Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:58, 27 May 2014

Archives

Archive 1

Template:Education wikibreak

Questions about season articles

Hej!

Jag har lite frågor angående säsongsartiklar.

• Ska träningsmatcher ingå i spelarstatistiken eller är det bara tävlingsmatcher som gäller där? Jag ser att du har gjort lite olika här. Från 2007–2012 så hade du med alla MFF:s matcher i statistiken, men från förra året har du bara tävlingsmatcher. Själv tycker jag det kan vara relevant att ta med träningsmatcher då dessa är matcher som spelades under säsongen.

• Ska det bara vara transferhändelser som ska vara med i "Key events" eller ska man ta med datum när titlar vanns och rekord slogs osv?

• Vilket år ska man börja räkna från under "Squad information"? Robin Söder debuterade i IFK Göteborgs a-lag säsongen 2008, men fick ett a-lagskontrakt först inför 2009. Hampus Zackrisson gjorde a-lagsdebut 2012, allsvensk debut 2013 and fick a-lagskontrakt inför 2014. Gustav Engvall debuterade 2013, men fick a-lagskontrakt 2014 osv.

// Mattias321 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Tja!

Sorry för sent svar. Som du ser så ändrade jag mig från att inkludera träningsmatcherna i statistiken i dom senare säsongerna. Praxis och consensus på resten av engelska Wiki verkar vara att inte inkludera någon typ av vänskapsmatch i all typ av statistik.

När det gäller transferhändelserna så ser det lite olika ut på olika klubbars säsongsartiklar. Änsålänge har jag tagit med transfers och manager-avhopp och rekryteringar. Jag antar att det vore relevant att även ta med datum då titlar säkrades. Men som sagt, det är upp till dig!

Jag börjar med att räkna "since" från det året spelaren blev uppflyttad till A-lags truppen, dvs när en spelare gick från att ha ungdomskontrakt till att ha lärlings eller A-lags kontrakt.

Lycka till! --Reckless182 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

English Wiki

But please watch this at Swedish Wiki https://sv.wikipedia.org/Fotbollsallsvenskan_1937/1938 - "Lilla silvret" , and that's the best result ever for BoIS !!! Boeing720 (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Alright I think I understand why You assume BoIS was runner's up 1937/38 - same goal difference as HIF and more goals scored. But sadly (for us "BoIS:are") at that time the goal ratio was the decider if two teams got the same points. And HIF's 36/27 = 1.3333, while BoIS goal ratio was 40/31 = 1.2903. You didn't knew that, did You ? And by the way - your self rating of English language seems extremely high. I've never seen a 5 before. Any explanation ? Boeing720 (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, I didn't know that in fact. You could stop right now with the attitude though, I really don't think it is necessary. As you said yourself, its a self rating, are you bothered by it? I lived in the UK for several years and spent my entire upper secondary school education in an English speaking program. I'm practically a native speaker, so I'm not sure why you would object. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I admit to being unnecessary sharp in my tone, specially since You did reply "Thank you for informing me, I didn't know that in fact...". But I simply didn't notice that reply when I wrote my previous comment. Please believe me, I really didn't. I didn't know at which time goal ratio was abandoned in favor of goal difference though. But now we do know that both, and that is good, I presume and hope. (Every season prior of 1940/41 needs a change, and the goal difference column ought to be changed into goal ratio, or by very least removed). Further, Allsvenskan was the first and only national league (until "Superettan" was created 2000), "Svenska Serien" was divided into a north and a south league. "Allsvenskan" was created by the 6 best teams from both leagues, or this was the original intention. But Djurgården and Landskrona both came 7th in the north and the south league. But SFF wanted them in Allsvenskan instead of Fässberg (dispite of the fact that they won the SM-title) and Västerås IK. Hence all qualified teams should pay a rather high amount of money to SFF, if they should participate. The amount was too much for Fässberg, however not for Västerås IK. This was how Landskrona BoIS qualified for the first season ever of Allsvenskan. The money was payed back to the clubs soon afterwards. The main reason why Fässberg wasn't welcome in Allsvenskan was that the club lacked dressing rooms and showers for the visitors. I'm less familiar with reasons why Västerås IK also wasn't welcome. A plausible reason may be that SFF simply wanted two teams from Stockholm (AIK was qualified). Also of interest, is, like I wrote, that Allsvenskan has run for a sequence of almost 90 years, I don't think the Swiss league exceeds this. Which other national league may have been played for such a long sequence ? (Portugal ?, but not Spain due to the civil war 36-39) Also how the season shifted from autumn to spring into spring to autumn is worth mentioning, and the "Maratonallsvenskan" 1957-58 (it explain f.i. howcome Motala has played one season and 33 games in the all time table. You just removed a lot of this true facts. (no less sourced than most of the article). And back to "your" page and our unnecessary strong words, It was your comment "they were runner's up in 1937-38" - although I had explained that I'm a supporter of Landskrona BoIS - that got me really furious. But I am indeed sorry, especially since I didn't notice Your reply. Reguarding the level of English, I had or have no intention of compete with You, but there was a lot of Swedish here at your talk page, that I happened to notice during my first visit here (And like I stated, I had never seen any user with higher ranking than native before, but I've now noticed that You are far from alone). Reply to your last comment - I have certainly not made any complaints on your "academical style". I might be a bit worried though, when a user that has made hundreds of edits in an article, stands by a notable error, like "Landskrona BoIS was runner's up 1937/38" (dispite what I wrote from scratch), then there actually is a severe hazard for lots of other errors. Especially since the article is almost free of references and other sources. You have to agree with me in that argumentaion, I hope. However I don't believe that it's the case here. But I fail to see need of the aggregated city vs city table (that's why I added also teams with no gold), doubt if such comparission exist in other article of leagues. But I am truely sorry if You have You felt Yourself offended by my previous answer, and I can understand if that has been the case. I think I changed the "Big silver" to the correct "Little silver" three or four times (including refs). So I hope You can understand some of my frustration aswell. Is my largely appology accepted ? Boeing720 (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You have made 100's of edits in Allsvenskan - whithout knowing basic facts !

Goal Ratio was in use in Allsvenskan until 1939/40

I strongly suggest that You begin read Swedish Football history for a year, prior to any further changes. With Your hard line academical style (in combination with a silly barnstar collection and a 5 - proffessional level - in english self rating) Have You written any novel in the English language ? Or do you work as a journalist at Fleet Street ? I stongly doubt that ! And hence You fall far more heavier than other users. You cannot be trusted with the subject of Swedish football until You have learned to adapt manors or knowledge! Almost nothing in the Allsvenskan article is sourcered, yet You state "Landskrona BoIS became runner's up 1937/38" You were wrong !!! And do learn from this in the future ! Boeing720 (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure whether I should laugh or cry :) What's wrong with my academical style? I'm very proud of my achievements. Where is all this attitude coming from? Now I'm interested. I find it a bit odd for someone your age to behave in this way. Also I find it a bit strong for you to criticize my linguistic skills when you yourself are clearly lacking in the same department. I never claimed that I wasn't wrong, so why are you pushing the point? I know that I probably shouldn't feed the troll, but now I'm interested. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Good morning ;) I'm the person who did most of the copyediting of Reckless182's major contribution on the English Misplaced Pages. That article is now a featured article. (Also thanks to several other people who improved it further when my skills ran out.) I'm also a native speaker of English. To me, the 5 rating seems entirely reasonable. He could function as a professional in a role where English was the only language used; I've had managers with worse written English. Also, the language rating someone chooses to give themselves doesn't really mean much or matter a lot.

Finally, Boeing720, your English seems markedly inferior to that of Reckless182. To "adapt manors" would mean to take an English country house and then change it to suit other purposes, as was done to a limited extent at (for example) Bletchley Park. (User:Giano or one of his entourage might be able to provide a better example.) "Adopt manners" might be closer to what you intend, but that too could have different meanings in English.

Reckless182, if your opponent here is youthful as you imply, you may wish to disengage or just not bother with them, rather than arguing. I'm sure they are very enthusiastic about their editing, and may merely have become carried away. Struck that as I don't want to appear sarcastic - hadn't seen that the person claims to be as old as in their 40's on their userpage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks man! I know I really shouldn't bother. Loved your example. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I admit to being unnecessary sharp in my tone, specially since You did reply "Thank you for informing me, I didn't know that in fact...". But I simply didn't notice that reply when I wrote my previous comment. Please believe me, I really didn't. I didn't know at which time goal ratio was abandoned in favor of goal difference though. But now we do know that both, and that is good, I presume and hope. (Every season prior of 1940/41 needs a change, and the goal difference column ought to be changed into goal ratio, or by very least removed). Further, Allsvenskan was the first and only national league (until "Superettan" was created 2000), "Svenska Serien" was divided into a north and a south league. "Allsvenskan" was created by the 6 best teams from both leagues, or this was the original intention. But Djurgården and Landskrona both came 7th in the north and the south league. But SFF wanted them in Allsvenskan instead of Fässberg (dispite of the fact that they won the SM-title) and Västerås IK. Hence all qualified teams should pay a rather high amount of money to SFF, if they should participate. The amount was too much for Fässberg, however not for Västerås IK. This was how Landskrona BoIS qualified for the first season ever of Allsvenskan. The money was payed back to the clubs soon afterwards. The main reason why Fässberg wasn't welcome in Allsvenskan was that the club lacked dressing rooms and showers for the visitors. I'm less familiar with reasons why Västerås IK also wasn't welcome. A plausible reason may be that SFF simply wanted two teams from Stockholm (AIK was qualified). Also of interest, is, like I wrote, that Allsvenskan has run for a sequence of almost 90 years, I don't think the Swiss league exceeds this. Which other national league may have been played for such a long sequence ? (Portugal ?, but not Spain due to the civil war 36-39) Also how the season shifted from autumn to spring into spring to autumn is worth mentioning, and the "Maratonallsvenskan" 1957-58 (it explain f.i. howcome Motala has played one season and 33 games in the all time table. You just removed a lot of this true facts. (no less sourced than most of the article). And back to "your" page and our unnecessary strong words, It was your comment "they were runner's up in 1937-38" - although I had explained that I'm a supporter of Landskrona BoIS - that got me really furious. But I am indeed sorry, especially since I didn't notice Your reply. Reguarding the level of English, I had or have no intention of compete with You, but there was a lot of Swedish here at your talk page, that I happened to notice during my first visit here (And like I stated, I had never seen any user with higher ranking than native before, but I've now noticed that You are far from alone). Reply to your last comment - I have certainly not made any complaints on your "academical style". I might be a bit worried though, when a user that has made hundreds of edits in an article, stands by a notable error, like "Landskrona BoIS was runner's up 1937/38" (dispite what I wrote from scratch), then there actually is a severe hazard for lots of other errors. Especially since the article is almost free of references and other sources. You have to agree with me in that argumentaion, I hope. However I don't believe that it's the case here. But I fail to see need of the aggregated city vs city table (that's why I added also teams with no gold), doubt if such comparission exist in other article of leagues. But I am truely sorry if You have You felt Yourself offended by my previous answer, and I can understand if that has been the case. I think I changed the "Big silver" to the correct "Little silver" three or four times (including refs). So I hope You can understand some of my frustration aswell. Is my largely appology accepted ? Boeing720 (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(Sorry for putting this reply at wrong location) Boeing720 (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

About "academical style" - I'm once again a bit sorry. But the centance was related to how You rejected first my edits in the history file, not to Your way of editing, but of cource I see now that that one was easy to misunderstand. I have written some suggestions in the talk page of the article by the way. They are in no way related to You - but they do include some of my history part, that You rejected. But please do not take the proposals as some kind of offence. I really think that issues like when f.i. goal ratio was in use, and all other changes of rules (on paper or at the pitch) is called for. Boeing720 (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I too admit that I was a bit harsh with my first response to your edit, I was 99% sure I was right but unfortunately I wasn't, and I'm sorry for being harsh. However you continuously started to "attack" me and crossed the line and made things personal, I did not appreciate that. However, I accept you apology and I hope that it won't happen again. I noticed that you made some edits to the Allsvenskan article, some which were reverted. Don't take this the wrong way, however I would advise you to bring up and discuss your proposed changes (like you did at first at the talk page) and reach a consensus before reinforcing the changes. Also make sure that you always use proper references when you are making a claim, such as Allsvenskan being the longest running league. You seem to have a lot of information to share, I think you could become an important and appreciated editor if you just followed the editing process. Good luck! --Reckless182 (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm really sorry for have crossed the border, at where You felt it personal. But to have gone that far I really didn't intend to do. I was frustrated in general (of the extreme late awarding of the Big silver to Landskrona BoIS :) ). Then the minor stuff kind of "grew up" in my mind aswell. I've noticed before that this things happens once in a while all over Misplaced Pages - but wouldn't if the same subjects had been discussed over the telephone instead. I really thought that I had understood that part, and therefore NOT should have acted as I did. And as it seems that I'm the older one of us, which makes it even more embarrassing for me. I have to take the larger blame of this stupid incident, and I am glad to see that You accept my appology. All the best, and sorry once again. Boeing720 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Post Scriptum. I've commented the 90 year long intermission free sequence at the talk page, including "investigations" of possible leagues.

Great! Let's put this behind us and move on. The Allsvenskan article really needs improvements overall so I appreciate your effort in suggesting changes! I currently do not have the time for a project that large, also I am committed to other projects when I do get the time off. But I'll be sure to keep an eye on the article and see if I can find some time to improve it further down the road. --Reckless182 (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

2013–14 Svenska Cupen

Hi, I just read a bit about 2013–14 Svenska Cupen and I think we need to clarify how the gualifiation for European competitions work. As it is now it does not say anything about the difference of the winner already being qualified for CL or EL and it seems to be a difference according to . The reason I am asking you is both that I am tired (perhaps I have read the article or the rules wrong) and I am having a hard time trying to form new sentences explaining the qualification. Do you think it needs clarifying? QED237 (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey

The article currently says: "The winners of the competition will earn a place in the second qualifying round of the 2014–15 UEFA Europa League, if they have not already qualified for European competition; if so then the runners-up will instead qualify for the first qualifying round of the competition and the team having finished third in the 2013 Allsvenskan will enter the second qualifying round instead of the first qualifying round and their respective berth will be passed down to the fourth team in the league.". Isn't this enough? :) --Reckless182 (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it true or am Imissing something? Only if the winner has qualified for CL the runner-up goes to EL and if the winner has qualified for EL then the place goes to team from 2013 Allsvenskan, now it says the place will always go to the runners-up which is not the case if the winner has qualified for EL. QED237 (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That's true! It's fairly complicated. Should I do something about it or do you want to? --Reckless182 (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am to tired to make such "complicated" procedure in writing tonight, it would only be a mess, so if you want to do it feel free. Otherwise I would have to do it tomorrow if I haven't forgotten it by then. QED237 (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright! I added a paragraph from the Svenska Cupen article and changed it slightly. I'm not sure if it's suitable to have the entire qualification explanation in the lead though. It might serve the reader better to have a smaller version of it in the 2013–14 article and then refer to the Svenska Cupen article or a subsection for the entire explanation. Something like "The winners of the competition will earn a place in the second qualifying round of the 2014–15 UEFA Europa League, if they have not already qualified for European competition; if so the qualification spot will go to another team depending on a number of factors." You could link "a number of factors" to the full explanation. What do you think? --Reckless182 (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds really good, I think we should try and keep the lead short so eplanation at an other place sounds great. Perhaps a subsection is better than referring to another article, especially sine the number of teams in different rounds can change. As it is now Sweden has CW, and 2nd in second round and 3rd in first round. Just a final question sine we have second place in seond round isn't it a bit wrong in and the runner-up of Allsvenskan will go into the second qualifying (should be third plaed team?) and qualified for the first qualifying round of the Europa League by finishing as runner-up or third place in Allsvenskan (should only be third?). QED237 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright. I'm fairly sure I got it right now. I made the changes that you suggested. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Now it sounds great, good job. Sorry if I have been a bit "demanding" :). QED237 (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries. The demands for more and better understanding are what makes us better at what we do! --Reckless182 (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Lagerbäck

When you got the time please take a look at Filippa Lagerbäcks article that I created today.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

==Heberlein==

Hi, take a look at Ann Heberlein. A article I created a few days ago. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Malmoredhawks.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Malmoredhawks.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 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Werieth (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Rubén Palazuelos

Hi there R182, AL "here",

congratulations on that masters degree! Now, for a small favour if you can: don't know how's your Finnish, but i've contacted already two users and they seem to either have abandoned WP or have gone on a (very) extended wikibreak.

In this player's article, could you check references #3 through #5 and provide a translation for the Finnish references? It'll only take you a minute or so. I'm leaving WP for good in July, would like to see this "business" taken care of.

All the best, thank you in advance --AL (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey AL!

I would like to help you, but unfortunately I don't speak Finnish. I would recommend talking to League Octopus. Good luck! --Reckless182 (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Will do so ;) thanks a million! --AL (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You left no meaasge

After Your allegation of POV at article Landskrona BoIS (one of quite a few that I currently am improving. To a certain limit, I could agree with You. References should be made at time of editing. But when it becomes revealed that a small town club have a capital of -10.000.000 SEK at an approx. annual turnover of perhaps 15-20 million , that really is a disaster. Also two relegations in a row as a result of the economy is disastrous. What label would You prefer ? But I have now changed that headline. And there are now references to all parts of the article that "I'm responsable for" (my edits). Attempting to improve the prosa doesn't equal POV. Many sport related articles tend to mainly use tables and diagrams combined with very dry statement stacking. Although I'm indeed very interested of statistics myself, a good written football club article must contain parts of (NPOW, well sourced, of couce) stories, rather than stack data only. Infact this is a demand in featured articles, and in line with what for instance Jimmy Wales stated at the Scandinavian talk-show Skavlan. (He called for more female editors, just because he wanted less of statement stacking and more of prosa, which he believed that women often do better) Anyway, if You (still) can exemplify Your POV allegations, please do so at the talk page of Landskrona BoIS. I'm sorry to have dropped this here, but You wrote nothing at the talk page. And hence here I am, so to speak. Best reg. Boeing720 (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I've written several featured pieces of work, so I am quite aware of the recommendations. There are still numerous examples of POV in the article (certainly enough to grant a POV template at the top of the article to warn readers). If I would choose a few examples of the many there are:

• You changed "Return of the king" to "Return of "Kung Sune"", don't you see how POV this is? Even though that was his nickname we shouldn't use it in a section title.
• "Financial disaster" is POV, it may have been a disaster for the club and its supporter, but certainly not for everyone else. I would put "Financial troubles" or "Financial difficulties" instead since it is more neutral and more factual instead of an opinion.
• Small stuff like "The biggest star in BoIS at this point was", "this time they had their first real manager", "The transfer caused a little trouble", "A successful period", "In autumn of 1978, the club got into problems", "At this time, whithin Swedish football, a dissmissal of a manager in the middle of a season was a rare event.", "Landskrona BoIS was back at a "decent" tier"....I could go on for ages, but you get the point. These are all opinions, and opinions don't belong in an encyclopaedic text. Statements like these should be as neutral as possible and factual.

I'm re-inserting the POV template until sentences like these are removed. I'm only trying to what is best in this case. Since I don't have time to edit the article myself I'm warning the reader that the article is POV at the same time as I am encouraging other editors to step in and fix these problems. Good luck! --Reckless182 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Admin help requested for Boeing720's behavior

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding User:Boeing720's repeated reverts to our edits. The thread is Behavior of Boeing720 at Landskrona BoIS. Thank you. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 14:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

New contributions

I have made further comments as the administorial page. Boeing720 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry (truely ment) Your ref tags causes errors. Cannot solve it. Please read.

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref>

Please note - I could have thrown them away, but appriciate there is some time behind. Sorry that I cannot get them right.

I've used both Swedish and English text to the sources. I understand that there are advantages (but not which) with ::this for me unfamiliar way of dealing with sources. I really have tried to maintain them, but I could not get rid of ::the ref-tag-error. For this i am truely Sorry.

But this I don't get 1. Why keep on with - only due to Your own added conclutions. In combination with

statements like 2. "Trust me, and I will make the article feutered".

But above good prosa , stands always the sources. You are also talking about you thesis. If there is a connection between this article and your thesis (in any sence, like the sources or whatever). If so, please remember that I'm not in it for the "glory" (credentials and barnstars etc). But I assume it's something else. Something I had forgotten by now. That about changing the best result ever for Landskrona BoIS between no 2 and no 3 four or five times. Then I really did miss Your appology, and wrote something I soon regretted. (even if I was right) And I am still sorry for that. I really am. Can't we put that behind us now ? I'm rather sure of that other articles about Swedish football will increase, if not at once, so after it reaches f.i. AIK (their article isn't much). My intentions (concerning Sweden-related articles) are to make them better here than at Swedish Misplaced Pages. I do not tell You to stay away from the article about BoIS, but wonder what to say to not annoy You any further. (if so I wouldn't have given You the complicated sources back, would I ?) Please keep in mind that I care nothing for credentials, but more for the article contence. And I think that it is quite stupid to fight over details. The other user has not been benefitial for our relationship (or what to call it) , but I would prefer peace. Boeing720 (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

As I've said multiple times before, I was simply restoring Swedishpenguin's version. He was the one that added the "citation needed" tags from the start, something which I supported. So I don't see why you're so angry with me when it comes to those tags? The problem I have, is that any time I edit the LandskronaBoIS article you revert my edits. From my standpoint it seems like you have a very hard time admitting when you are wrong, even now you had to include the and wrote something I soon regretted. (even if I was right), do you see what I mean? You need to let me help you work with the article, instead of just reverting any edits I make to the article, raise the issue at the talk page. I also find it quite odd that raise the issue with the "citation needed" tags since I've noticed that you yourself have used them in the past on other articles (Malmö Redhawks and Allmänna Idrottsklubben). I will not "stay away" from the Landskrona BoIS article, I will continue to try to improve it. I surely hope that we can come to an understanding here. And please, stop trying to make this personal, with my thesis I was only trying to explain why I didn't have the proper time to edit the article from the beginning, that's its, don't bring it up against me. --Reckless182 (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Boeing. Some genuine suggestions, for reference work I use a tool called "Prove it", go to preferences -> gadgets and cross the box with "Prove it" under "Editing". That tool would perhaps help you when you work with references. I worked for approximately two years to make Malmö FF a featured article, so you can see some of the reference work over there. The main problem I see with the references in the Landskrona BoIS article is that you include full text from the reference, we can't do that due to WP:COPYVIO. Lets work together to make the article better? --Reckless182 (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. First though, some time ago I got a suggestion to save the entire souce text - somehow. This was recommended due to the fact that extern sources moves or even vanishes. I think that was another tool. But I'm beginning to understand what You state about the "Proove it" tool, and will have a good look at it.

And indeed the MFF article is feutered. I also had a brief look at the history file, and indeed You are one heavy contibuter. May I congratulate You to this achievement ?(!!) I have just recived three photos that can be used in the article - I'm just waiting for a reply how the author want's it. But two of the shots are in my mind of a plasible commercial value. Sonny Johansson socres in the qualification game against Sandviken in 1970, and when the team at Nya Ullevi in 1978 rolled out a slogan whith the text "Rädda varven"/"Save the Shipyards" (It could indeed have been in use also in Malmö at the time, but it only works once.) The latter cased a debate "Weather sport and politics should mix ?" (The upcomming World Cup in Argentina was debated in similar way, not least by MFF's Roland Andersson) But I had mostly in mind to write a line about the IFK Götebotg home crowd gave applause to the away team. Nothing much. Objections ? Boeing720 (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

We are not allowed to use the entire source text, since as I explained, it violates WP:COPYVIO. A solution to dead links is simple, we can use references that refers back to an archived web page, see this for an explanation of how to do this. What do you mean by if I have any objections? I obviously have no objections to you adding perfectly free use photographs if that is what you are asking. And thank you for congratulating me on the featured article (if you are being genuine and not sarcastic), I put down a lot of hard work to get it to where it is today. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not the least sarcastic. As I have stated, we got a very bad start. And I'm truely sorry that we have "collided". Let's forget the past. My first impression of You was not good, and I got annoyed. But I now have understood better and am sorry. You are serious, you master the English language better than me - and indeed You know the "inside" of Misplaced Pages. A contributing factor to the rather long time it took me to realize that, partly depended on an other user. He still seems angy with me, but has far less reason than You might have had to be angry. But as I have stated, only 0.1 % of all articles are feutered. And the history file doesn't lie. So my congratulations are indeed genuine. But I realize that I have to earn your trust.

About the pictures that I have recieved (from Landskrona Museum), the instructions were a bit unclear. I must await answer of who that is the author Landskrona Museum or photographer Anders Hilding. Bertil Persson still lives here around I got the donation goahead from himself, but Björn G Chebrell, Arkivet ("Arbetarrörelsens Arkiv" originally) chose the pictures (and added some public domain photos aswell). I don't think the Museum pictures from the 1970's will become public domain, but will be uploaded with intact copywright. Now I will probably have to wait until after Easter.I thought that I then write a long picture text, that You can rephrase, shorten down or prolong the text as You wan't, and then You can remove most of the image text. Only the main intention is importaint to me. Sources can I put at the talk page. Now I'm just about to prepare myself for the game BoIS - Syrianska. BoIS-Ljungskile 0-0 was "Oh, so very funny to watch" (:. Genuine regards Boeing720 (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

And after yet a good game by BoIS (: unlike my congratulations, I'm home again. A stupid question I was looking for the "Proove it" tool, but cannot even find "Preferences". (I have both "Interaction" and "Tools" expanded) I have found the "Wayback mashine" though. I'm greatful for Your help and hints. Boeing720 (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry about the game, Allsvenskan could surely benefit from a third club from Skåne, but I guess that will have to wait. You'll find "preferences" in the top right menu when you are logged in, I can send you a screenshot if you still can't find it. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh! I looked in the left column only. Thanks ! A question, that I have asked others before. And - Please do not take offence, it's a strict grammatical question, but taken from the excellent MFF-article. "The club are an open member association" - I've seen this regarding North American teams or "franchise teams". Some examples taken from Misplaced Pages articles "Rangers F.C. is", "Queens Park Rangers is" but "The New York Rangers are". In the case of MFF, both "The club" and "an open member association" are 3rd person singular, not ? So shouldn't the sentence be "The club is an open member association" ? In British English atleast. Again this question has bothered me for a while I have asked it before elsewhere, but without getting any replies. (reg. BoIS as of today, it's more likely that BoIS gets relegated, based on what I've seen. I'm glad it's going better for MFF, and by the way , I was at Olympia in September. I thougt at a neutral section, but I was in the middle of the MFF-support. The third goal, could I watch from a very good angle, as the ball coming right in my direction) Honnest regards Boeing720 (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Good that you found it. The question whether to use "is" or "are" was debated quite heavily in the featured article process. If I remember correctly now, you should use "is" when referring simply to the club as a singular entity, but "are" when referring to the club as a collection of players, thus plural. It's quite a difficult question. Perhaps I can find the debate, If I have time today I'll look for it. On the topic of BoIS, it feels like the appointment of Jörgen Pettersson might not have been the best choice? He had the position as "Anfallstränare" at Malmö FF in the 2012 season (I think?), and I had the personal impression that our offensive skills decreased during that year. But perhaps I am mistaken and BoIS problems are bigger than just a manager issue? It's quite easy being a Malmö FF supporter at the moment as you can imagine, I am very much looking forward to the cup semi-final especially. I was on the same stand that night (last year against Helsingborg) so we might have crossed paths after all. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I found the best example to the "is" or "are" debate. See here, look under the resolved comments from Struway2. About halfway down in the comments there is a good explanation. The best summary would be "The thing to remember, is when we look at them as a collection of individuals, we would normally use a plural noun, and if we want to look at them as a unified institution we use the singular." --Reckless182 (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet again - thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It took me some time to find the location, but You gave me good instructions. discretionary plural. But Your own (shorter) explination was enough in itself. I much appriciate Your efforts in explaining things like this. I have also read Your POV-issues regarding the headlines. As You may have noticed I split up the article into certain epochs, rather than in fixed decades. And after studied Your opinions - Yes "Return of the King" was "at the border" I thought even at original writing time. The degree of financial wasn't anything I thought of though. And the same regarding "The third Millenium". It was so to speak the endpoint of my indended contributions, at that time. (Far more are aware of the recent 15 years than a hundered years ago, and I intended to save that part to later). "A good start" (of 3rd Millenium , I have little more difficulties in understanding how You think. By BoIS-standards the first Superettan ever , in 2000, the team did well. But while chasing MFF and Djurgården in the top, Mjällby instead came from behind and "stole" the qualification. But in 2001 BoIS was/were (?) promoted, and after day 8 (after first game after the World Cup) in 2002, BoIS was in top of the table with 5 won and 3 draws after 8 games. And a crowd of 10.000+ attended the game against AIK. But OK they finished 11th. And againd 11th 2003 and 2004. Five rather goot years, in BoIS context. But in general, I see Your point. Later we perhaps can find solutions that are not POV or POVish (if it was POV, it was't deliberate). Page is still locked due to warring, of others. But is the splitting in epoches a bad thing ? I'm very willing to listen to You and in the future.

It's funny You mention that Jörgen Pettersson was "Anfallstränare" and that this seems to have been a difficult task at the time for him. But the overall problem, as I see things, the former chairman Kenneth Håkansson is the root of current general problems. When he began, in 1998, Landskrona Town council and "Fritidsnämnden" intended to cover the north stand. But he has since put a stop to all further developments of Landskrona IP as some kind of a stadium. Any step by step improvements has been out of the question. And in 2011 he and the board ignored a member bill to the annual meeting, and removed the wastern stand. And a combined VIP-resturant/auction/and other stuff-building. For people that pay ground admittance (terraces) only, good weather often means heat without shadow (it actually gets extra hot on the white concrete), and in rain there is no shelter either. He simply couldn't comprahend that worsening the spectator-facilities and atmoshpere eventually leads to lower attendances, and lower attendances leads to fewer sponsors. Between 2006 and 2013 the equity capital almost has vanished, and cutting corners have become necessary. As late as before Christmas (at a special membership meeting) , he declared that "We need an arena with 7000 seats only" (priced to 170 million SEK, of which supposedly 70% would be spent on "hospitality areas"). I believe that would been the end of BoIS, but we actually have a potential of attrahend atleast 15.000 spectators f.i. in Allsvenskan games against MFF and HIF, and an average of 7000-8000. IF we had a perfect stadium. When Bosse Larsson, Staffan Tapper, Thomas Sjöberg, Krister Kristensson and similar indeed very unpleasent persons :) MFF-players defeated BoIS at IP in 1975, 0-5 ! The attendance was 17500. If results improves, the crowds will return. And the new board have already made improvements for the attenders, and if BoIS survives this season, I think we have reached the bottom. BoIS isn't a Trelleborg FF or Falkenberg FF. Happy Easter Boeing720 (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Apropos the discretionary plurals: I'd just like to warn of a difference that exists between American and British English, that being that British English is far more likely to see singular nouns as plural when conjugating the verb.

• The club is/are…: In American English, this is always "The club is". In British English, this can sometimes be "The club are". But on Liverpool F.C. and Chelsea F.C., both seem to be using "the club" with singular verbs "is/was/has"
• The Malmö Redhaws are…: This is always plural.
• Liverpool is/are… / Miami is/are… / Landskrona is/are…: In American English, this would pretty much always be "Landskrona is/was", though in British English, it can sometimes be. Interestingly, the article for Liverpool F.C. seems to be using singular forms ("Liverpool is/was"), and the article for Chelsea F.C. seems to use plural forms for ("Chelsea are/were").

Swedish sports articles are inconsistent regarding which form of English they use...though the football articles usually use British, especially football articles.

Just thought I'd throw this out there. Hope you find it interesting. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 09:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was interesting - in the British/American sence. But "Malmö RedhawKs are" is American style because of the name "Redhawks", I suppose. Reg Chelsea F.C. , Misplaced Pages article states "Chelsea FC is" in the lead. Boeing720 (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it says "Chelsea Football Club is…" and then continues with "Chelsea have…", "Chelsea are…". Other articles state "Aberdeen Football Club are…" and "Dundee United Football Club is…". It's very inconsistent and doesn't seem to be based on any particular logic.

IFK Göteborg kit

Hej!

Jag skulle vilja be om en tjänst. Skulle du kunna uppdatera IFK Göteborgs hemmatröja? I år har en krage tillkommit och jag är osäker på hur man ändrar det. Här finns en bild.

// Mattias321 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hej! Ska kolla på det under dagen om jag får tid. Filerna ligger på Misplaced Pages Commons och är indelade under left arm, body, right arm, shorts och socks. Här ligger bilden. Om du har tid så skulle du bara kunna pröva dig fram på paint. Jag brukar klippa och klistra från andra tröjor med liknande layots för att sedan jobba lite mer med detaljerna så att det ser perfekt ut. Svårare än så brukare inte jag göra det :) --Reckless182 (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sådär, fixat! Vad tycks? Lite småjobbigt med ärmarna, du får säga till om du vill ändra på det. Jag kan maila över paint filerna om det skulle vara så att du vill göra det själv. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Det blir skitbra! Tack! // Mattias321 (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring at 2014 Malmö FF season

Hi Reckless182. First, let me start with saying thank you for all your great contributions to Misplaced Pages. Next, let me warn you that you have violated the three revert rule at 2014 Malmö FF season. While you may be attempting to enforce the flag policy, that is not an exception to 3RR. Please cease reverting, and move to the talk page to discuss the aesthetics of the article. I've given the same warning to the IP. Best, Tiptoety 01:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I missed your warning to 90.231.59.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and seeing as they have continued after being warned I have blocked them. Tiptoety 01:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

First, excuse me, I stepped over the line there. Thank you for your help! I tried reasoning with him in the edit summaries but received some personal attacks. I'll try discussing with him on the talk page when he comes back, which I'm sure he will since he jumped IPs several times last night. But I highly doubt that he will listen to reason based on his behaviour, I'll give it a try though. Can I revert the article to its original condition now that he's been blocked or what do you suggest I should do? --Reckless182 (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest not reverting, at least for now. I'd suggest posting to the Flag userproject talk page (or community portal, or whatever) asking for another set of eyes, or posting at WP:3O. It would be preferable to get a second opinion and form consensus to support your preferred version. Being that the article is not destroyed if the edit stands, I would wait at least another 24 hours before you consider reverting the IP yourself. Tiptoety 12:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Alas, inconsistent advice (like, whether 3O is a good course of action). A bane we sometimes see on WP. Well, I hope the ANI is helpful to you. Otherwise you might keep WP:EWN in mind. And if User:DenSportgladeSkåningen is using IPs for the editing, then WP:SPI may help. Thanks to @Tiptoety: for the help! – S. Rich (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Srich32977, sure no problem. Might I ask what advice you found inconsistent? Tiptoety

To bring up the problem on 3O (where I came across the issue). That feature wants discussion where the disagreement is laid-out and the third person can come in to help resolve. In this case we had the IPs just reverting w/out discussion. (Perhaps inconsistent was the wrong adjective.) In any event, thanks for doing the indef. More importantly, thanks for your patience with Reckless, who can now move on (hopefully without IP nterference) and continue to help on the Project. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ukjent Malmö FF-spiller?

Hei, er en norsk Malmö FF-spiller, Ståle Andersen, som mangler artikkel på engelsk. Det er en på norsk og italiensk, men har problemer med å finne gode kilder til den. Jeg kan ikke finne bevis for at han har spilt kamper for Malmö FF, men han er relevant (spilt i norsk toppserie), og ser ut til å ha vært knyttet til Malmö FF fra 1988 til 1990. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look in my books during the weekend! --Reckless182 (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey. After checking my references, I can say for sure that he has at least never played a league match for Malmö FF. Unfortunataly I don't have the yearbooks from 1988 to 1990 so I can't say if did appear in any other matches. Good luck! --Reckless182 (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A user have suggested my use of a non-English laguage is breaking the take page guidelines, so following is a translation of the headline and my first post: "Unknown Malmö FF-player: Hi, there is a Norwegian Malmö FF-player, Ståle Andersen, who do not have his own article at English. There are one in Norwegian and one in Italian, but do ahve problems finding adequate sources for it. I can't find proves for him having played any matches for Malmö FF, but he is notable ( played in the Norwegian PL)m and seems to have been attached to Malmö FF between 1988 through 1990."

Thank you for having digged into it anyway. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I had no problem understanding your Norwegian :) It does seem weird that he was at the club for two seasons without ever playing a league match though. Give me a shout if you actually find some references for him. Good luck again. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've listed som links here:

• "Trener III-oppgaven", by Ståle Andersen, provided at the Norwegian Football Association's website (see page 2 and 3)
• «Norwegian football players abroad. A»
• (from VIF Fotballs site, where it is quoted from "Trener III-oppgaven") Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo players

Hej!

Vilket land tycker du att spelare som Loret Sadiku och Ardian Gashi ska stå listade som? Både har ju representerat Kosovo i officiella landskamper, så på så sätt borde det vara listade som spelare för Kosovo, men samtidigt är de ju inte "låsta" till Kosovo eftersom de inte spelar tävlingsfotboll. Detta göra att Gashi lätt kan spela för Norge igen och Sadiku för Sverige. // Mattias321 (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Jag skulle lista dom under Kosovo så länge det är FIFA landskamper (för det är det väl?). Lite av samma dilemma för spelare som representerar ett landslag som ungdom och sedan ett annat som senior, ett exempel är Pawel Cibicki som har representerat Polen som ungdom, han kan potentiellt byta till Sverige i framtiden, där har jag listat honom som Polsk i och med att det var det senaste landslaget han representerade. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, tack! Men spelare som till exempel William Atashkadeh som har varit uttagen i Irans landslag, men inte spelat för dem än. Den senaste landslagsmatchen han gjorde var för Sveriges U19. Då ska väl han stå listad som svensk och inte som iranier? // Mattias321 (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ja det stämmer. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

M.Sc.

	Congratulations on your M.Sc.
	, --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Andersson, Torbjörn. "Landskrona - Sveriges starkaste fotbollsfäste?" (PDF). Sveriges idrottshistoriska föreningen.