User talk:BanRay/Archive 3

Basketball team past rosters

I created the article Panathinaikos BC past rosters according to Maccabi Tel Aviv (basketball) past rosters standards wich is created since a year before and none have problem with this. User Sportin

A request.

Hi. I was surfing Wiki and saw your user page today. You have a great user page with a great template. I want to know that can I use your template in my user page? Thanks and sorry for my bad grammer.--Solar-Poseidon (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure mate ;) BanRay 23:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. :) --Solar-Poseidon (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicons in infoboxes

I noticed your revert of my flagicon removals from MTV Estonia and MTV Italy. I am not sure if you read the link instead of just the description of the header but if it is the former I suggest you read it, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Help the reader rather than decorate.

On these pages the flagicons were put into an infobox that is set up to put a wikilink of the country next to the flag. In these cases the flagicons added nothing of encyclopedic value because the name of the country is next to the flag and are merely being used as decoration therefore not being helpful to the reader. Aspects (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NATO

Because I live in country where 72 % of population demand referendum about NATO but government is refusing with words "majority support entry in NATO and referendum is not needed" I know everything about NATO propaganda and NATO "education".

Maybe russian Interfax is not serious NPOV source about Ukraine, but I am sure that Ukraine-NATO is not NPOV source about this (source of statement that 47 % support NATO). Today version of text in question is: "A poll commissioned by the government showed that 47 percent support joining NATO and 45 are opposed, but on the other side a poll taken by Interfax has showed that less than 20% of respondents are in support of Ukraine joining NATO, with 57% against"

I will add word Russian before Interfax so we will have NPOV statement. If both polls are NPOV is different question !

We are having agreement ?--Rjecina (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going from my experience, I know what a pathetic circus the russian mass media is. Don't tell me about propaganda, you should have seen their coverage of the Georgian presidential elections. And you'd think the NTV - TV6 story would teach people a lesson. But 57 to 20? Do you really buy that? I happen to know some ukrainians (my grandparents from father's side still hold ukrainian citizenship by the way) and most of those I've managed to discuss this with seem to be pro-nato. 47 - 45 seems to be on par with the 2004 presidential elections too. I don't know how reliable the numbers are, but I'm sure they are much closer to reality than those provided by Interfax. Anyway, adding the word Russian was my initial solution too, at least for now, because, in all honesty, the idea of having Interfax as source for an encyclopedia doesn't appeal to me. BanRay 22:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page looks great!

It inspired me so much I tried to replicate it, without templates because in he wikipedia we don't have them! here is my user page. Awesome job mate. YemeniteCamel (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ;) BanRay 22:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria National Football Team

understandable, but nice page !!!! Krayziegunts (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Hi,

You put a deletion tag to an image I uploaded and You're probably correct to do so (though you didn't put a notice to my talk page). I presumed the piece is old enough, but actually don't know. Do you consider yourself somewhat knowledgeable in Estonian copyright law? Suppose I picture my girlfriends 19th century jewellery, what would be the correct license? Oth (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all and thanks for the explanation! Oth (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian League

I was just going by what was said at Russian Premier League. It says that the league was known as the Russian Top Division from 1991 to 2001, when it became the Russian Premier League. – Pee Jay 15:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it back. – Pee Jay 16:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA coefficient

Hello! I think we can conclude that England's final coefficient this season will be 75.749 in the current coefficients section, because both active English clubs play against each other in the Champions League final, so England will get 2 points no matter what the result of the final will be, thus adding 0.250 to the current coefficient. Should this be mentioned in the article? AR TYOM 18:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar!

Hello again! Thank you very much for the barnstar!!

Artyom has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend and remember :"All men are created equal, but ambition, or lack of it, soon separates them." Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AR TYOM 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the smile ;) BanRay 21:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion you'll be interested in

Right here..... Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognition of both your contributions to Wikipedia and the fact that you are a nice company. Jhony (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krylya Sovetov

Thanks for the pointer; I did miss that RM. Note, however, that "Krylya" is a correct romanization of "Крылья" as per WP:RUS (I see there was some confusion about that), hence the dab page should be located at "Krylya Sovetov". Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for you to review

Their is a suggestion for you too review at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Break_1 Gnevin (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Karpin

Привет! Можно ли ознакомиться со ссылкой на сайт Корухо, где было бы упоминание о Карпине? Сам не смог найти. Sidik iz PTU (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

I am new to wikipedia, and I have been told this: "Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Frederic Kanoute. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia." What is "disruptive editing"? I have made one edit (one single edit) to the article, in which I have made changes to Kanoute's contract information, indicating that the player has signed with Fenerbahce, because a well-trusted news website said so. In my edit I have included my references. Thus, what vandalism have I committed? I do not quite understand.

Could you please reply to my question about the vandalism I have been accused of. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.111.158 (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tendai

Yes, I noticed. The name seemed uncommon enough to me but on closer inspection if he's from Mozambique it wouldn't make sense for him to be on Zifa. Thanks for letting me know. xenocidic (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. must admit, football is not my area of expertise. was confused as to the blanking. I speedied it, per G7, since the other other substantive contributor was myself and as you pointed out, they're not likely the same person. xenocidic (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance needed again in the Maria Sharapova article

Earlier this year, you helped with a problematic editor named Musiclover565 and Masha4ever and who used the anonymous IP account 92.3.230.33. This user appears to be back, using the anonymous IP account 92.3.138.123, and is being disruptive about deleting large portions of the article without attempting to obtain consensus. Please consider helping again! Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm glad you've moved on from claiming 92.3.138.123 is my sockpuppet, do you happen to have any evidence to support your theory that it is a sockpuppet of Musiclover565 and Masha4ever? - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion on the Sharapova article between Tennis expert, Dudesleeper and myself serves as a sufficient demonstration of how silly Tennis experts random accusations of sockpuppetry are, so I wont bother commenting on them again. I am, however, going to take issue with your description of my edits as "disruptive" and as deleting "large" portions of text. All I have done is given the article a trim, deleting non-notable information (such as her entire run at the Tier II tournament in Amelia Island). I have very rarely put text of my own into the Career section, generally only when, because some nonnotable information has been removed, it doesnt make sense so I need to add something to link it up. My guess is I have removed less than 2% of the article. It is a completely bog-standard run-of-the-mill Wikipedia edit, and so I am puzzled as to why Tennis expert has so overreacted, and would also like to point out my attempts to open a discussion about the article with him have gone nowhere, with him either removing my comments from his talkpage without response, or otherwise, him responding with random smears or saying I needed consensus. And on that topic, I should again point out that Tennis expert is, thus far, the only person that has complained about his edits, and he is yet to give a proper criticsm of them, only that they delete information (which, as Wikipedia:Be bold shows, is permitted). 92.3.138.123 (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me for believing that the diffs were self-evident proof of your unconstructive edits. In any event, see this. Tennis expert (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not working. 92.3.138.123 (now 92.3.158.227) is continuing to revert constructive edits and is being disruptive. Please help! Tennis expert (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this comment. Firstly, I am disappointed that, instead of continuing to calmly debate the issues on the discussion page, you felt the need to seek outside intervention in what I can only assume was an attempt to stir up trouble. Secondly, just because my opinion differs to yours, that does not mean I am being disruptive. Like I have explained, I believe that my version is largely better writing (it flows more) and does not contain so much non-notable info. However, I have attempted to reach a consensus with you (see the discussion page), so it would be nice if you could grant the same grace. 92.3.158.227 (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, you haven't attempted to reach consensus now and didn't attempt to reach consensus previously. You initially threw out the work of innumerable previous editors without advance notice or discussion and then you just reverted a long string of edits back to your own, which several editors (through their own reverts) besides me have said that they do not agree with. Stir up trouble? More assumptions of bad faith on your part. When will you stop? Tennis expert (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if youll look on the comments page, you will see I took into account many of your concerns when re-editing the article. That is what consensus is. And for the umpteenth time, it is OK to "initially throw out the work of innumerable previous editors without advance notice or discussion" if it improves the article, in line with Wikipedia:Be bold. And as for "reverting a long string of edits back to your own", actually most of those edits were outside the Career section (the only section I edited today). Please show me where anyone else has said my edits are unacceptable (apart from BanRay, whose only problem was that there were several poorly-sourced statements, which, I am presuming, he will point me to, and I will happily correct them. And I cant see any reason why someone would immediately turn to someone else in an edit dispute rather than the person they were disputing it, were it not an attempt to cause trouble. 92.3.158.227 (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Many"? Hardly! You seem to believe that if you believe your edits improve the article, then ipso facto the article is improved. However, your edits clearly have not improved the article and in fact have resulted in the article being downgraded from "B" to "start" class. So far, there are two editors besides myself who have reverted your edits: 1 and 2. Again, as for "causing trouble," see WP:AGF. Tennis expert (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, your contributions to this ongoing discussion would be welcome. Best regards. Tennis expert (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Successor teams

It would seem to me to be OR for Wikipedia to decide, contrary to the decision of the international footballing authorities, that Czech Republic is not the successor of Czechoslovakia, nor Russia that of the USSR. The World cup appearances article effectively admits that it has defined its own terms independently of the rest of the footballing world: "are considered separate teams from Czechoslovakia for this article." This separation is far from universal in Wikipedia football articles, but if you think it should be, that would be a suitable topic for conversation at WP:FOOTY's talk page. Clear footnotes can explain the changes in name and territory of the countries holding the right to these football histories, and we should be careful to provide them (I believe I always have been), but we cannot deny them that which the authorities attribute to them. Kevin McE (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what light Ice-Hockey brings to bear on the appropriateness of following the statistical lead of the football authorities, but as you say, we'll see what happens in the discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is 92.3.138.123

Hi, you left a comment on my page saying my edits on the Sharapova page were poorly-sourced. I am a little puzzled as to what you are referring to. Please give me a list of statements in the article which require sources, and I will happily add them. Thanks! 92.3.158.227 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement you cited was removed by me in my edit earlier today (I never actually wanted it in the first place; someone else added it, and, amidst the to-ing and fro-ing between myself and Tennis expert, it got accidentally left in). Are there any other poorly-sourced statements? 92.3.158.227 (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia

I'll make some inquiries over the next few days to clarify the issue of Estonian government websites. In any case I think this involves several paragraphs at most, so I don't know if a massive revert is justified. In fact I think Turkuun has only identified 3 or 4 paragraphs as potential copyvio, and apparently Karabinier has fixed a couple of them since. So I don't see how a massive revert is justified when only perhaps 5-10% of the text may be of issue. Perhaps the {{Copypaste}} template should be used to identify those contentious paragraphs. Martintg (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see this situation is not the first time for the user Turkuun. The user Turkuun has aggressively replaced major portions of the article with his far-right extremist non-NPOV views. Something should be done about this. He is attempting to demonize the public sector, trade unions and the welfare state ideology, all of which are well-respected by the vast majority of Finns. In doing this, the views that he purports are often not sourced or not at all supported by the sources he cites, or when they are, the sources are not NPOV or the support is vague. The POV that he is forcing on the article are worship of the NATO and some form of laissez-faire economism.

Karabinier (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually try to stay away from political arguments on wikipedia and I really don't feel like taking sides on this one either. Just make sure you avoid edit warring and copyright violations. Discuss everything before editing and don't be too general (pov and other accusations), discuss exactly what you don't like, point by point, sentence by sentence if needed. Remember, edit warring does not solve arguments. As for the removed text, I think you can restore it for now, until Martintg clarifies the issue, or better rewrite it in your own words if it's just a few small bits. BanRay 22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user warns that we indeed have a problem according to the Estonian copyright law and need for cleanup. Could some copyright expert confirm his conclusions? I remind that the problem does not only affect copypate sections in Estonia, but also copypaste identified in Estonian military, Maavägi, and possibly other articles and images (perhaps there is some magic tool to do automatic cleanup).Turkuun (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is a very pointless - the current wikifight with the article Estonia and thank you for answering and giving advice to me in this matter. But the issue has a bigger impact to readers, not on me or user Turkuun, and therefore I feel that this wikifight is justified in the name of the article and the benefits which the article can and will offer to the readers. Now if I restore the last version - where I managed to remove some of the issue-copyviol. text will it be accepted by others - I mean the warring givers and arbitation people etc? It would really suck if this would cause some more fights.Karabinier (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This version. Tomorrow well already today but later today, I will start to recheck the politics and government sections and will remove the copyviol. issues so it can not be addressed anymore. Also I will improve the economy section where some parts are not well presented. I bet that soon after this edit ha sbeen made there is another re-edit made by the user Turkuun. How to respond to that? (the fact that both in Finland and Estonia article there were no such fights before the arrival of the user Turkuun. All the problems and edits were handled more and less in civilized way. In April the article survived even the 1 year bronze night "thing" without any vandalism acts)Karabinier (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help and restoring the article! - I hope I manage to improve it before there is another spin in the issue. I would like that the article structure would be put under a vote after I´ve completed the error clean-up so that there would one stable structure of bones where to add meat n skin in the future which would allow to avoid such problems. This doesnt not mean that my version would be the aamen of the church - just the basic and most logical structure which gives the hole or close to hole overview about the nation. - which could be exported to other nation articles as well. Latvia, Lithuania etc - they are in relatively bad shape. I tried to improve the Latvian a bit. Would such structure voting thing be thinkable?Karabinier (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will easier to "export" your economic ideas and delete uncomfortable statistics if you explained your deletions in terms of economics, or explained at least something in the talk page.Turkuun (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking candidates

Hi there RAY, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,

I noticed you left a warning on user PARARUBBAS' page, regarding disruptive edits on DANIEL ALVES (Brazilian footballer)'s article. I have been following this person's "contributions" for the past months and this is what he "offers": He removes paragraphs and brackets (very often needed for article display) and, WORSE, he removes ALL references and external links!!

Strangely, he has very few warnings on his page, and continues to destroy other people's work. I have talked to some users about what to do, entered WP: ANI to report but, once there, i don't know what to do...Any thoughts? I also fear that he does not even read his talkpage or if he does, does not care at all.

Thank you very much in advance, have a pleasant week, From Portugal, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!!!

Hi there ANTON, VASCO here,

Hoping all is fine by you, i have a (small) request: I am going on holidays for a week and would like you to keep a (relatively open) eye on PARARUBBAS' situation. His block (2 weeks) expired 3 days ago, and he is quiet as a "really quiet person" (ZERO contributions since, or in his case "contributions")... :) :) Let's hope he keeps it that way.

On that note, i also tipped SATORI SON, but he has remained unresponsive (to me and other users, since he responds in his talk page) so far, that is why i also asked you for a hand (after asking for the eye above, you're are really running out of body parts, man...).

From PORTUGAL, have a great week, TERVISEKS,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Owusu-Abeyie

Hi, does the Spartak Moscow site say he has signed for Birmingham, or just that the clubs are in agreement? Because (at the time I write, anyway) there's been a lot of hype this end but no indication of the player actually signing... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, probably my lot are just waiting for the English paperwork to be finalised before they say anything officially. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News on PARARUBBAS

92.5.9.102

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Predrag_Jokanovi%C4%87&diff=227011257&oldid=219503493 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.129.67.28 (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]