User talk:Gidonb/Archive 2020

The Incredible Dr. Pol

Congratulations.
Be careful what you wish for. The doctor's article was viewed by no one. Merging will remedy that.
Your actions also got the articles updated and expanded. Best wishes. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know I'm no deletionist. Only favor a sensible organization of WP. As a result, articles do get better read and maintained. All the best! gidonb (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much bigger article than it once was. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it is. gidonb (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP bug at Itzhak Vissoker

Not sure what formatting you were attempting here with ref tags but I have reverted. Giant Snowman 18:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giant, thank you! I suddenly need to go back to the temp save of every edit in order for the refs to go back to normal. Very strange. I did miss this one so good that you saw the problem. Is this some kind of bug of Wikipedia that you are aware of? I would like to receive some input on the root cause. It makes it nearly impossible to improve WP. Thanks again, gidonb (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen it before - maybe ask at WP:VPT for the boffins to take a look? Giant Snowman 18:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giant, thank you for the recommendation. I have raised the problem at that page! This plus the radio boxes makes editing a huge waste of time. gidonb (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days to Category:Jewish holy days

See: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 8#Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days proposal to merge Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days to Category:Jewish holy days. IZAK (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion

I'm just curious for clarification about the response to a "propose deleting" entry, to which the response (five days ago) seems to be "Speedy per consensus between nominator and creator." It sounds to me as if there's agreement to procede with deleting the category, would that be correct or might there be some additional procedure/protocol or other requirement? Thanks for any clarification. Daeron (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed my opinion. gidonb (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daeron: You are entitled to comment at the deletion discussion. My earlier remark was merely to suggest that such a comment should be unemotional. Category deletions take a long time, but a decision will occur.

@Gidonb: I noticed you removed your comment but I'm not sure why. Unfortunately those discussions don't get much input and the fact that you had commented suggesting agreement that it should be deleted may have led other editors to skip that section since it had enough opinions for a delete to occur, albeit slowly. Would you mind considering the issue and adding your view regarding delete/keep. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just very busy at the moment. Thank you both for your questions, interest, and for caring! gidonb (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ducking Quacks

As you dont have enabled email, I am not going to offer clues here... but if you so wish to contact, some clues to deal with quacking ducks of the smelly sock variety can beimparted, if you so wish... JarrahTree 08:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JarrahTree, sorry it took me a long while to understand what this even about. My bad! Yes, I would very much appreciate if you can add your opinion on the incident page. Thanks for reaching out! gidonb (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hey, thank you for the Barnstar! I've not had an accolade on Wikipedia before, so I'm pretty happy for the recognision. Dutchy45 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dutchy45, you're very welcome! Glad you like it, well deserved! gidonb (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DOVO and GOES

Hi,

The page for DOVO has been removed (or better, changed into a redirect). The original page is sill in the history. Same chitty argument as in the past for other clubs, notability.
Why was VV GOES renamed to VV Goes? In the name of the club, GOES is an acronym which happens to be the same as the name of the town, and not just the name of the town. We don't do the same for other clubs which have an acronym as name. Like above, we don't change DOVO into Dovo, or ODIN '59 into Odin '59, VVOG into Vvog or even VV Og, VVSB into Vvsb or even VV Sb, etc etc. Why should GOES be an exception?

--Sb008 (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sb008, both are improper procedures:

DOVO -- Thanks for noticing! The article meets WP:FOOTYN. Clubs at this level are always kept. There is no lack of sources. If someone wants to delete nevertheless, this must go through a proper Afd. (Wasting everyone's time -- but what is new?)
VV Goes -- I think you jumped to the wrong conclusions. The article is at VV Goes since someone moved it there in January 2018. Since VV Goes is the long-standing status quo and a name change would be contended (clear from the history), any suggested name change should go through WP:RM. To your question, the examples you provide are regular acronyms. VV Goes is the main "voetbalvereniging" of Goes. It invented a backronym for the city and wants its name to be spelled as v.v. G.O.E.S (i.e., not as VV GOES!). We usually do not fall for any of that, neither do Dutch newspapers.

Best, gidonb (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the 2 most relevant sites for Dutch football and one of the most frequent used reference sites for football on Wiki:

Teletekst

Hollandse Velden

Soccerway

Furthermore, the third party reference used on the club page:

reference

And more relevant than anything else, their registratation at the Kamer van Koophandel (Chamber of Commerce):

KvK

Seems those we can know don't fall for Goes. And not even G.O.E.S. since in NL it's common the leave the dots out. It's totally irrelevant how and why the acronym was created. GOES is as regular as ODIN or any other acronym. Never heard of irregular acronyms anyway.

Apparently it was okay to use an improper name change in 2018 without consensus. To undo that improper change formal procedures have to be followed? Well, I don't waste my energy any more on this kind of BS. These days I have a simple reply for BS. I pull my hands from it. No more edits by me on Dutch amateur football. It's all yours and you can apply any name you like. --Sb008 (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sb008, I'll nominate it then. Probably in the weekend. I always respect name changes that were made a long time ago as fait accompli, whether done properly or not, including if these were made by you. It adds to the number procedures I start but deciding for everyone else does not create harmony or stability. gidonb (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, that's exactly what you didn't do. Read your comment when you moved the page back from draft. You disapproved of the move to draft, however the name change you called "spot on" instead of "not according to procedure". Last week you even made 3 extra edits to the, by then, redirect page VV GOES to prevent it from being moved back without admin help. With those 3 edits you created a fait accompli based on what you comsider correct. And those 3 edits are exactly what pissed me off, it ended the dialogue and harmony. Similar applies to Oss '20 instead of SV OSS '20. Teletekst, Hollandse Velden,Soccerway and KvK. But this page can still be moved to its original name. In my opinion there are 2 options for GOES and OSS, all caps or complete spelled out like with DOVO. There is no reason to deal different with ackronyms which happen to be a backronym as well, than ackronyms only. Consistency. --Sb008 (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sb008, the difference was that these were recent name changes. In any case, I recently saw that you raised the name concerns yourself through the proper procedure and won in the stronger of both cases. That's great! gidonb (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can stop with all your nonsense name changes. Besides these 2, we have DHSC and NEC and probably a few more. --Sb008 (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sb008, I support all consensual names. I left you a note at the DHSC review. Was really unsure if I should react all because I hate all this back and forth. I believe in just giving the reasons why something should be the way one proposes. Positive arguments. The problem is that all this "false" and "bogus" could stick. People read quickly through tons of information and the number and length of discussions only increases. gidonb (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I support all consensual names as well. However if the comsensus is reached based on false facts, and no one presented accurate facts for whatever reason, it's a disgrace and I will not support the consensual name. --Sb008 (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So we agree on the need for consensual names. That's good. What you call "false" and "bogus" are things that you missed, misread, or misinterpreted. It happens. Doubting oneself is healthy. I do it all the time. When you doubt yourself, such a series of mistakes is likely to happen. That's why I say check yourself. I believe you can do better. We have built a lot of beautiful articles here. Done awesome work protecting articles from deletion. Let's focus on that and continue to help each other and the football domain grow! gidonb (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

Move Done though I didn’t see any technicality with the move. You may also want to perform some post move cleanups if necessary. Best regards Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 22:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I did some post move cleanups! gidonb (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comikaza Barnstar

Aww thank you for accolades! Couldn't have done it without your help I reckon, though I fear he's now attempting to kill the article "Death By A Thousand Cuts" style... We shall see. --Telecart (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]