 William Priddy October 1, 1977 1.96 m (6 ft 5 in) 89 kg (196 lb) 353 cm (139 in) 330 cm (130 in) Russia Lokomotiv Novosibirsk
9 Ryan Millar January 22, 1978 2.04 m (6 ft 8 in) 98 kg (216 lb) 354 cm (139 in) 326 cm (128 in) Italy Sparkling Milano
10 Riley Salmon July 2, 1976 1.97 m (6 ft 6 in) 89 kg (196 lb) 345 cm (136 in) 331 cm (130 in) Italy Top Volley SRL
12 Thomas Hoff June 9, 1973 1.98 m (6 ft 6 in) 94 kg (207 lb) 353 cm (139 in) 333 cm (131 in) Russia Fakel New Urengoy
13 Clay Stanley January 20, 1978 2.05 m (6 ft 9 in) 104 kg (229 lb) 357 cm (141 in) 332 cm (131 in) Russia Zenit Kazan
14 Kevin Hansen March 19, 1982 1.96 m (6 ft 5 in) 93 kg (205 lb) 349 cm (137 in) 330 cm (130 in) France Stade Poitevin Poitiers
15 Gabriel Gardner March 18, 1976 2.09 m (6 ft 10 in) 103 kg (227 lb) 353 cm (139 in) 335 cm (132 in) Italy Sparkling Milano
18 Scott Touzinsky April 22, 1982 1.98 m (6 ft 6 in) 86 kg (190 lb) 344 cm (135 in) 330 cm (130 in) Slovenia ACH Volley Bled
  1. ^ "Great Britain team roster". 20 July 2012.
  2. ^ "Great Britain team roster". 19 July 2012.
  3. ^ "United States men's volleyball team roster". Beijing 2008. FIVB. Retrieved 5 November 2017.
  4. ^ "United States men's volleyball team roster". Beijing 2008. FIVB. Retrieved 5 November 2017.

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.
You could post at WP:VPT, alerting them to this thread, since that's where the template experts live. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks John, I think I understand the problem (still confused, but on a higher level). I'm hoping that some VP(t) person has a solution.
HandsomeFella (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(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[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?
HandsomeFella (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done I used the {{#tag:ref}} parser function to generate the <ref>...</ref> element; this allows processing of template parameters, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awesome. A million thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject![]

View of Hoover Tower from Main Quad.

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!

ralphamale (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


serial commas[]

Hi. The article Birth control movement in the United States uses serial commas. I think you removed a few recently. Could you please restore them, per MOS:SERIAL ("ors may use either convention on Wikipedia so long as each article is consistent within itself")? thanks. --Noleander (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]
I tried to "undo" but there have been intervening s, so it wont undo. Would you mind doing it manually? See MOS:RETAIN. --Noleander (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I like it the way it is, which is why I made that (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[reply]
I must say, I find your attitude rather offensive. I'll revert the comma changes. Thanks for nothing. --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons[]

Beyoncé Knowles GMA 2011 cropped.jpg 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[reply]

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
For excellent work on foreign relations templates. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, my first barnstar! HandsomeFella (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Fixing" redirects[]

I noticed your recent at Royal Marriages Act 1772 to bypass a redirect link. No real harm done, just thought I'd point out that making an 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 . --LarryJeff (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm aware of that, and usually I fix a dozen of things in one . In this particular case though, it was the only change. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page move complaints[]

You scold me for asking an or to stop his unilateral page moves & then you scold another or for making a unilateral page move. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

Talk pages[]

Merely delete your post after I make correction. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

Removal of accuracy line from WP:AT[]

Hi HandsomeFella, you might wish to note this, restored after deleted 7 days. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In a recent  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[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[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[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Strong national ties to a topic follows the principles set out in the guideline I mentioned above. __meco (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does it indeed? So the uprising in Syria has a strong national tie to the US? I didn't know that. Could you explain how? HandsomeFella (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Copy, section Common s, 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.
I was going to tidy up the article Timeline of the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising (January–April 2012) (linked to from "March 15" in the Houla massacre article), where the date format, especially for the month of March – look at the headings! – is anything but consistent, but with you around, I guess that's no idea. Good luck with your mess. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summing up[]

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 . From the two inconsistent formats in the article, one had to be chosen. By reverting my , 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.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for arbitration[]

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 ing behaviour on GoodDay's part. isaacl (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All right then. It didn't add much anyway. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much for your consideration! isaacl (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


[7][8]. They all name the squads, not rosters. --Aleenf1 16:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitration case opened[]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 29, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent at Template:Qc Uni[]

Hello, I have no issue with the s made at Template:Qc Uni, but I do have issue with the reasoning given behind. Camel-case is not the justification for your s 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[reply]

Hockey at the Commonwealth Games[]

Did you look at the 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[reply]

Can you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)In ictu oculi (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Xavier Vallés[]

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[reply]

Hello. At, his name is spelled with an é. I assume that the Spaniards know what they're doing on Spanish entities. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[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...
Spanish Olympic Committee also shows his name as "Valles" (without accent). Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 HandsomeFella (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also placed a question at the major contributor's talk page. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very cool! Many thanks for this good idea! Perhaps one spelling is Spanish and one is Catalan? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have placed a question at two users' talkpages, but so far none of them have ed after I placed the question. They have ed recently, so they are active. Just to let you know the status. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks! Perhaps they are also not sure? :-) Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
Many thanks for your help and the correction! Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move of Côte d'Ivoire[]

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[reply]

Los Angeles Kings (diacritics in player names)[]

Hi. Your recent 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. — Richwales 21:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
I can also add that I have been making s like that many times before. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your latest , 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 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 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. — Richwales 23:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, the origins of the changes to the hockey guideline were discussed in the arbitration case, and I would imagine given GoodDay's well-known position on diacritics that at least some long-time ors in the hockey project would have some memory of the origins. Nonetheless, as discussed in the links I provided, the guideline has been affirmed through consensus agreement over the years by many ors. isaacl (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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 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 or that was very strictly enforcing it. Most other ice hockey ors didn't care enough to change them in one direction or the other. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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. — Richwales 21:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So retract it then. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. witnessed this, thanks, of course same exists still on 100x other tennis BLPs, 44x of them using this formula "tennis player" "known professionally as". But what can be done, 2 or 3 individuals who believe "foreigners" have "English names" will persist in making changes to lede even after an RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Btw thanks for your common sense here: FYI. I shouldn't be the only one to implement the result. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am the one who owe you thanks. Great research and well argumented in many RM's. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Football at the 2012 Olympics Tournaments[]

Hi HandsomeFella

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[reply]

How do you like this one?
I have added it to the "stage" pages, so you can see it there too.
HandsomeFella (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 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[reply]

Can we have a Olympic Venues Map?[]

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

It is the only thing missing from the Venues of the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics page so please can we get this sorted out. ( MOTORAL1987 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC) )Reply[reply]

Some baklava for you![]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Cheers One.tenth (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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[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?
HandsomeFella (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To the extent that it only messes up 100x tennis stubs (not the big name players) probably not, no, but seems like Talk has been instructed: Talk:Jelena Janković. I just left a message on Joe Decker's Talk. Interesting that the TENNISNAME-ledes are happening to less visible stubs rather than Ilie Năstase. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, good-looking fella. Sorry to pop up :) Can I suggest that rather than 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[reply]

Sortkey in templates[]

Hey, thanks for adding that. I did not know about it, sorry. Kante4 (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, we all learn all the time. Thanks for your work, btw. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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 (ing effort) and storage space consumption.
My key points for these templates are (and I know you already know this):
  • saving raw ing effort; instead of ing three articles – both countries' articles, and the tournament article – after the conclusion of a game, one template article, and the result is immediately visible in all relevant places,
  • saving storage space consumption in wikipedia's servers; instead of ing 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 s 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 ors' 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 conflicts.
Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
HandsomeFella (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Base on your comment, could one team make a big change in the squads after announcement? big ask about 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. --Aleenf1 16:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 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 s 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 , even if the has nothing to do with a specific squad (or player). Not only will the article be smaller, it will also need fewer s – 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 ing effort and storage consumption – but the sooner the better.
HandsomeFella (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm right with HandsomeFella, it just saves you time by making 1 instead of 3. Kante4 (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now, you had to 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[reply]

Do you mean that the templates existed, and yet they were not used when the page was created? That's a waste of ing effort. Anyways, we'll fix it eventually. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
One thing I'm assure is templates is not to saving ing 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. --Aleenf1 14:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 than 3. Maybe a discussion on WikiProject Olympics is needed to find a consensus. Kante4 (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. --Aleenf1 15:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, making 3 s instead of just 1 is better and does not waste database? Kante4 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aleef1, templates are not only for navigational purposes, there are several more usages. The ones we are talking about here are convenience templates. Please read my description above again (thoroughly), and see if you can disprove that. Please also read Help:Template. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You have been blocked from ing for a period of 48 hours for widespread 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. j⚛e deckertalk 02:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

HandsomeFella (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

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[reply]

Accept reason:

Already unblocked. T. Canens (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. But what does "on hold" mean? I tried to , but it does not work. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
Okay. Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
( 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 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 s 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 deckertalk 14:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 ing 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.
Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 s 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 or. 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 ors 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 deckertalk 17:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[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?)
Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll respond more later, but here's an RfC: Let me know if you see immediate issues. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk 19:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Avoiding redirect"[]


Regarding s 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 ors, 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[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).
HandsomeFella (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither whatlinkshre nor related changes are affected. They have both been smart enough to understand redirects for years. Please don't continue to do this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are they really? I'll be damned! HandsomeFella (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed :) Our software slowly marches towards perfection. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) And it's not solely a question of efficiency or disk space; please note that WP:NOTBROKEN mentions several other reasons why "fixing" non-broken redirects is generally not advisable. — Richwales 17:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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[reply]

Okay, but is that really right?
Btw, thanks for your great job with updating the game reference and – I assume – group standings templates!
HandsomeFella (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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[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[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[reply]

Soccer templates[]

Great job on the Olympic soccer templates. I'm so impressed, such that I endorse it here: Talk:UEFA_Euro_2012_schedule#Instead_of_schedule_pages. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 ing 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.
HandsomeFella (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For all of your work creating templates on the Olympics! Electric Catfish 23:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! HandsomeFella (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey, there is a discussion going on, about the match reports for the olympic football tournament. You are welcome to join here. Kante4 (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey, yeah was my mistake and fixed it. A mathmatical error, sorry. Kante4 (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slapped myself and fixed it, sory again and time for me to go back to school to learn how to count... :p Kante4 (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't be sorry, Kante. You're doing a great job in helping wikipedia cover the Olympics "live". HandsomeFella (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. ;) But still, those are just bad mistakes. Kante4 (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 Banner talk 00:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forget it. The next templated showed me how it is done... The Banner talk 00:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

India at 2012 Summer Olympics[]

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[reply]

Please follow the guidelines at WP:OLYMOSNAT. Don't add background colors for your personal liking or preference. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ANI notice[]

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[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[reply]
Sigh. Was this renewed attack necessary now? Fut.Perf. 20:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, point taken. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 ing (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 or has problems. Even if the or may be about to get blocked for those problems.
We specifically have a ban on "tap dancing on another ors 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.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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, 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 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.
HandsomeFella (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Olympic etiquette for articles[]

Wondering if there is a good reason why there are separate articles for Equestrian at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Individual dressage and Equestrian at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Team dressage. Pretty much all the same people and they qualify via the same preliminary rounds, I'd like to merge the two into Equestrian at the 2012 Summer Olympics – dressage, discussing both, but perhaps the Wikiproject says that's evil? Montanabw(talk) 17:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.
HandsomeFella (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AH! But I suspected you'd make that comparison! (grin) I have no interest in having an 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[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 war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid ing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' s once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, ors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an ing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among ors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an war, you may be blocked from ing. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 15:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may have observed Aleenf1's behaviour. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saving space or saving your works?[]

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. --Aleenf1 15:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you do so I can promise you you'll be blocked for a longer period of time. — foxj 15:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have been blocked from ing for a short time for your disruption caused by warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Field hockey at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's team squads and Field hockey at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — foxj 15:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

HandsomeFella (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocking admin obviously can't count. I have reverted disruptive reverts by Aleenf1 exactly 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[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit warring is not acceptable even if you do not exceed 3RR - please read and understand WP:EW before you request unblock again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 ing this page until your block has expired.

This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

HandsomeFella (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

First (to quote you), you need to read up on the 3 revert rule. This is what it says: "An or 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[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 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 warring, and any user may report -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[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 ing this page until your block has expired.

This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

HandsomeFella (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello DJ. However disappointing your decision was to me, I respect you, so I'll be politer. I'm not going to continue the 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 or always gets his way, even if he's blocked. How else do you fix things, without reverting the last disruptive ? Ultimately, the page needs to be fixed, doesn't it? Else the last disruptive will stand. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 or 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[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 ing this page until your block has expired.

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 or 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 or. 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 warring perhaps the original blocking admin might remove the block. (or another admin) -DJSasso (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you DJ. Ok, anyway, I'll sleep at least 8 of those 24 hours. See you on the other side. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and if your disagreement is with one other or, Wikipedia:Third opinion is an excellent way to bring in a neutral person to break a tie. I used to be quite active there before I became an admin. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Getting Wikimedians to the Olympic Games[]

Hi. I am part of an effort to get Wikimedians access to the 2016 Summer Olympics as accred 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[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[reply]


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, HandsomeFella. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
Message added 07:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]

The Bushranger One ping only 07:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

capital letters[]

Regarding this summary - User:Valfontis calls those Capitalized Words Of Great Importance. Thanks for fixing. Cheers, tedder (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was this ...[]

snottiness really necessary dangerouspanda 15:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I guess it was as unnecessary as certain parts of this. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 dangerouspanda 15:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 or's talkpage too. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. dangerouspanda 18:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"You haven't handled it well at all." HandsomeFella (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's wrong with that? Like I said, you've been here long enough to know the process: warn then level 2 warn at least before reporting to AIV, ANI or AN/3RR ... since you did not do that, you didn't handle it well at all. Not an insult, nor a lack of AGF dangerouspanda 18:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snotty replies like that is not what you'd expect when you're reporting vandalism. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 dangerouspanda 18:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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 dangerouspanda 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[]

Welcome to the first ion of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update ors 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:

Read the entire first ion of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


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. Osplace 01:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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.
HandsomeFella (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Volleyball at the Summer Paralympics category navbox[]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Volleyball at the Summer Paralympics category navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:2012 Summer Paralympics Great Britain men's volleyball team roster[]

You have a heroic effort on your hand with this template. Without that one link to Robert Richardson (sitting volleyball) (a oneliner with a dead link as only source), I would have nominated it for deletion. So please, fill in the reds before someone else nominates it... The Banner talk 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I have at least replaced the dead link with a live one. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2012 Summer Paralympics Egypt men's volleyball team roster[]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:2012 Summer Paralympics Egypt men's volleyball team roster has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 00:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your opinion[]

Can I ask your opinion on my proposal for the wikitable on NOC at 20XX Olimpics? You can find the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style Stigni (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]



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[reply]


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[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 ors 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[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[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[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.
HandsomeFella (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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[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[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[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[reply]

Yes, that's a sensible approach.
NapHit, when you see what it's like when it's complete, such as in Category:2012 Summer Olympics football convenience templates, are you really sure that you want to undo this?
HandsomeFella (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
Btw, sorry for any mudslinging on my part, but I guess I became a bit i-n-v-o-l-v-e-d. You kept your calm admirably well. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its fine, mudslinging inevitably happens when ors 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[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[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[reply]
Well done and thanks. You really know how to work hard. Wikipedia needs more ors like you. Yeah, peace and love for everyone. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unprotect request[]

Changed to autoconfirmed. Enjoy!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 23, 2012; 12:08 (UTC)

Please restore all of the links at Foreign relations of Russia[]

Hello HandsomeFella, I had seen that you had decided without any warning to 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 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 to Template:Foreign relations of Russia and all will be well. Palestine194 (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Edits are usually done without "warning", see WP:BOLD.
  2. Where is the "overwhelming negative reaction" you are speaking about? I can only see the request you added yourself to the template talkpage. Are there any other ors involved?
  3. Although the template is semi-protected, any auto-confirmed or can it, and thus revert my changes (though I would not recommend that).
  4. What is the particular problem you have with the ? Maybe I can fix it. Is it that you'd like the red links back?
HandsomeFella (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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.
HandsomeFella (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.
HandsomeFella (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)

Most templates are using the of / in format, so I've let that one stay as is. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)

I agree with HandsomeFella about the so if you can discuss on the Template talk page instead of this. Stigni (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"professionally known as"[]

Thanks for the heads up. Well, there's 4 options:

  1. Leave the 100x ledes as an insult to foreigners.
  2. Edit war them, which 20 ors have tried, and 20 ors cannot out- 1. Plus the warning from an admin.
  3. 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 ors.
  4. 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 ors don't support them either. That's my suggestion, better than -warring, and less bytes. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hiya, saw your comments on return from business trip. I have added similar comment to Talk:Facundo Argüello (tennis) suggesting the best route is to reopen WP:TENNISNAMES RfC where the subject started. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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.

Please comment. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Can I ask why you placed this warning? I've looked at the history of the two articles you mention and I cannot see how this user is in breach of 3RR. Please explain.--5 albert square (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 -warred against several ors 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[reply]

Deletion discusion on an article you ted[]

An article you ed is being considered for deletion. Please see the discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of football referees
Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swaziland - United Staes relations[]

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[reply]

Richard Nixon talk page notice[]

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Winter Olympics[]