User talk:Tridek Sep

Tridek Sep, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Tridek Sep! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

La Vuelta

Hello there

just writing to say good work on putting the stage wins for nations on the Vuelta records page. I've been thinking of doing it for a week or so but wasn't sure how to get all the facts. Glad someone else got there before me. Am I okay to edit it along with the rest as usual? No worries if you want to take care of it.

ShadowMerckx.

--ShadowMerckx (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thanks for appreciating the section I added to the page about the Vuelta statistics. I thought it would be convenient to have a detailed table on the stage wins per country. It displays a large amount of information in ‘compressed’ form. Using this table one can easily conclude that, for example, the 1996 Vuelta was the only edition no stage was won by a Spaniard, or that the Austrians did not win a single stage since their two wins in the inaugural edition.

The downside on using large tables in Wikipedia is of course the fact that the source code of such tables is quite complicated, and thus more difficult to edit. An easy way to solve this problem is to edit the table using standard spreadsheet software, and converti to Wiki markup with the help of online tools like Excel-to-Wiki.

Tridek Sep (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of World Heritage Sites in Belgium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Namur. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double categorising

Hi. You're adding the cat [[Category:Former buildings and structures in Belgium]] to articles already categorised with [[Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Belgium]]. I have reverted this and you have reverted my reverts, so we should communicate... It is not the practice to use a generic overcat - as here, "Former b&s in B" - with a more specific subcat - as here, "Demolished b&s in B". I don't see why your addition of the overcat adds anything of relevance to the present cat, so don't understand your comment that this double catting "serves a purpose" - could you explain what that purpose is? Eustachiusz (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I categorised four articles into Former buildings and structures in Belgium because the topic of these articles are buildings that no longer exist. These articles are also categorised in Demolished buildings and structures in Belgium, because the buildings described in these articles no longer exist because they were demolished. These categories are not mutually exclusive. Tridek Sep (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One is a subcategory of the other, and it is therefore superfluous to have both. Or to put it another way, "Demolished buildings" are a subset of "Former buildings", and if a building is "Demolished", then it is obviously also "Former": you do not need to add an extra cat to say so. Eustachiusz (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your logic. However, I'd like to point out that if only one category can be used, there is no need at all for the category Former buildings and structures in Belgium. All the articles in this category are also categorised in Demolished buildings and structures in Belgium. Tridek Sep (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Demolished buildings" is a subcat of "Former buildings", so cannot exist without it. Also, the cat tree [[Category:Former buildings]] includes more subcats than [[Category:Demolished buildings]]: even though they've not yet been created specifically for Belgium they can, so to speak, be presumed. To cut a long story short, it is superfluous to add the overcat if the subcat is already there. Please see WP:CAT.Eustachiusz (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, in line with the developed reasoning, you removed most of the articles from the head category. You forgot the Maison du Peuple, but I am happy that some logic has been brought into these two categories. Tridek Sep (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out Maison du Peuple. I also noticed [[Coudenberg]], which I have left alone as it's clearly a complicated site and I've not gone through the article in detail - possibly some of the "Former" buildings were NOT demolished but are "former" for some other reason, so I think it correct to have left both cats. Looking at the whole cat tree it doesn't appear to be altogether effective: I don't think the shift to "Destroyed landmarks" is helpful; and various types of Destroyed, Demolished and Ruined buildings could probably be better reflected by further sub-cats. But I try not to get involved in wide-ranging projects! Best wishes, Eustachiusz (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of another editor's comment in a move discussion

See this edit "Removed bad faith comment". Please don't let this happen again. If you continue to fight against User:Domlesch on multiple articles, admins may need to take action. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not respond well to trolls. If I notice a fair attempt at communication, on this talkpage or elsewhere, I will reply. Dishonest comments and attacks will be removed.
And please no Wikidrama. Tridek Sep (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear as to who might be taking the action, I'm an admin. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe ‘action’ will not be needed. Thanks anyway. Tridek Sep (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The account ‘Domlesch’ turned out to be one of many socks used by Tobias Conradi, who was indef banned a few years ago. — 37 ^(talk) 20:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of French second division champions

List of French second division champions, because I see you are interested in French football, can you also finish this article please, just add the empty spaces champions and add the Performance by club in the bottom. Thanks!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A complete set of Ligue 2 final tables can be found here. From the 70-71 to the 92-93 season, Ligue 2 was played in more than one group. At the end of each season, a champion was chosen via play-offs. All results can be found here. — 37 ^(talk) 18:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know this pages, you can also take the champions from each Wikipedia page with the final table for each year, but I did not have time to add it, thats why I asked you to help when you have time. You do it once and will be there forever ! Thank you !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

If you remove outdated information why you do not add fresh data ? It is easy to go and just delete information without adding nothing back ! We have to improve Wikipedia not to delete it ! Thank you my friend !

In what football pages are you interested in ??--Alexiulian25 (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing outdated information can be a big improvement. If new info is available, feel free to contribute! Today I updated List of Welsh Premier League clubs, which is a featured list that hadn’t been brought up to date in two years. Cheers! — 37 ^(talk) 09:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are interested in Welsh football, can you please update the 2012-13 season and the current one : Cymru Alliance. And I also have a question, how was the name of the main football competition in North and Mid Wales before creating of Welsh Premier League ?

I know in South Wales was Welsh Football League Division One - the first tier and I did update it, but in North ? Thank you!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before the establishment of the Cymru Alliance in 1990 and the League of Wales in 1992, the Welsh Alliance League (since 1984, before that the Welsh League North), the Welsh National League (Wrexham Area) and the Mid-Wales League were the top divisions for teams in north and central Wales. Information on the history of these leagues and final standings by club and year can be found here and here. — 37 ^(talk) 00:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the information ! We need someone from Wales to update and write more on Wikipedia about welsh football articles. Are you from Nederland ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I have some knowledge about association football should indicate that I’m not a Dutchman. — 37 ^(talk) 04:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have on your user page a table where it says that you speak dutch as good as a native Dutchman and after is English and French ! :)--Alexiulian25 (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest football clubs changes

I don't understand your reasoning for reverting my changes. You are demanding sources for technical (not factual) changes. I freely acknowledge that Crewe and Le Harve were also cricket and athletic clubs but the column is for stating the original code of football not all sports which the club partakes in. The only factual change is stating that Sheffield United are the oldest and not the first. They were pre-dated by the now defunct Plymouth United F.C. by a couple of years (Although Sheffield United Cricket Club were the first team of any sport to use the moniker). Eckerslike (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why you'd delete some seemingly fine pieces of information. But I'll admit there's an overal problem regarding the citation of sources in this article. I do however think that claims stating a sports club to be the oldest, biggest, most succesful,... should always cite a source, and preferably not the club's own website or some fan forum. — 37 ^(talk) 00:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Cruijff Shield

Can you please create the last 4 seasons Johan Cruijff Shield and to update the others ! Thank you very much !--86.121.106.33 (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop posting requests on this talk page ! Thank you very much ! — 37 ^(talk) 21:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Man

Are you here to put tags and request people to find references ? Why you do not do it yourself and see how hard is to find references ! I think 50% of whole wikipedia text is with no reference ! Why if everyone starts and delete unreferenced text instead of trying to find references !?--86.121.102.109 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't find it that hard to find and cite sources. If, of course, no sources for alleged facts can be found, you shouldn't include those claims in Wikipedia. WP:VERIFY details Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you are a new user, you also might want to read WP:AGF. Cheers.— 37 ^(talk) 22:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added your IP-address to the list of suspected sockpuppets of User:Alexiulian25. Cheers.— 37 ^(talk) 23:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Putin

If you're going to write "see talk" in your edit summary, it helps if, you know, you're actually saying something on talk rather than just *claiming* you're saying something on talk. You're nowhere near that talk page best I can tell.

Also, don't mark non-minor edits as minor.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you found my comment on the talk page. Thanks for the advice on non-minor edits. — 37 ^(talk) 17:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment made on userpage

Well my freind when I make a modification of the population of France, like the one I made in the list of countries by population, that the total population stood at 67,287,441 I gave all the sources(from the INSEE website).And you still remove it.Why your telling me to add sources l but when I add you still remove my modification.I am confused.Could you exlpain me why you do that ?

Hi there freind! There is no need to be confused. I reverted your edits because they are unconstructive. The source you provide (the "INSEE website") does not mention a total population number of 67,287,441 for France. On its website, INSEE estimates that the total population number of France is 66,628,000 as of 2016 (including all the overseas departments). On the page you mention, List of countries and dependencies by population, population numbers for metropolitan France and the different overseas departments and territories are listed seperately (and they too are based on official INSEE estimates). It is considered vandalism when you repeatedly remove these sources and just change the population number of France to a figure above 67M, for whatever reason.

Also, you might want to use people's talkpages to post comments, and not their userpages. Signing your comments is also helpful. Bonne journée et au revoir. — 37 ^(talk) 17:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Vladimir Putin. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I just blocked SaintAviator for personal attacks on that talk page; you are not far from getting one yourself. Please tone it down, and stop playing the man--speel de bal. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I admit I had some laughs on that talk page, never my intention to attack other editors though. I’il tone down my verbaal geweld. — 37 ^(talk) 18:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. As you have noticed it's a very contentious subject area. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARBCOM case

Hi Tridek Sep,

There's been some accusations that me, you, Athenean, and SaintAviator are in some kind of tag-team operation (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Long-term_pattern_of_tag-teaming_between_Volunteer_Marek_and_My_very_best_wishes‎). I just want you to be aware of this. I wouldn't want you to be unaware of the accusations as they are pretty heavy. You're welcome to comment on the case page to refute the allegation, or you can just kick back and not do anything. However you'd like. Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me, although I wish I didn’t have to read that. It’s obvious the user who made these accusations disagrees with a lot of fellow editors that work on the Vladimir Putin article, and the “I versus them” mentality he displays on that page is very unconstructive. I literally wrote that on the talk page today. Accusing other editors he disagrees with of tag teaming, specifically on a noticeboard which seeks an investigation into his involvement in a tag-team operation, is just petty battleground behaviour. I can't even say I'm surprised, but I very much dislike the fact that this guy doesn’t even have the guts to inform me of his accusation. What kind of dirty trick is this? — 37 ^(talk) 20:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Vladimir Putin". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 11 March 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VM stacking, read last comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Vladimir_Putin#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediation SaintAviator lets talk 00:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Vladimir Putin, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Deleted Comments

Apologies in advance. Looking now for inadvertent delete. SaintAviator lets talk 06:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, it was an edit clash issue I believe, restored now. SaintAviator lets talk 06:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tridek Sep. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]