User talk:Jonel/Archive 4

FlagIOC usage

Hi Jonel, welcome back. I noticed in your new pages that you put extra spacing around the NOC name when you use the flagIOCxxx templates. Is that intentional? The effect is to render the IOC code with spacing between it and the parenthesis, plus put an extra space (in addition to the nbsp from the template) between the name and the flag For example:

{{flagIOCmedalist | Joe Schmo | USA | 1964 Summer}} renders as

Joe Schmo

United States

and

{{flagIOCmedalist|Joe Schmo|USA|1964 Summer}} renders as

Joe Schmo

United States

Andrwsc 00:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The condensed form is a pain to work with in the edit window, is all. Hadn't realized it had that effect on output; I'll not use the extraneous spaces from here on out. -- Jonel | Speak 03:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canoeing at the 1964 Summer Olympics - Men's C-1 1000 metres

Hi again. Before you create many more pages in 1964 canoeing, might I request that you take a look at what I did for the 2004 pages? (for example: Canoeing at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's C-1 1000 metres). To be honest, I have trouble with your event page format. I find the colors very distracting, especially since they span the whole line and often the whole table. WP:WAI suggests using color sparingly. Also, the tables for multiple heats don't line up together. On the 2004 page, I use a table to get alignment across multiple races, but I don't display the table lines. The result is quite clean, in my opinion (but then again, I could be accused of "not invented here syndrome"). I'm just suggesting you consider that format. Thanks, Andrwsc 00:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. I've started to care less and less about format--coming to the realization that what I like in a results display doesn't seem to match very well what most other people like. Also, the style seems to undergo a massive alteration at least every two years... only 625 or so more days to go before the next big crush of new editors with their own tastes. I'll stick to data, that tends to last longer (even accounting for things like this diff). Feel free to make any changes, I'll try to catch on and keep new pages in whatever the most modern style is. -- Jonel | Speak 03:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great! Your point about the "next big crush of new editors" is spot-on. I think that's why I've been on such a mission lately. My biggest peeve is that we have so many styles on the Olympic pages. I'd like to have everything done consistently so that when that crush arrives, we can simply tell those people to "do it like all those other pages". It would be harder for them to introduce something new when there were literally thousands of pages all formatted the same way. Or so I hope.... Andrwsc 05:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa Latynina

Can you please rewrite the sentence that you added here. It is difficult to understand that line. Tintin (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's significant and should be mentioned that she won a medal in every Olympic event she competed in over the course of 3 editions of the Olympic Games. I've revised the sentence, hopefully it's easier to understand now. -- Jonel | Speak 03:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tintin (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are very encyclopedic

In fact they are not only encyclopedic but fact. If you knew the guy, maybe you would know that they are the truth, nothing but the truth so help you God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thelaststallion (talk • contribs).

Opinions

Opinions like Dr. William M. Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine is consistently heralded as one of the top Podiatric medical schools in the United States is not a fact or printed anywhere. There is no ranking system of Podiatric Medicial School. Until you find one and site it, that doesn't belong in wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thelaststallion (talk • contribs) 09:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It's true enough that we need a citation for that, and I certainly won't add it back in. I'm glad you've decided to be constructive with your editing. -- Jonel | Speak 13:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Common.css

Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. --ShakingSpirit ^talk on behalf of Kaldari 01:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukoff ISBN

Re: your edit to J. Presper Eckert. The ISBN as printed in the Lukoff book is 89661-002-0. (I have this book.) I can understand adding a leading zero to make it 0-89661-002-0, but what is your reason/source for moving the 1 to the other side of the hyphen to get 0-8966-1002-0? Robert K S 11:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't mean to move the hyphen. I'll fix that. Also, out of curiosity, is the number printed labeled as "ISBN" or "SBN"? -- Jonel | Speak 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN, and it only appears on the colophon, not on the dust jacket. Robert K S 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jonel. As creator of the templates {{OlympicYearHeader}} and {{OlympicYearFooter}}, you should know (if you haven't seen my reply to your topic at the WikiProject discussion page) that I developed your code so that both could be applied for the Winter sports also – see the header code and its usage; the same would be applied to the footer code.

However, I believe it's better if those years where a specific sport was not included in the programme simply don't appear, saving unnecessary columns and preventing confusion on table format (e.g. applying empty rowspan-shaded columns on nation tables which can be very long). What do you think? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 05:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw you did the winter thing, looks great. As for the non-inclusion of noncompeting years, it's something that I think works better in some cases than others. I mean, leading blank columns, such as the template as I made it would provide for Synchronized swimming at the Summer Olympics, are quite pointless and look dumb, but for sports where there are gaps in the middle of the appearance years (such as Bobsleigh at the Winter Olympics) hidden years wouldn't let the reader know at first glance that there was a gap--the year "60" is missing, but that's not immediately obvious, nor is it clear what it means, since "40" and "44" aren't there either. I don't have real strong opinions either way; whatever you folks decide is fine with me. -- Jonel | Speak 12:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It all comes down to good sense about which format would fit better. But then we would have the good old "inconsistency" issue revived. Since these header/footer templates are to be used mainly on the top-level "Sport at the Season Olympics" page's tables, I'd vote for leaving out the noncompeting years since the reader can find info on which years that sport was competed. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 00:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finland's flag at the 1912 Summer Olympics

Hey how come the Finnish participants of the Shooting at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metre running deer, single shots have the Russian flag by their name!! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flags are controlled by {{Country flag IOC alias FIN}}, through {{flagIOCathlete}}. User:Andrwsc created that series of templates; I'm guessing there was a reason he created an exception for 1912 in the template that causes Finland's athletes to have Russian flags. You should ask him, though I imagine it has something to do with the political status of Finland at the time. -- Jonel | Speak 22:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes your probably right about the Winter War and everything wa sabout that time I think. Good work it would be great if you could start articles on the particpants -who have probably done a lot of work in this field I have't really seen your work. I started a few historical Olympians several months back such as Harry Mallin and Leon Moreaux including some shooters and Category:French fencers. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created Category:French fencers ;). Henri Callot, Henri Delaborde (fencer), Georges de la Falaise, Eugène-Henri Gravelotte, Henri Masson, and Jean Maurice Perronet are a few of the French fencers I started articles on. I have also made sure every competitor from the first modern Olympic Games has an article - see Category:Competitors at the 1896 Summer Olympics, quite a lot of those articles were started by me. The problem with creating articles on participants is that there are a *lot* of them, and getting anything more than stubs on each takes a good deal of time. I'm focusing on making sure Wikipedia has results for all Olympic events first - quite a large undertaking in itself. Glad to have support in writing articles about the individuals though, great work. -- Jonel | Speak 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes what I meant is i started many in that category (not actually create it!) e.g Marcel Jacques Boulenger, Henri Masson etc. I noticed 1896 was fully covered and I beleive several months ago I almost completed every competitor for 1900 . I feel it is an honour for every olympic medalist to have an article however stubbed on wikipedia. I am concentrating on films at the moment by country adding Category:Argentine films and actors e.g Roberto Escalada first to the project which was missing. THat category only had 9 films about 6 weeks ago!! Now its nearly at the 200 mark. I'm documenting a cinematic chronology by country e.g List of Argentine films. I'm sure I'll help you somewhat on olympians in the future when I have the time!Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pentarid Converter

You didn't take the hint did you? You've just been reported for vandalism. I don't care that you are a different user (or a sock). I B Wright 15:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused both as to what vandalism is and as to how to write an article here. If you want to indicate that "a Pentode is an unlikely choice of valve to function as a frequency converter", find a source that says so, write a sentence that meshes with the rest of the article (quoting from the source if appropriate) and attribute it to the source. Wikipedia's encyclopedic content does not include editorial comments such as the one you insist on adding despite having been told by numerous people why the comment does not belong in the article. -- Jonel | Speak 15:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confused at all. I was writing technical books, articles and documentation long before you were in nappies (diapers if you're a yank), many of which are still in print. I B Wright 16:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate comments on article talk page

I have removed your personal comments on one of the contributors to the article 'Pentagrid Converter'. Your personal comments have no place there, and I would suggest that you refrain from making such comments in the future. I refer you to the Wikipedia page on article talk pages Wikipedia:Talk page.

I have sent the same warning to the other offenders. 20.133.0.14 11:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repeat myself. "When discussing the quality of articles is seen as a personal attack, we might as well abolish talk pages altogether because they are there for, you know, exactly that. Referring to other editors as "children" or "wet behind the ears student[s]" is a personal attack, saying that an article's quality is not great is not a personal attack." The article in question has serious stylistic issues; saying so is not a personal attack. It is a comment on the content of the article. Do not remove such comments in the future. -- Jonel | Speak 13:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to get drawn into this. I'm merely pointing out the editing rules for Wikipedia article talk pages in the most appropriate way I can. If you do not wish to abide by them, that's your choice, but you do risk having your user ID blocked.

The only reason I have seen this is because I haven't yet logged out. I am currently using a pooled IP address that can be used by a very large number of people (I have no user ID of my own). Once I log out, which I am now about to do, I am very unlikely to get this IP address again.

Deleting other people's comments, especially when they consist of criticism of the article, is not only not the most appropriate way to do anything, it is highly frowned upon. You have also completely failed to identify any personal attack in my comments; the sentence which you referred to as such was "However, the rest of this article is in similarly shaky shape; the current wording is at least no worse than the rest of the article." One does not have to be all that familiar with Wikipedia:No personal attacks to realize that that isn't one; it is a comment on the content rather than the contributor. -- Jonel | Speak 23:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6 Round Bracket

I noticed you made a 5 round tournament bracket. Is it possible you can make a 6 round bracket? Kingjeff 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cripes, I somehow managed to completely miss that request of yours (I blame Ralbot, of course!). Terribly sorry about that. The templates I made were modified from somewhere else (can't remember where I got them from, might have been fr: or de:) and I really didn't understand most of what I was doing, but got them to work averagely well. As for a 6 round bracket, I've attempted it before and haven't managed to make something that looks decent on an average size screen. There is, however, a {{64TeamBracket}} template which might work for you. Category:Tournament bracket templates is a great place to look for these (or find someone with more skill than I have). Again, sorry about the delay in responding--hope this helps. -- Jonel | Speak 07:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried the one in that category and it doesn't seem to work. The 64 team bracket only works for so many brackets. Kingjeff 16:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example of what you'd like to use the bracket for? I can't promise anything, but I might be able to work up something that fits what you need. -- Jonel | Speak 21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look here. After filling in so much, it kept repeated in some lower brackets in the 64 team brackets. Kingjeff 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. Think I found the error in the template code. Try it out now - the repeating bracket should be fixed. -- Jonel | Speak 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can yu check the Infobox code and see if it's correct? Kingjeff 22:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me - are you still having problems with the template? -- Jonel | Speak 04:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried yet. I just didn't want to use it and find out it was incorrect. Kingjeff 04:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried it out on that page ([1]). Looks to me like it's working now - go ahead and double check it (feel free to revert my edit if there's a problem with it). -- Jonel | Speak 05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Looks Perfect. Kingjeff 05:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics WikiProject membership update

The Olympics WikiProject is performing a membership update to check for currently active and idle members.

Because your username appears on the members list, we kindly ask you visit this page and put your name under the appropriate section, using the code #{{user|USERNAME}}, in order to renew or cancel your membership.

The Olympics WikiProject team

Russian names and patronymics

Jonel

Also to all other authors of English-speaking pages who write about Russian people. Mine to you advice(council). Create all over again page about that how correctly to write Russian names and patronymics Write even on 50 man's and female most more meeting names And from them accordingly man's and female patronymics of people Place this page in Wikipedia and she(it) should be a rule for all authors. It will be easier to work At present all authors write on miscellaneous, At present in Wikipedia some Russian имёнf and patronymics have 3-4 variants of a spelling. Is simply ridiculous to see some kinds of a spelling, absolutely illiterately.

There will be difficulties - write e-mail li77n@hotmail.com Gavrilov Sergey

Dennis Lehane

Heh. I should thank you for deleting that paragraph and waking me up. Although I didn't write the original version, I am the one who put the Fact tag on it 3 9(!) months ago to remind myself to try to dig up a source—and then I promptly forgot about it. Best, -- (the easily distracted) ShelfSkewed talk 03:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[WikiEN-l] 17,268 badly referenced living biographies

Simply deleting material that was tagged without looking for possible sources, is not the way to handle that backlog. Yes, we should be careful about BLPs but unless the material is libellous or otherwise negative, there's no need to go "whacking" it. You deleted material that could easily have been referenced using one of the article's external links. Please slow down and don't try to handle more than 10 articles in 5 minutes. Doing so means you had 30 seconds to evaluate the information and find a source, which you couldn't possibly have given enough attention in that time. At least take the time to put the subject into Google. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shall endeavor to be more selective in deleting in the future. However, please do note that when the external links did provide support for a statement in an article or pointed to an easily found source, I did source the statement rather than deleting. See [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11] for examples. -- Jonel | Speak 14:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must've run across the wrong article then. Have you considered moving such material to the talk page for editors investigate further? - Mgm|^(talk) 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

aphex twin article

hi jonel! i dont care if u want to fuck up the article, i can only do my best to create it. if a group of faux-diplomatic wiki-fucks want to ruin it thats beyond my control!!1 no need to message me back chief1 --AlexOv Shaolin 04:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Uncle

Thanks for doing the work, posting to FAR. KP Botany 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tech-achieve-award.jpg

Sorry, but I don't recall the circumstances behind which I uploaded that image. I apologise if I inappropriately tagged it. If that is so, please go ahead and change the tag to a more suitable one. Black-Velvet 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Malthouse

The paragraph on the London congestion charge was not meant to imply he was responsible for it or anything along those lines, rather it was meant to point out that he was one of the public opponents of it. I left the prostitution section mostly intact because it was pretty clearly just a re-write of the WSJ article. Chris Croy 22:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The comment about the source not saying Malthouse was responsible is in regards to the Shirley Porter bit rather than the London congestion charge. And my concern with the prostitution section was that it read like a re-write of an article about prostitution in England rather than one about Kit Malthouse. I've tried to cut it down to what's relevant to the biography, but if I've taken out anything in it that you think is important to understanding Malthouse's position, please do put it back in. And again, thanks for digging up those sources. -- Jonel | Speak 04:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Denis Murray (athlete)

I've nominated Denis Murray (athlete), an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Denis Murray (athlete) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis Murray (athlete) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Denis Murray (athlete) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. S ^up? 13:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Revival of the Olympic Games in Modern Times

Hello Jonel,

I've noticed that you have a point-of-view regarding the revival of the modern Olympic Games. But I have also noticed that you are not providing references for that point of view and that you are deleting referenced information about Evangelos Zappas.

Why the bias towards the Wenlock Olympian Society and the Wenlock Olympian Games? And why don't you refer to them by their proper names? They have never been called the Wenlock Olympics. You haven't even bothered to cross-reference the website of the Wenlock Olympian Society.

Why are you emphasizing Brookes and belittling Zappas?

I strongly recommend that you make the effort to read David C. Young's book "The Modern Olympics - A Struggle for Revival" published by The Johns Hopkins University Press in 1996. It is the reference work on the revival of the modern Olympic Games.

It does not belittle the contribution of Dr Brookes or of Zappas.

I certainly do not think that anybody can call the Zappas Olympic Games small, insignificant or less important than the Wenlock Olympian Games. How can they? The Zappas Olympic Games were international on their first event in 1859. The Zappas Games had a bonafide refurbished ancient Olympic stadium on their second event in 1870. It was the first modern international Olympic Games to be held in a stadium. So how can the Zappas Games be insignificant or less than what happened at Much Wenlock when Much Wenlock had neither "international" participants nor a stadium? Then when you dig deep and look at the actual sports events themselves and notice jousting, tilting the ring, sack races, egg and spoon races ... then you have to think seriously as to why anybody takes them seriously.

How can anyone ignore that? Both Brookes and Coubertin knew of Zappas. Brookes adopted athletics events directly from the 1859 Games and incorporated them into the 1860 Games in Much Wenlock.

The Wenlock Olympian Games were not properly national before the 1866 Olympic Games in London at Crystal Palace.

To be honest, the Olympian Class held between 1850 and 1859 in Much Wenlock was little more Olympic than the Cotswold Olympicks. The Cotswold Olympicks are not reknowned for their classical athletic events. Instead, the Cotswold Olympicks are world-reknowned for their shin-kicking contests. Not very Olympic at all.

Besides ... what is the Olympic Games without its Ancient Greek roots. If there are no Greek roots then the Olympic Games has no right to be called the Olympic Games. There were no Greek athletes at Much Wenlock or in the Cotswolds. No stadiums. No international participants. No roots, no tradition, just shin-kicking, jousting, and boasting which they still excel at today.

The Wenlock Olympian Society used to boast that it was the birthplace of the Olympic Games up till recently. A laughable boast. The problem is that THE birthplace of the modern Olympic Games is no less a laughable boast. They need to wake up and realise it soon because the Wenlock Olympian Society will be ridiculed till the end of time.

Nipsonanomhmata 20:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to get some facts straight, shall we? You seem to be confused on a few things. A) I've done very little editing regarding Brookes or the Wenlock games. You added an excessive amount of detail about those to the 1896 Summer Olympics page, Perakhantu removed it. B) No one has said that the Zappas games were less significant than the Wenlock games. The point everyone, including Young (as has been quoted to you before), is making is that Zappas was among those who "advocated the idea of an Olympic revival for decades, but never fully succeeded"--as compared to the IOC who have succeeded, as evidenced by the fact that the IOC's games have lasted over 100 years and have been celebrated 25 times for the summer games alone, are worldwide in scope, and continue to grow in scope. C) I have always maintained that Zappas holds a place in Olympic history. In fact, I started the article on Zappas because Wikipedia's coverage of him was lacking.

Some of your contributions are good, and those contributions are being kept. Some of your contributions are hostile, aggressive, and belittling of everyone and everything that isn't Evangelos Zappas. That needs to stop. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]