Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:39, 10 April 2009

Click here to leave a new message.

Archives
Archive 1 (Dec 2006 - Nov 2007) Archive 2 (Nov 2007 - Jul 2008) Archive 3 (Jul 2008 - )

What happened?

You can't quit, we can't run this project without you :) Yeah, the POV pushers can piss everyone off, but can't something be figured out? I really hope you'll change your mind, because you are, indeed, one of the most sane editors I've seen on Misplaced Pages. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good riddance, how dare you remove my page on Stuart McIntyre with no good reason Hoppytroffy (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sad To See You Leave

I've not had too much contact with you, but I like to keep up-to-date with AFDs, and you seem to be one of the major contributors, always fully researching pages, before nominating them, and remaining cool-headed, even when others disagree. Yes, AFD has suffered from sysops choosing to ignore the idea that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and relying purely on 'votes', but that's something that can be changed.

POV-pushing is indeed a large problem, and could quite possibly be an error in the very structure of Misplaced Pages, but is not something that cannot necessarily be remedied. Neutral, sane, editors such as yourself quitting will not help the situation, it can piss people off, but you can't let that get to you.

Hope you change your mind. - RD 14:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Amazingly it is back. Suffice to say most people who flounce of the net do so for self-aggrandising reasons. Hoppytroffy (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaving?

I'm really sorry to see you go and would strongly urge you to reconsider -- I doubt there's anyone else on Misplaced Pages who's doing such a good job on Israeli political articles right now... —Nightstallion 00:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Very glad to see you're back. :) —Nightstallion 00:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Giles

Why have you deleted my page, Jacob Giles. I have spent hours doing research to support it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huddersfieldtown5 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Magralashvili

Yay! You're back! *big hug*

About Magralashvili: I don't really care, I just thought I'd save him from the wrecking ball, as I did a couple of other articles recently. I'll change my !vote to a comment. Welcome back! -- Nudve (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Giles

He played for Newport County in the welsh league. Please could I put it back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huddersfieldtown5 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Giles

Please I spent ages planning the article I make good contributions too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huddersfieldtown5 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

He made an appearance for Huddersfield Town in the LDV Vans Trophy in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huddersfieldtown5 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Giles

Jacob Giles played 1 one game for Huddersfield Town in the LDV Vasns Trophy in 2002. Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Giles

Will I be able to add it or not? Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Giles

I am sure I can remember it. Ah well. PLease could I just add he is a footballer and he signed proffesional forms for Huddersfield but just never played. Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why does this guy get a page? http://en.wikipedia.org/Adam_Wilson_(footballer) Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Andy Matthews

• I am certain that this article is a hoax and I have put it to Afd. I now see that you have deleted it previously, would you mind having a look as I am now getting very immature personal attacks in Russian from one of the contributors. Thanks. Paste (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't leave!

Dear Number 57, at least if you're going to leave, please list for us these 20 editors who are gaming the system and damaging many (or in some cases, all) the articles they touch. This would help the rest of us considerably.

Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say that your reversion here is, shall we say, controversial. I'm pretty sure that the source for this quote is pretty nearly completely non-RS. And the statement itself is "surprising" indeed, apparently bearing no relation to what Fischer has said in better recorded circumstances. I'm pretty sure only the very, very extreme edge of the partisan commentators have gone as far as it's alleged that he has done. There's been a "battle" to remove the allegation that Fischer is a former terrorist, now it flares again over this really silly quote from him. Please reconsider. PR 20:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

TBH I've never heard any criticism of the Wiesenthal Center regarding a bias before - it's certainly no CAMERA or MEMRI, and is often cited by the BBC (which, if anything, has an anti-Israel bias) - and I'm happy that it is actually a reliable source. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The BBC's own 2006 published assessment admits to bias in the summary "there are identifiable shortcomings, particularly in respect of gaps in coverage, analysis, context and perspective". It doesn't say which way it leans, you have to go to section 4.7, where you will find that every indication of bias is pro-Israel. By no indicator (eg imbalances as regards spokesmen used and coverage of deaths) is it pro-Palestinian.

Perhaps most damagingly for a world-ranking news source: "Third party positions either from the Middle East or from the rest of the world were marginalised in comparison to the presentation of UK and US perspectives; - that some important themes were relatively overlooked in the coverage of the conflict, most notably in the recent period, the annexation of land in and around East Jerusalem;"

Note that the BBC invited contributions and found that: "Pressure group activity could be seen in the number of identical letters or parts of letters. A large number of pro-Israel supporters emailed from the United States, often with the same complaint, on the same date and/or from the same state. ... Not too much can be made of this, but more people thought the BBC was anti-Israel. However, if the emails and letters which could be identified as coming from abroad are excluded, the opposite is true: more people thought the BBC anti-Palestinian or pro-Israel." All are very welcome to examine this report and tell me if I'm wrong.

I'm disappointed that you're still defending the Wiesenthal Centre (and it's use for such a very, very "surprising" claim about an ex-foreign minister of Germany) even after this mention of it being "a gang of heartless and immoral crooks". (One small error, I wrongly implied that this exact phrase was in a particular book, in fact it's used by the author of that book in an interview). PR 11:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Number 57, I hope that you are enjoying you discussion with PalestineRemembered. Unfortumatly for the Anti-Zionism article, PalestineRemembered apparently believes that any content contrary to his POV is also contrary to WP policy. I hope that you put the article on your watch list, and at least keep track to it, even if you choose not to participate in the editing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Further very serious problems with anything coming from the Wiesenthal Centre can be found by comparing their statement "Networking to destroy Israel" published by the Jerusalem Post (mirrored here) and compare it with the statement of Cecilie Surasky here. The "Jews for Peace" representative writes: "After I return home, the Wiesenthal Center publishes an alarming piece entitled "Networking to Destroy Israel" in the Jerusalem Post. ... so riddled with errors--I am misquoted, JVP is described as "campus-based", all of my colleagues are given the wrong attributions, and quoted either inaccurately or out of context--that it is pointless to list them all. It contains bits of truth but strings together isolated statements to make them sound like a tidal wave of hatred"

There are many more such problems - some of them amounting to scandals. "President Mary McAleese has strongly criticised the Simon Wiesenthal Center for allegations it made linking the Hunt family and their Limerick museum with the Nazi party in Germany" for which there seems to be no evidence. The scandal of who did what for the Nazis needn't be discussed, since Simon Wiesenthal himself has nothing to do with the Centre (though he apparently still charges them $90,000 a year to use his name!).

And of course, in this particular case, we're using a quote from Joschka Fischer "anti-Zionism inevitably leads to antisemitism" which is clearly not what he's known to have said on other occasions and doesn't appear in any RS. PR 15:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, why don't you stop trolling this users talk page? (As far as the Wiesenthal Center is concerned, it does not matter what you think, because it is a reliable source if you like that or not. Capisce?) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

New party

Is this new right-wing party worth a stub and a mention in the election article? —Nightstallion 08:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Move to Ireland (island)

RE Proposed Move. As an admin, aren't you worried that the situation has 1) become ludicrously against policy (we now have two fully-fledged and separately linked-to Irish state articles) 2) a situation where the editing warring and general strife simply has to come to an end? We have a serial link-piping puppermaster nearly on number 30, huge discomfort and hostility everywhere. The time people have put into sorting this out has been extraordinary. The Irish articles are floundering and in a mess. You are not the first person to say this current situation is "having it right" (although a number of opposers have there own pet solutions), but you are the first administrator to say the current situation is best at this stage. 99% of people at the cross-supported Ireland disambiguation taskforce admit that some change has to happen. Isn't there any alternative you would accept? As you are an admin, and this is a such a policy-loaded matter, I simply have to ask you this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Slovak border crossings

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Slovak border crossings, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Slovak border crossings has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Slovak border crossings, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)

Number 57, I have raised an issue on the Village pump (policy) which I think relates to some important issues you discuss on your user page , and if you have any thoughts on the subject it might be helpful. It may be hopeless, but it would be great to develop new approaches to dealing with this problem. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hey Number 57. Any chance you could hold off a while and wait for the closing admin to respond? I don't think anyone is going to gain from escalating this. It can be resolved by the admin himself, we just need to give him the time to do it. Rockpocket 19:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Too late :(. Rockpocket 19:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, I responded to this matter on my talk page. -- tariqabjotu 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-British Isles editors

Interesting idea. Let us outsiders, handle the Ireland articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hummus

Thank you for your recent, bold, edit to Hummus. I've grown tired of trying to argue against the inclusion of POV-pushing material that, IMHO, is added to the article under the guise of "scholarship". --Nsaum75 (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And for the alternate perspective, what the hell? There is a huge discussion on the talk page, covering a number of reliable sources on the subject, and at least three editors participating in that discussion and editing the article, who believe that such information is relevant and appropriate to the article. Do you mind participating yourself, before twice reverting to delete things others worked hard to include? Thanks. Tiamut 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

S orry Tiamut, but you reinserting that material into the Hummus article has pretty much rid me of any respect or GF that I had for your editing. You know full well that the material is being used to turn an article about a foodstuff into an attack article, and I'm quite shocked that you are willing to play along with it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that (bizarre though it may seem) politicised Hummus is indeed part of the landscape. I would have supposed that, if there is much mention of this in modern sources, then some reference belongs.

But meanwhile, edits and edit summaries such as this: (Last time I checked my atlas, there was no such place as Palestine. There are however some Palestinian territories) looks to me exactly like ethnic baiting. Fortunately I'm reminded who it comes from and I accept you'd not have meant that. PR 16:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already written to you on your talk page about your wholesale deletion of this reliably sourced material which three editors have voiced support for including on the talk page. If you lose good faith towards me simply because you disagree with my position (and that of two other editors) there could not have been much there to begin with. I'm quite shocked that you would unilaterally impose your own view onto a page without engaging in any form of discussion. And you accuse me of bad judgement? Please. There are right ways and wrong ways to approach a disagreement over content. You just exemplified the latter. Tiamuttalk 16:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reported you for violating 3RR for your edit to Hummus. The link to the entry is here. I'm sorry it had to come to this, but you did not heed my request to engage in discussion, and continued to replace Palestine with Palestinian territories, four times. Tiamut 10:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR at Hummus

Please see here. But for the inequality of only blocking one of the parties in this edit war, you would be facing a lengthy block for your part in this exceedingly lame edit war. I expect admins to behave better then you have and you surely must have known that the discretionary sanctions were available to control this problem. Next time keep your cool because the alternative will be a decent sized block. Shame on you. Spartaz 13:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Spartaz's suggestion, I raised this issue at WP:ANI. Tiamut 14:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

TBH I've never heard any criticism of the Wiesenthal Center regarding a bias before - it's certainly no CAMERA or MEMRI, and is often cited by the BBC (which, if anything, has an anti-Israel bias) - and I'm happy that it is actually a reliable source. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you've not heard of this before, and pleased to have introduced you to something new. Perhaps as the information I gave you sinks in, you'll come to better appreciate what it means regarding using the SWC as an RS. The alleged quote from Joscha Fischer is plainly false, since the Jerusalem Post tells us that the delegation was worked on to get this result, and they failed to do so. "What emerged from this conference was an admission by European leaders themselves that not all criticism of Israel is legitimate. This recognition was evident in the remarks of President Romano Prodi, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and other officials." The SWC insists that, afterwards, in a private hearing with them, Fischer said "anti-Zionism inevitably leads to antisemitism" - no RS picks up on it. That's on top of the other background.

Regarding the BBC again, thinking it's "anti-Israeli" is a bit laughable, and would be even if you'd not seen the report in which the imbalances in favour of Israel are detailed (see section 4.7), but they claim it is not deliberate. This web story is head-lined with an outright propaganda claim they've picked up from Israel. We know that they're wrong in what they say because, rather remarkably, the original report the BBC claims to be quoting is available to us. Needless to say, the BBC refuses to correct the story. France 2 is still being hounded 8 years later for an entirely understandable "miatake" (if that's what it was) over Muhammed al-Durrah - the BBC clearly believes it can arrogantly ignore even valid complaints of proven error! PR 17:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahem

Please don't WP:BITE new users. This edit summary is not very WP:CIVIL at all and does not WP:AGF. There are such things as language barriers and there are perspectives in this world that differ from our own. Tiamut 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well said, I had exactly the same from him for no good reason Hoppytroffy (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Left-wing

Isn't the Oz-Meimad-Meretz left-wing party supposed to be founded today? Couldn't find any details while searching for it just now, though... —Nightstallion 09:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous

Your deletion of the Fabio da Silva article is the most ridiculously overbroad use of G4 that I have ever seen, and I have undone it. He is listed on the first team of the European Champions. That is an assertion of importance by any measure, and clearly overcomes the objections of the AfD, which was based on his "not being a professional footballer." He is currently deriving a paycheck by playing football for Manchester United. That is a professional footballer. The reason for deletion no longer valid, and G4 no longer applies. Please do not be silly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, he wasn't - the transfers were not finalized until the summer window due to work permit issues. Neither of the Da Silvas were eligible to play until August. Hence it was in August that he clearly became a professional football player. His status has indisputably changed since the previous AfD, and your repeated wheel-warring deletions are querrelous and actionable. I encourage you to reverse your own action, and hope that this shockingly poor conduct of is not the norm for your administrative actions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE makes no effort to define the borderline between "trains with, collects a paycheck from, and has appeared on the bench for a professional team" and "is a professional athlete." It is simply untrue to assert that WP:ATHLETE "clearly" speaks on an article of this nature. Furthermore, this does not excuse the fact that your re-deletion is a flagrant case of adminisrative wheel warring. Your conduct here is a violation of multiple policies - at this point, CSD, ATHLETE, and WHEELWAR. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your definition of competed - if he is listed on the first team of the squad and has a shirt number, he is a part of the team, and the team competes as one, not as a collection of individuals. In any case, this is not a "clear" application of WP:ATHLETE, and your insistence that it is amounts to an attempt to steamroll discussion. Furthermore, you have yet to address the issue of your wheel warring, which is by far the most serious policy issue, being the one for which administrative privledges are routinely stripped. Please reverse your action before I am forced to bring the issue to WP:ANI. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Referencing help

I don't know if you can help me but if you can, Thanks in advance. User Zombie433 added a link to the article Benedikt Höwedes, but it doesn't work properly because the link has "" in it. I have also expierienced this when adding a reference to Toni Kroos (see reference #4). If you could help me with this that would be great or if you could direct me somewhere that I could get help, it would be greatly appreciated. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC Samaria

I'm sorry if you think the RfC on Samaria has been ruined. My own opinion on that is that the article has tried to fudge issues and this has meant that the article will always be POV and not of any use. The scope of the article is badly defined in the opening lead and then politicised within the lead. If you look how other standard encyclopaedias treat the subject you will find that they sidestep the issues that wiki raises in the second sentence...An article written from the perspective of 'fanatical settlers' is never going to be NPOV...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

57 I haven't contributed to samaria, I am outside..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete that page?

Seriously why did you delete that page for maidenhead revolution? so what is they are a very small team. I created there page for a bit of fun and so they could feel a little important having a wiki entry.

why do you spend your time deleting peoples work? Do you have nothing better to do with yor life than ruin someones fun?

i get it that wikipedia is for important stuff but having 1 page about a new local football team isnt really that bad that it needs to be deleted is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backslash2010 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Left-wing party has got a name

It seems it's Hatnua Hahadasha/The New Move... —Nightstallion 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And it'll merge with Meretz very soon. —Nightstallion 10:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hanan Porat

Hi. I've expanded this article and nominated it for DYK. Please review the changes and the hook at Template talk:Did you know#Hanan Porat. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Move

I see you reverted my move of Turkmenistani parliamentary election, 2008. "Turkmenistani" isn't a word, and the descriptive adjective for Turkmenistan is "Turkmen", which leaves a rather short title. Should it be moved to Turkmenistan parliamentary election, 2008 or to Turkmen parliamentary election, 2008, as Turkmenistani parliamentary election, 2008 isn't correct? Thanks, Spencer 21:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Spencer 21:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Hussniya Jabara

On 18 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hussniya Jabara, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Right wing Block and left wing block

Talk:Israeli legislative election, 2009#Right Wing Block and Left wing Block

or see here

--85.250.243.74 (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If a right wing party like shas or UTJ (both orthodox religious right) sees that the left block has already got a majority, like in this Knesset they have 63 (out 120) without "Shas" or "UTJ" - they might as well join the coalition government, not because they like it, but because the left already has a majority without them, and in order to balance the left block from going far left as well as preserving their budget interests.

Or right after elections, should the left block have something close to a majority like 57-59, and the rightwing block has like 40 (and the rest are non-affiliate), and the right wing block can never form a majority coalition government in the Knesset, and since elections were already held, they will give the left block the last majority vote and keep them away from going far-left.

Only should it be their "second choice", should parties like "Shas" and "UTJ" (orthodox religious right) would join the left-wing block. Otherwise, they work to support right-wing block.

Non-affiliate: All kind of One-subject parties, like "Green Party", or "Gil" (elderly people) is considered a left wing subject. However, a right or left in Israeli politics, is being determined on the way you think about the negotiations with neighboring Arab states and other such matters, which will eventually lead to the way you choose to side with in the Knesset - which all those "one subject parties" usually don't emphasize in their election season, and eventually on the "negotiating with the Arabs" subjects each of their member vote his own mind, and only on "Green" and "Elderly" subjects, do they vote together.

--85.250.243.74 (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli legislative election, 2009#What about the table? --89.139.95.239 (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of 2 Pages

Hello, I was wondering why pages on the footballer's Rafael Cretaro and Chris Butler are constantly deleted, I hope you tell me why as people really want pages of both these players up so they can learn more about them.

RE: Chris Butler

I understand about Rafael cretaro's page not being created, but chris Butler played for both Liverpool as a youngster and a full proffesional at Accrington and Southport. So does Butler qualify ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80SRFC80 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Hanan Porat

On 22 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hanan Porat, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

U.S. pres elections

How about a little good faith discussion? And what's up with reverting back to a format that is esthetically horrid? Was there no way to revert to the national elections template without undoing all the design changes? Oh, and thanks for asking, by the way. Foofighter20x (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for 2008 Israeli bus crash

On 27 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2008 Israeli bus crash, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox in Wroxham F.C.

When I was editing this infobox I was using the infobox in Manchester United as an example. Should this be changed to the standards of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/Clubs as well? Thanks. Xenocide 01:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Re'im

On 2 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Re'im, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Co-ordinate precision

Please be careful about being overly precise about co-ordinates. For example, specifying the position of Cuckoo Tye to five decimal places means you are to approximately 60cm, whereas a hamlet covers a wider area. Perhaps three decimal places, 60m, is more than accurate enough. "A general rule is to give precisions approximately one tenth the size of the object", thanks. Rich257 (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Policy on non-league grounds

Just wondering what it is. Are they all going to be merged as you've removed the other links from the Worksop Town template? Thanks Bevo74 (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Will all grounds below Conference North/South be going? (Co-incidently Sandy Lane was used yesterday by Arnold Town). Bevo74 (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible edit conflict at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

In your edit here you fix the article's date formatting. However, you also seem to change the lead, and include a statement about protests "In London, armed police had to..." Was this possibly accidental due to an edit conflict? Or did you have concerns about those edits and intentionally change them?VR _talk 13:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Henrik Larsson infobox issues

Hi,

Got any browser details so that I can help track down the issue you tried to fix here? These lines should already be prevented from wrapping by the labelstyle attributes applied to those fields. If there are issues on certain browsers it might be possible to work around them more elegantly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't test in IE right now, so I'm reliant on others to work with me on changes. Firstly, those lines (should) already include the nowrap CSS attribute, so adding it twice is redundant. Secondly, this breaks the conditionals - even with no attributes defined some rows were being created with nothing in them but a {{nowrap}}. This isn't right. I've attempted to fix this properly now by adding even more instances of "white-space: nowrap" to the label styles - some of these are definitely redundant, but I'll work on removing the excess ones once the fix is confirmed. Can you check to see if this is still a problem? If not, I'd appreciate a simplified test case and screenshot on the template talk. Please don't just revert - this affects only a limited set of articles, precisely because it needs exposure in order to be comprehensively tested, and the more hacks that are added the more difficult it will be to maintain the thing in the future. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Grant Alpaugh

Per this edit, I think you'd better take a look at these edits. – PeeJay 00:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Moves of Basque elections

Could you please undo the moves of "Basque Country ..." to "Basque ..."? There's a good reason we're not using "Basque" in this case, as the País Vasco is only a part of the territory considered to be Basque. —Nightstallion 03:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ali Mathlouthi

Hey there. Is there any chance, por favor, that you could check to see why Ali Mathlouthi's article was speedily deleted? Looking at his profile page at RC Strasbourg's official site, it shows he has played four matches in Ligue 2 this season. Maybe his article, which I created, didn't have any external links to such profiles. As far as I can see he's notable enough to possess an article. - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It appears the article was referenced all along; a broken reference link was preventing anything after it being displayed, including the categories. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comsec Consulting Ltd.

You've speedily deleted our article for "advertising" reasons, and it was written from a completely neutral perspective. It was modeled after a number of other companies pages - that are much more blatant advertisements - Qualys even deleted their talk page which probably said this. There are plenty other companies on here - why specifically target ours? I'm going to contest this. Shar1R

This is now at DRV. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Arutz 10.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Arutz 10.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetization and collation

I am inviting you to comment, in your capacity as an informatician, at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Alphabetization and collation. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, in regards to a wiki page you deleted named The Prix

I manage an musical act, Eagle Winged Palace. Its primary member was a former member of the musical act The Prix. Due to the new found popularity of Eagle Winged Palace, there is new attention being shown to THE PRIX.

Has this wiki page been archived? Or is it gone for good?

Thank you, Eric Harding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.26.61 (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand national rugby union team

Hey man, I dunno if you've been keeping tabs on this article, but since you moved it from All Blacks, I think I ought to tell you that it's caused quite a stir on the article's talk page. Cheers. – PeeJay 17:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to know if you can easily justify the decision to move it. Let's look at your closing statement.

The result was move to New Zealand national rugby union team for reasons of consistency of naming format (i.e. why use the nickname for one team but not others). Note that the !votes from this discussion were also considered. Regarding the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions#All Blacks section, this was added by a single editor seemingly without discussion back in June 2007.

First off, consistency isn't a current Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines, so if you think it's unfair that one team has a nickname whereas others don't, that isn't the point. When naming articles it should be WP:COMMONAME so the debate is really whether the team is known more commonly as All Blacks or New Zealand. Secondly there is no naming convention for national sports teams anyway as far as I can see policy wise so that's not justifiable. Third you stated you considered votes from the Rugby Project page, where does it say that votes from related WikiProjects need to be considered when moving a page, I would have thought the priority was votes/consensus solely on the Talk page of the article being moved because it says on the Requested Move Banner: Discussion to support or oppose the move should be on this talk page, usually under the heading "Requested move". If, after a few days, a clear consensus for the page move is reached, please move the article and remove this notice, or request further assistance. And even if the related projects votes are to be taken into consideration, votes should be solely done on the basis of naming convention policy, look at why they are voting for support, it's consistency (not a policy or part of naming convention policy) once more not for the common name which it is meant to be. Again like it says a clear consensus would have needed to be reached on the talk page, I can see on that straw poll 5 support, 4 oppose, how is that a clear consensus? And if you think it is, why did the 5 supporting have far more weight with you than the four who opposed? And last of all that bit about the person who added the section on the All Blacks in the naming conventions, how is that adding more consensus to move it to New Zealand national rugby union team? Do you believe because people read that, that was the only reason they justified keeping the page at All Blacks? The fact that is neglected is the person added to it on 30 June 2007, I'm not even sure too many people would have read that by the way, but 5 days earlier, the All Blacks article had made it onto the Main Page as the day's featured article 25 June 2007. It had been at All Blacks since 2002 as well and other proposals to move it during that time had been rejected and it obviously got promoted to Good Article and then Featured Article while still being named All Blacks. I'm actually surprised more people aren't questioning the move, the move as I have illustrated had breached quite a lot of policies and had other pages been moved in similar ways, I can only imagine the uproar. CullenNZ (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually you don't need to worry about replying, I'm not too sure if you were going to anyway but another admin has approved susbsequent moves of pages featuring All Blacks in the title, seems now consistency takes more precedence over WP:COMMONAME in the naming articles procedure. Regards CullenNZ (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sponsored names" for English Football Club ground names

Hi,

You recently changed an edit of mine from the Lamex Stadium to the Broadhall Way as the stadium name of Stevenage Borough F.C. and I personally have no objections to this but to be honest if you're going to do this for small time clubs, then perhaps you should also be doing this for the larger clubs, for example Arsenal F.C. which has its stadium name labelled as The Emirates Stadium. And please don't say that that is their stadium name because the same is true for the Lamex Stadium at Stevenage Borough.

Thanks,

--Lpeters001 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. After just looking into the Emirates Stadium matter, it was named after the road it was situated on and was changed to the Emirates Stadium as a result of a 15 year agreement. I've changed the stadium name based on this information. Once again, thanks for getting back so fast.

--Lpeters001 (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Could we put a election infobox

Ok, I see your point but I have a compromise, get the six parties who in ascending order based on the current Knesset as they are important and key for who will form the coalition government as no party could govern on their own.Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Then could would we put the election template with likud, kadima, labor and Yisraeli Betainiu. To be fair, I mean here they are the key parties for the elections Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to jump in here. First, we can tell, roughly, who the top six will be, so that will not be an issue. Even if there's a surprise, that doesn't change the fact that the proportions in the Knesset are almost certain to be relatively stable; there could be a small surprise in the sixth-place spot, or in the arrangement of places among the top six (e.g. Kadima edging out Likud is a possibility) but that would hardly be an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages, or an expression of POV given the support of polls. Second, let's observe other elections, shall we? For the 2008 US presidential election, there are only two candidates listed, even though there were about seven official candidates nationwide. Why? Because everyone knows ahead of time that only the candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties have any shot at winning. Similarly, in French legislative election, 2007, only three parties are listed, even though there were many other parties with representation in Parliament and only two of them (Fillon and Hollande) had even the remotest chance at becoming Prime Minister. The polls today support that Likud, Kadima, and Labor are the three parties with the highest representation, with Likud and Kadima being the only ones with a real shot at forming a government. So c'mon already. Lockesdonkey (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to concur, yes. —Nightstallion 23:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

infobox Election

Fine do whatever you want but i want to show a better wikipedia page and i just need help but since you keep on removing it then i wont take action anymore. At least put a blank infobox but dont show it until the final results come in. And stop saying it is useless, Showing some of the parties is not POV look at the Hong Kong elections, it showed the top six parties based on the popular vote. Good evening. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

League of Ireland

Why do you try to delete all the Irish football articles? Surely the Irish League in Northern Ireland should be deleted as well then? There are at least six clubs that are professional in the League of Ireland, compared to just two in the Northern Ireland.--86.45.134.12 (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, the defunct partise template...

There are other defunct parties templates, such as:

• Template:Historic Irish parties
• Template:Defunct political parties in Northern Ireland
• Template:Historical Dutch political parties
• Template:Historic New Zealand political parties
• Template:Historical Italian political parties
• Template:Historical Romanian political parties

and so on...So why not an Israeli one? --Toussaint (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The sons of Eilaboun

Hello Number 57

why did you delete the article about the documentary film the sons of Eilaboun?

It is a documentary film that won an award, and was featured in many film festivals as well it is in the imdb website:

www.imdb.com/title/tt1249418

Al-Awda Award for the best documentry

Carthage film Festival İzmir Short Film Festival Boston Palestine Film Festival AMAL film festival Palestinian Perspectives

Please undelete this article.

Regards, Amir —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmirCohen (talk • contribs) 13:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Likud

I commented on the issue. In short: what really decides is reliable sources, not opinion (but read the full comment anyway!). Now that I think about it, too much valuable time is being spent on fighting over which political party has which general ideology. I think that the same time should be used to significantly expand and source the 'platform'/'ideology' sections of each party, so that each reader can judge for themselves. Cheers, Ynhockey 00:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

In this edit summary, you labeled a revert as "rvv" - reverting vandalism. The edit you reverted is most certainly NOT vandalism, by any stretch of the imagination. This is a content dispute between you and several other editors, but the fact that you disagree with their opinions does not make their edits "vandalism", and more tan your own edits undoing theirs are "vandalism". Please don't do it again. NoCal100 (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Amir Peretz

I see that yesterday (24th of February), you did this edit to Amir Peretz, which included changing the name of the party in 2 places from "Labour" to "Labor". According to the Manual of Style, this word should be spelled the ay it is in most of the article - and "Labour" is clearly the dominant spelling here. Any reason why you changed this? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically because that's where the article is located, i.e. Israeli Labor Party. Believe me, it pains me to use American spelling, but sadly that seems to be the common way now in Israel... пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, the name of the article about the party is irrelevant here. What does matter (please note that I'm American) is that the American spelling was (immediately before your edit) used three in the text of the article (one of them being in the succession box and one in the {{Current MKs}} template), while the British spelling was used 30 times (including the infobox at the top, excluding the table of contents). In my opinion, this means we should be changing the spelling from American to British, not the other way around. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Have to say that I disagree - if an article about an entity is at a certain location spelling-wise, the spelling of the link should be consistent. I have no problem with using American spelling for something in an article where the rest of the spelling is British. This also appears to be the standard at the BBC, who refer to the Australian Labor Party using that spelling, rather than Labour (see here). пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's also not the case that Israeli politician articles always use the American spelling. See, for example, that Dan Meridor is listed as having belonged to Centre Party. The title of that party's article also is the British spelling, and that article also uses the british spelling (including at least one reference to the "Labour" party). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but AFAIK the Centre Party had no website to determine which spelling it used. Labor on the other hand definitely use the American. There is a lot of inconsistency with the spellings, but I am slowly trying to standardise the ILP one at least. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding of MOS, what matters here is the local spelling used; or, when that isn't applicable, the spelling used in general in the article. In the case of Israel, I don't think there is a general standard spelling. I also don't think that the article title is relevant here, even where we link to it - there are links which use the word "colour" and link to color. (By the way, please answer here - that way the discussion doesn't get fragmented. When I'm having a discussion somewhere, I always keep an eye on the location of the discussion.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi. this IP is edit warring the fascism template into Israel related articles. Someone with rollback is needed, as well as admin tools. Thanks, Nudve (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why delete information that you know to be true???

Thank you for your additions to recent articles. Sourcing information is always better. --Shuki (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Hi, and thanks for your support in my RfA, which passed successfully with 83 support votes, 0 oppose votes and 2 neutrals. In fact, you supported me in my first RfA as well, so double thanks! You, and the Misplaced Pages community have shown great trust in me, and now it's up to me to show that trust wasn't misplaced. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Danny Galm

had his first pro league match on Feb 5th 2009, where he played for Stuttgarter Kickers against Fortuna Duesseldorf. One other match followed. See German kicker magazine: . Could you please restore the article? Thanks! --92.75.89.213 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Fishman-Maimon

Hi - I apologize for the error - my search on WP did not show any link to this old article (nor did Google). Thanks for making the necessary corrections. I've withdrawn the DYK nom. Shiva (Visnu) 22:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Move request for Hertha Berlin

Since you are an administrator interested in football, could you perhaps move Hertha Berlin to Hertha BSC? The latter is the consensus from a discussion on the discussion page of said article. Thanks in advance, Soccer-holic (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:ICONDECORATION

Hi there. It's not excessive for one template; but more than 200 using flaglinks is excessive. Especially, if there are more than one template for an article. IMHO this guideline is clear: it should not be used exclusily for decoration, which in this case—eletion template—is. You should think to change all election templates, in particular for disabled persons it is not good to use flagicons as links. Greetings -- Sebastian scha. (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the flagicons, they are legitimately used on election templates to differentiate templates of different countries when used on the same page, and as such are the standard for all those templates.

In addition, the whole flagicon thing is almost entirely down to just two users, only one of which continues with the crusade. I'm not for overlooking wiki policy, but if there's any one that deserves ignoring because it doesn't reflect mainstream consensus, it's this one. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I like the guideline be bold and ignore all rules too, but/and icondecoration is a simple guideline, don't use flags to decorate. That's what these election templates are doing. It's only my opinion, that everybody should consider to stay in the regulations, these guideline give. If you don't agree with it change it, simple as nothing. If you and others (two, more or how many?) want to decorate your templates, it's not my case. I see your point if more than one election template is used, but IMHO everybody should be able to read the names of states or cities.

Back to business: I've reverted once but will not revert any more. My opinion and point of view regarding this is clear: I don't want this icon template, so I will not use it, or create more election templates. My way to go away *smile* Greetings and happy editing -- Sebastian scha. (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC) 

Sorry but to claim my reverts as blind reverts is near uncivil and no statement an admin should use. -- Sebastian scha. (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but they appeared to be blind reverts, as they removed useful changes other than adding the flagicon (e.g. linking to an existing article on politics). Apologies if you also meant to reinstate the redlink. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. State elections in ... could be an interesting article summarising the history, candidates qualifications, lenght of legislative period, difference between state, federal, and local elections and turnouts—on my first thought. But nevermind, it can redirect to politics or else, and a redirect can always written into an article. Apologies are not needed, cause only at the first sight of my watchlist I was offended. And hot on my keyboard, so I apologise, I assumed bad faith. Sorry. Have a nice day. -- Sebastian scha. (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Elections" in Soviet Union

I notice you have been adding the Soviet-era "elections" into election lists for Moldova, Russia and Ukraine. This is a bad idea.

Considerable literature exists about the sham nature of "elections" in Soviet Union. There have been cases where results of such elections have been accidentally published in advance -- before the ballots were even cast. There have been numerous cases of candidate tampering. And naturally, dissidents were never allowed to run.

Accordingly, I have reverted. Soviet elections should not be listed alongside real elections -- mixing up real elections and sham elections would do discredit to Misplaced Pages. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Elections are events that are tied to the constitution of a particular state. The constitutions of the Russian Federation and the Soviet Union are different. The laws are different and the way the elections where held are different. You can't just lump them together just because they happen to share the same term "election", this is unencyclopedic. Martintg (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I endorse the preceding two comments, and will also note the redlinks are inaccurate. There were no parliaments in the Soviet Union. The links should be to "legislative" elections or "Supreme Soviet" elections. And also, there was no "Moldova" in the USSR - it was the Moldavian SSR. Thus, Moldovan parliamentary election, 1962 is flawed on three counts: it should be Moldavian legislative election, 1962, and the link shouldn't be in the same line as elections to the actual Parliament of Moldova. - Biruitorul 01:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As this template is within the scope of WP:RUSSIA, I have raised the issue at WT:RUSSIA. I agree that they should be included, but first and foremost we need to gain consensus based upon needs of the project as a whole; please try to avoid edit-warring No.57, and this goes to other editors also. --Russavia 05:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)