User talk:Who R you?

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Blekko

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Template:Blekko, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:ViSalus, especially if it involves living persons. I have removed your potentially libelous comments and assorted BLP violations from the Talk page. See discussion on WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Please do not create malicious redirects, as you did with Talk:E-mail. They are disruptive and are considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Abhishek ^Talk 19:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Malicious: 1. Of, pertaining to, or as a result of malice or spite; 2. Deliberately harmful; spiteful — Malice: Intention to harm or deprive in an illegal or immoral way. Desire to take pleasure in another's misfortune.

See: User talk:Kbrose, Talk:E-Mail#More data on "email" vs "email": Providers and client software, and edit summaries of the related postings for a reality check. Also, consider reviewing AGF. — Who R you? (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncomfortable truth for the opposition

Like I wrote over there:

And, for whatever it’s worth, I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that even Marek doesn’t write “Židlický” in hotel guest books while checking into hotels and motels in English-speaking countries. Why the hunch? Well, HERE is a Facebook page parroting Wikipedia’s article on him and it uses Wikipedia’s current title (“Marek Židlický”). However, HERE is his personal Facebook page (“Marek Zidlicky”). I would have thought Marek himself would be an RS in this regard.

Greg L (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well there ya go; Wikipedia: Where the non-English speaking world tells the English speaking world how to spell things (in English); and the nameless, faceless editors tell the celebrities how to spell their own names! (And the system gets manipulated to waste people's time in bureaucracy if they don't just go along with it – because they can.) Truly pityfull!

As for the Fb, might actually be him; but we'll never know for sure, and it could just as easily be just a fan (I doubt he took his own picture of him signing a shirt for someone; and I can't see him hanging out with one of his autograph hounds or giving them his email so they could send him the pic; but stranger things have happened).

Guess we'll just have to see if the idea of a diacritics gag policy has any support; but it seems like a really long slog to make it happen (but in the long run probably a lot less time wasted than responding to these incessant debates and proposals). I'll have to check out the latest on these threads (Jimmy Wales got asked about it as well). What-to-do, what-to-do?

Take care Greg. — Who R you? Talk 23:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought of creating a WikiProject? It’s simple; you just create an article, like (editing) WikiProject English article titles. Be sure to add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. Also, I’d create another sandbox page in your userspace where you develop the page before posting your new project. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. BTW, I weighed in on both User talk:Dweller and on Talk:Marek Zidlicky. Greg L (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool man, I'll take a look at those guides over the next few days and create some basic page in my sandbox as you suggest. I'll post a link, either here or on your talk, once I've got something simple and hopefully you can help get it to a stage where it's ready to take live. I read your posts (damned right) and was just working on adding my 2¢ at Talk:Marek Zidlicky to start rehashing all this crap with Prolog again. Thanks for the heads up man and I ttyl. BTW, there's a link on my user page to the latest one of these diacritics related moves that I stumbled across (in case you hadn't already seen it) I assume I'm not WP:CANVASSing by telling you about something, that I haven't even commented on, in a conversation about the topic on my talk page; but I guess someone'll give me a hard time if they think it is. C'est-la-vie. Thx! — Who R you? Talk 04:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate request

Re Template talk:Country data Canada, look at the message just above yours. ;) — CharlieEchoTango — 08:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I saw that right after I posted it, but I figured no sense in undoing it, but by all means feel free to revert. Cheers! — Who R you? Talk 08:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thwack!

You know you deserve it! Please don't do it again... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So anyone that doesn't simply agree with you is uncivil, is that it? What, was it pointing out that, since according to you "My country doesn't use diacritics. Hell, it doesn't even ordinarily use Roman script – that's if you consider 99.9% of its citizens" that these continual demands that en.WP ignore RS, because you think that we should, is uncivil. And, of course, obviously it's okay for the zh.WP to restrict itself to its own character set, but now English, that's a different story right; the F'ing English obviously can't understand that there are other languages out there; it's okay for Chinese to stick to the thousands of symbols in their language, but those damned English need to start using the characters from foreign languages. And you're going to make sure that everybody knows that you, having (what?) all of 15 years of English experience, have decided that those who have been speaking English for a hell of a lot longer, those for whom it's their native language, those that write and publish works in that language on a continual basis, they're too stupid to understand that someone from Hong Kong, who lived in England for a while, has decided to expand the English character set because, after living in Czechoslovakia for a while, she thinks the F'ing English, what, haven't suffered with language difficulties like you have?

There's an English saying, maybe you've heard of it, maybe you haven't, basically something to the effect of "knower of all things, master of none"; in other words, the fact that you speak English at the level of a teenager (which I arbitrarily base on 10-15 years of speaking English some/most of the time), you're apparently arrogant enough to assume that you know everything there is to know about English, about English cultures, and that you, having gone to the trouble of learning English at some point in your life, therefore have the right to instruct English people as a whole how to speak their own language.

Were you so hard done by in living in England that you need to try to get back at the English language as a whole by demanding that they start speaking/writing in foreign languages; or is it just that you feel abandoned because the British gave Hong Kong back? It seems you were absolutely right about what time it is, and feel free to do so on pages other than this one. — Who R you? Talk 06:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Jurcina

I’m on a cumbersome laptop computer right now (decidedly not my main editing machine). The last time the title of a hockey player got its title straightened out, I was the one who corrected all the instances of his name in the body text so they didn’t contain diacritics. It’s your turn on Milan Jurcina. M’kay? Greg L (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that I am always on a slow, cumbersome (and unstable) laptop, I did start to do a couple of updates on it after I saw it got moved, but I'll go through, check out, and clean up the rest of Milan's article now. Over this weekend I'm hoping to get a wikiproject ready to be able to hopefully have a number of editors work together to review all available sources (to avoid wasting effort and creating undue turmoil on another situation like Billière where in depth review of all the sources reveals more than the usual quick investigation such as just the covers of the books); after which I think it'd make sense to try to organize several articles and request a multi-move, hopefully avoiding having this conversation too many times where the arguments are all identical with the only variation being the number of hits found for the various spellings in the various sources. Anyways, I'll keep looking at that and let you know what's happening; and meanwhile look at Jurcina. ttyl — Who R you? Talk 04:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually started yesterday updating what I was thinking were double redirects until I realized that they were just simple single redirects and that I was wasting my time. — Who R you? Talk 04:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the latest goings-on at Marek Zidlicky, Milan Jurcina, and Peter de la Billière have done great good for Wikipedia. Even though the purported objective at the third article (Talk:Peter de la Billière) might seem to have been a no-hitter, the totality of the efforts on the three talk pages helped to cement the basic principle for how the community assess whether it using the most suitable spelling on en.Wikipedia. That approach…

Wikipedia must follow the practices of the preponderance of most-reliable, high-quality English-language RSs to assess whether a word or someone’s name has been effectively Anglicized through frequent and familiar use in English-language publications.

…has seen remarkably little opposition (only from the expected editors) and has enjoyed notable support from some respected and influential voices. Your efforts here have really paid off. Good work. Greg L (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any thoughts on the appropriateness of the 1000 plus bio article moves made by the admin User:Darwinek towards their non-anglicized spellings? Dolovis (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a clear community consensus to do so, Dolovis, or were his edits of the sort we see with some lose cannons? Greg L (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I just now looked at just one of his revertings, and it was for a sportsman (Pavel Horák (handballer)) who played 54 on some foreign team and never came to the U.S. It seems as if he might be doing mass revertings of mass moves by someone else; thus, it seems likely there has been little-to-no discussion on the relevant talk pages. Is that the case? Whatever the true case is, I see that sort of thing as being notable and deserving of being highlighted on User:Who R you?’s new WikiProject page as the sort of stuff we want to avoid. Greg L (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's been doing mass-moves, not reverts, without regard for RS, for years. His recent comment here might serve to explain his POV on the subject. Dolovis (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He wouldn’t be the first admin who used his admin-hood as a shield to insulate that sort of absolutist attitude from the necessity to abide by community consensus. It takes a sophisticated mind to deal with shades of gray; how the English language handles diacritics is a complex and is well beyond the purview of mere wikipedians like Darwinek to declare with pouted lower lip what is “correct.” Here’s how I would handle his behavior: Find an article he did a move on where the preponderance of most-reliable, high-quality English-language RSs demonstrate that the name or word has been Anglicized through frequent and familiar use in English-language publications. We can then start an RfC on the talk page of said article and make the subject of the RfC fairly broad: whether he should first be discussing and seeking a consensus on a case-by-case basis rather than running about performing mass moves predicated on an absolutist worldview like he clearly exhibited. If some of his moves amount to ignoring the RSs (a policy engrained in the DNA of Wikipedia), then what he is doing is already against consensus and amounts to conduct that needs to be reigned in. Let me know if you find such articles (where the practices of the RSs are clear); let me have a peek. Then we can reassess are options going forward from there. Greg L (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that I am the right editor to bring this issue up through formal channels. I have followed WP:RS and WP:BRD, and have paid my pound of flesh as a result (see [1] and [2]) Meanwhile, he appears to be insulated from investigation. I have made what I believed to be well founded complaints against his actions in the past:

26 February 2011 [3]
5 April 2011 [4]
6 June 2011 [5]
15 July 2011 [6]
14 October 2011 [7]

All were quickly closed without sanction. Dolovis (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Darwinek: we'll deal with that on the basis of the facts of each move; I'll take a look at these links you've provided above after looking at the Romanian thing below. — Who R you? Talk 01:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like here; on initial brief scan I thought that Darwinek had closed the RM and made the move. We have to try and make sure we know the answers (and don't make any more mistakes like I did on Billière) before we start consensusing. Meanwhile, Kauffner's got an Romanian town RM going on that he asked me to look at so I've been searching sources on that right now; but afterwards I'll come back to this. We've got a day or two to investigate; to get to know all the facts and be ready to prove our case in whatever the most appropriate forum. OK, so we've gotta figure out what the RS says; I've been working on the concept of knowing this much information in every case:

	Google - News		Google - Books		Google - Web		Article Sources		Other
	English	Foreign	English	Foreign	English	Foreign	English	Foreign	English	Foreign
Dominik Halmosi	#	#	#	#	#	#	#	#	??	??
Dominik Halmoši	#	#	#	#	#	#	#	#	??	??
Jiri Hanzlik	#	#	#	#	#	#	#	#	??	??
Jiří Hanzlík	#	#	#	#	#	#	#	#	??	??

It's a lot of Google queries; but if we know these numbers, we know if we should be opposing, we know if there are likely to be any surprises, and if the numbers are in favour of the English (diacritic free) spelling, our facts should win the argument for us with out much effort other than repeating the relevant policy sections. I was going to try to set up a template to make these queries easier to quickly call up, but I haven't done yet. So for now I guess it's good old fashioned cut & paste queries: I'd suggest a Google query for the first one like: (Note: I haven't double-checked these, especially the "-this -that -theother" forms; I was just looking at this with the other article and on my system this 15-20 google queries take about 4 - 5 hours to go through a full set [not ideal])

"Dominik Halmosi" -Halmoši OR the OR and OR can OR will OR was OR should 
    for English spelling in English


"Dominik Halmosi" -Halmoši -the -and -can -will -was -should 
    for English spelling in Foreign


"Dominik Halmoši" -Halmosi OR the OR and OR can OR will OR was OR should 
    for Foreign spelling in English


"Dominik Halmoši" -Halmosi -the -and -can -will -was -should 
    for Foreign spelling in Foreign

and with each one noting the hit count for "News", "Books", and "Everything". Ideally if you cut & paste the url (so we can create links) it makes our claim of fact indisputable.

Then just review all the references in the article itself to see what they indicate.

And check at least Britannica (and any other super-reliable/definitive sources you can think of), government, etc. I'll try to see about a template to make these queries easier.

In every case, there's no shortage of articles that have problems, and we're probably better off to let a few go by (in the short term) if need be, rather than be mistaken on our facts. If we're consistently right, it'll make it a lot easier in the long run to get en.WP wide consensus to put an end to these one off and multi-move RM discussions. — Who R you? Talk 01:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being baited here and I would appreciate some advice on how I might respond to such false and uncivil comments. Thanks. Dolovis (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dolovis; Ya, I can see that, and, before calling it a night early this morning, I started reading some of the links you provided above regarding the ANI, move ban, etc. It seems pretty obvious that you've been getting run through the system; but of course that's a common practice nowadays, not just on WP, to find the one or two small mistakes, which everyone makes in life, and try to use those as proof that everything a person says and does is wrong, while simultaneously trying to destroy their will to fight by abusing bureaucracy. My first advice is, though I expect that you, like I, am opposed to diacritics not because they are diacritics or anything as simple as that, but rather that we oppose them because they do not represent the natural, normal, and most common English spelling which past consensus has establish is how English WP determines article titles, regardless, don't take any of it too personally. I'll take a more indepth look at the Visnovsky facts/RS just to familiarize myself and make sure that, in fact, the English RS fully support the name without diacritics (which is what a quick look at what others have posted on the RM discussion would indicate); then I'll reply to that fella's comment(s). So if you like, you can leave it for a few hours and I'll jump in.

But it's good that you recognize when you're being baited like that and to not get sucked in. While it is hard not to feel like one's personally involved in a battle, given the circumstances of an apparently small group, involving a number of Admins, bent on trying to rewrite English in the image of their homelands, remember that, you are not the only one concerned about these issues; sooner or later groups that game the system like they appear to have been doing always get found out; and in the long run it won't make the slightest bit of difference to your life whether an article is entitled Elmer Fudd or ËĺƜȇʁ Ƒǘđď, it is only Wikipedia, but I'm glad to see that you've got the passion to argue, against apparently superiour odds, for what you believe to be right. We'll try to deal with these things one at a time, or in small groups, while we can also look at a resolution to the overall policy issue of moves to diacritics that go against policy. Just remember, in every case, we must prove the RS are on our side; after that, the arguments become easy; the arguments typically only seem difficult when we haven't yet proven that the facts back us up. ttyl — Who R you? Talk 18:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dolovis, let me give you some advise. I led the charge to change an idiotic practice of Wikipedia’s that went on for three full years. Rather than write The Dell Inspiron CrapPile 9000 came with 256 MB of random access memory, hundreds of our articles read The Dell Inspiron CrapPile 9000 came with 256 MiB of random access memory. That symbol is pronounced with a Porky Pig-like “mebibyte.” A small cabal of wikipedians intent on Changing the World To Give It A Better and Brighter Future decided on a remote, backwater RfC to follow some new standards proposal for kibibytes and mebibytes and decided Wikipedia should lead the way. It didn’t matter if the entire rest of the computer industry and tradepress completely ignored the proposal. Thus, our computer-related articles looked like they had been hijacked by a bunch of naive little nerds who have full-size statutes of Wesley Crusher alongside their model of the Millenium Falcon.

Now, note that this cabal was lead by an admin who abused his authority. One member of their little cabal nearly overnight changed hundreds of articles to “MiB,” with copious links to articles extolling the proposed standard’s virtues (like greasing Earths future admission to the United Federation of Planets). That admin reverted anyone who changed the articles back. The result: all our readers were surprised and baffled by new terminology they had never seen before, and wouldn’t see again after they left our pages.

To make a long story short, it took several months, but “we” prevailed and that admin resigned from Wikipedia. For all I know, he’s now sitting on the floor in his mommy’s basement making “whoosh” sounds as he plays with his Millenium Falcon.

To quote George Bush #1 (the one with the brain): “Read my lips.” You don’t win anything on Wikipedia by trading insults or getting into edit wars. Everything is accomplished through consensus. If some editor you are convinced is from the Dark Side Of the Force—replete with respirator sounds—makes an improper edit, revert once and leave a reasonably clear edit summary. If the editor reverts your revert, start a discussion thread and do your best to notify other editors of ongoing discussions so as to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. This is not canvassing and is perfectly acceptable. Broadening the discussion is the best way to address aberrations when a small, local cabal turns Wikipedia on its ear by ignoring the practices of the RSs. In the end, as with “mebibytes”, the project and our readership are the beneficiary.

Now, I am busy in real life and don’t have time to dig through Wikipedia to look for these aberrations. But I do take a keen interest in this issue and can help. So please notify me so I can look in on the discussions and add my voice if I find the reasoning up to that point to be lacking. Greg L (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There’s no need to get upset and violate AGF and fail to abide by Wikipedia’s requirement that we meet hostility with peace & love (et cetera). Why? Because the opposition’s arguments remind me of this horse. It’s too easy to win on this issue, so there’s no point getting hot & bothered. Greg L (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also weighed in on the discussion at Talk:Dominik Halmosi only to receive the same uncivil response [8] from the usual suspect. Dolovis (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I worked as an R&D mechanical engineer with my best friend, who is an electrical engineer. He’s kind of a “Marlboro Man.” When confronted with petty office provocations, he’d utter an utterly dismissive “Fuck him” under his breath and turn his attention back to his computer screen, as if he couldn’t possibly care less. It’s an attitude worth embracing when you are in the right and your nemesis de jure is a douche bag. Ignore the incivility (unless it is so extreme that it truly undermines a collegial relationship in a collaborative writing environment and is therefore truly disruptive) and stay on point. Greg L (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ice Hockey page format policy

Today, for the first time, I came across this section concerning the use of diacritics on WikiProject Ice Hockey player pages format. I though you might be interested as it appaers to fly in the face of established Wiki-policy. Dolovis (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. That hockey page had obviously been hijacked by some loose cannons. They can’t override WP:RS and WP:SPELLING. Unfortunately for them, it doesn’t matter if the player was originally a Mongolian yak herder and spelled his name with a diacritic that looks like the glyph for the Artist Formerly Known As Prince; if he comes to North America and joins the NHL, there is great risk that the individual’s name will become Anglicized through frequent and familiar use in the preponderance of most-reliable, high-quality English-language RSs. It happens. And when it does, the expression they use in the military for this sort of circumstance is “So sad – too bad.” Hearthfelt protestations don’t bridge the gap. Greg L (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to just update that page; but since two heads are better than one, and three better than two, either of you got any extra input / suggestions / changes on updating:

“

Diacritics

Diacritics shall be applied to all player pages, where appropriate as for the languages of the nationalities of the players in question. They shall also be applied to pages for international competitions and leagues where their use is commonplace, such as IIHF play, the World Championships, the Olympics and pages for European professional leagues and teams. They shall not be used for North American league and team pages, including all professional, junior and collegiate leagues, and associated pages such as Stanley Cup playoff pages, lists of awards and Hockey Hall of Fame-related pages, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey).

”

to: (proposed changes underlined here for clarity)

“

Diacritics

Diacritics shall be applied to all player pages, where appropriate for the languages of the nationalities of the players in question, if the majority of scholarly English RS (or where there is an absence of scholarly English sources, widespread reliable English media) so present them.

They shall also be applied to pages for international competitions and leagues where their use in English RS (or where there is a lack of recognition in English RS, where their use in national non-English RS) is commonplace, such as IIHF play, the World Championships, the Olympics and pages for European professional leagues and teams.
They shall not be used for North American league and team pages, including all professional, junior and collegiate leagues, and associated pages such as Stanley Cup playoff pages, lists of awards and Hockey Hall of Fame-related pages, except where their use is likewise customary in English RS (specifically, in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey).

”

feel free to <s>strike</s> / replace / refactor your suggestions above, or whatever works for ya. I'll post this (or anyone else can) once you guys have had a day or two to chime in. (With an edit summary something like: "Revised to work towards consensus wording in line with WP Policies — Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS – …participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.)

Also, I had made this change, which I now see DJSasso reverted earlier today. Thoughts? or should I just re-delete them (similar edit summary), and add an {{ RfC | bio | soc }} tag? ("| style | policy | proj" topics as well?) (Do you add RfC tag to WikiProject page (at appropriate section of page) as well, or just on the Talk page, or both?)

And lastly, ~~feel free to chime in~~ FYI I started a discussion at Talk:Bön#Article title (which I'll be heading to to add my next comment shortly); ~~or,~~ as the next step after my next comment will likely be to RM, ~~feel free to~~ wait another day to comment / !vote. ~~On second thought, perhaps~~ better to wait until I RM before you comment, "to many chefs…" and all that, but if you've got a comment that you think I'm missing, feel free to mention it to me here. But I'm not gonna spend a week arguing this with him/her before starting an RM to spend a week arguing with him/her/them; (just giving you guys a heads up). Cheers — Who R you? Talk 23:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to focus on the factors that imbue a player with real-world notability, follow the style of those factors in descending order of preference, and strike a balance between following the RSs and observing encyclopedic practices. So I’m just going to blast out what ’s on my mind. You guys can use it as a painter’s palette, of sorts, from which you can pick & choose.

Diacritics
If a player’s name has become Anglicized (diacritics modified or dropped altogether) through frequent and familiar use in the preponderance of most-reliable English-language reliable sources, follow the practice of the RSs.
The NHL and The New York Times are considered RSs for hockey-related articles. English-language Google searches may be relied upon to assess whether there is a clearly dominant practice one way or another for players not mentioned by either the NHL or The New York Times.
Absent clear guidance from English-language RSs, for players who have diacritics in their names, editors should generally use the diacritics as his name appears in the country’s press that most makes the player notable.
An important caveat to the use of foreign diacritics is that language must be one for which Encyclopedia Britannica observes the use of diacritics (generally, European diacritics are used, Vietnamese and other East-Asian languages are not).

Frankly, if there isn’t any clear guidance from English-language RSs, the hockey player probably isn’t sufficiently notable to even have an article on en.Wikipedia. The above is strongly founded in the DNA of Wikipedia’s fundamental principles. Though it needs to be dressed up with more links, I’m just not seeing that the basic message piont needs to be any more complex than that. I’d wait for the latest RfC (Ľubomír Višňovský) to close before going anywhere with this. Greg L (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem waiting a couple more days on the WP:Hockey policies. Re:Notability standards, on that same page that Dolovis ref'd, WP:Hockey creates their own notability standards as well at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format#Notability standards for ice hockey players; and Hockey's standards are based upon games played/awards won/leagues played in/coached/managed which have nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia's standards in WP:N. But we can consider that at the end of the week when Visnovsky closes; meanwhile, Hockey's Article alerts section lists several other moves beyond Visnovsky. Guess I should concentrate on getting WPrj:English a little further along so we can start having these conversations, and creating lists, there (I see there was a little activity on its Articles page but I haven't even looked yet to see what), but we should get it live into the WP space if we're going to actually use it (then we can start linking to it if needed without later move issues). ttyl — Who R you? Talk 04:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability standards are not an issue that I am concerned about. Consensus will ultimately determine if a subject is notable. My concern is when when a wiki-project asserts that established policies do not apply to articles under their watch. Accordingly, I suggest that the hockey policy concerning the use of diacritics be brought into line with established policy as follows:

“

Diacritics

The use of diacritics in the article title shall follow the established Wikipedia policies of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. Wikipedia articles do not necessarily use the subject's legal or birth name as an article title; instead it uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Diacritics should only be used in an article's title where a preponderance of English-language reliable sources demonstrate that diacritics are commonly used when referring to the subject.

”

Dolovis (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, the notability issue was just another example of where WP:Hockey's internal policies don't match WP's consensus policies. With regards to changing WP:Hockey's stated policies, if I'm going to go into their WikiProject and change what they are telling their participants, I'm looking to do so as undisruptively (and diplomatically) as possible. Are there minor revisions to their existing wording which brings it in line with WP policy (at least from our POV)? Alternatively, we have to go through an RfC, which it may be likely to go to either way, but if there is a minor change which would resolve our issues with their published internal policies I'd prefer to try to "settle it like men" through straight forward direct conversation rather than trying to bring in a whole bunch of outsiders to the issue so that everyone can spend the next 30 days arguing the same points back and forth and back and forth only to have some admin look it all over (as quickly as possible) to come up with a decision (which if history is any indication will likely be a 'no consensus' ruling which means maybe more of the same). Anyways, are there minor changes to the wording that you think might make it possible to arrive at consensus without going to RfC; or do you believe that we should just assume right from the start that this is going to require an RfC and not bother trying to talk first? (You're wording's not bad to try to see if there's global WP consensus to force a policy on them if we end up going the RfC route.) — Who R you? Talk 03:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out the WP:HOCKEY's notability standards are identical to the over all notability standards. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Player_pages_format#Notability_standards_for_ice_hockey_players vs. Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Ice_hockey. So you do need to do a bit of research before continually claiming we don't match wiki wide policy. -DJSasso (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thanks for the heads up; I'll check out those policies (after sleep though) – (And make my apologies if I was mistaken in my statement(s)). Cheers — Who R you? Talk 12:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DJSasso that WP:NHOCKEY is not an issue, however where we disagree is on the issue where DJSasso advocates that the policies of WP:UE and WP:UCN do not necessarily apply to ice hockey biographies. I do not think that the majority of ice hockey project members agree with DJSasso's POV, but most are simply sick and tired of arguing with him on the issue. Of those active in the recent discussions, myself, Ravenswing, and GoodDay are all members of the ice hockey project. Dolovis (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said that UE or UCN don't apply to the hockey project so please stop putting words in my mouth. What we disagree on is the interpretation of the policies which as you have seen the entire wiki hasn't be able to agree on. And quite frankly diacritics is a topic I don't even care about. I only debate it with you because you seem to be on a crusade to rid the world of diacritics which isn't valid and you continue to throw wild bad faith accusation at anyone who disagrees with you. Frankly I will be happy the day people stop arguing over such a useless topic. Its not like having them renders you unable to read the article and redirect solve the problem with not being able to find the article. I am still convinced the only reason you dislike them so much is cause you seem to think it will piss me off (I point to the fact that you were full force creating articles with them until you stumbled onto a small discussion where I disagreed with someone about them while you an I had a different disagreement.) when really all it does is make me laugh at how ridiculous you get and to what lengths you will go to push your new POV such as your double editing redirects to stop people from being able to have the opposite view from you. -DJSasso (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't care about the usage/non-usage of diacrtics, you wouldn't be participating in the RMs. Until you & other pro-dios editors stop pushing those non-english symbols & start putting the 'english readers' needs first, the dispute/discussion will likely never end. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I participate in them so as to counter the zealots that try to rid the encyclopedia of useful information thus hurting the encyclopedia. Especially those who keep calling them non-English when they have been shown time and again they are used in the English language. An encyclopedia should not be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator just because a couple people don't like them. -DJSasso (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...so as to counter the zealots..." -- You're particpating 'merely' to win an argument? to have it your way? very revealing & dissappointing. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I am participating to protect the encyclopedia from damage. Has nothing to do with winning the argument. That might be why you are participating however... -DJSasso (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too late bud, you've really stuck your foot in your mouth this time. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You show me where I said that at all...don't put words in my mouth...stop trolling as per usual. -DJSasso (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't want me to put words in his mouth, so I will just quote him: I am still convinced the only reason you dislike them so much is cause you seem to think it will piss me off. He seems to think that this is all about him. It is so very pathetic and sad. Dolovis (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is (understandably) taking it too personally. We all view the other guy as the bad guy because he's obviously not on our side on the issue; and the issue is a hard one to argue. We all run around screaming NPA!, NPA!; but it's hard to know what else to do, when you've gone through your arguments and the other guy just doesn't agree with you, once you've already argued the policy and attacked the other persons interpretation of policy, I'd say human nature is to argue and attack the person. But Dolovis, do you think DJSasso came to my talk page just to aggravate you (or me)? I don't get that sense (although he obviously thinks that I'm wrong about the WP:N question, which I still haven't looked at yet); but it's nothing personal (as far as I know). And DJSasso, do you sense that Dolovis, and GoodDay, appear to be responding, in a lot of ways, out of frustration; frustration with trying to deal with this issue at WP:Hockey, frustration with arguing it (repeatedly) on talk pages, and (as just another example), here? I figure they both feel like they've already argued the policies and the response can seem like (well that's not what it says); which I trust you'd be just as frustrated with if, from your POV, global WP:Policy, achieved with full consensus, specifically said, perhaps something like, diacritics should always be used, and maybe if it even specifically said, especially if the person is from the Czech Republic, and our response was "no it doesn't", or if we then subsequently tried to introduce a policy change and that hypothetical proposal failed and we then tried to argue "well there's no consensus for the policy".

But hard as it is, try to argue policy; and I doubt anyone hates having to repeat themselves more than I do, but stick to the policy and try to discuss it. While I do believe it is often possible to win an argument on the strategy of tearing someone else's arguments to shreds (regardless of whether or not that's possible in this case); I'd say it's almost impossible to win an argument by tearing your opponent to shreds personally, particularly when everything comes down to the judgment of the third party. So try to stick to policy discussion, and discuss (in ever increasing levels of analysing specific sections of policy) what each parties interpretation is. Do you know what his interpretation is of WP:UE? Does he know what yours' is? Has the discussion happened where you talk about what this sentence means? It may not resolve things, but it's certainly got a better chance than calling each other names or picking apart a silly comment or a shot taken at you some time in the past. And you might have noticed that none of those recommendations say which one of us is you, and which one of us is he; the advice is to all parties, assuming you'd actually like to eventually arrive at a resolution.

Oh, and have those policy discussions on the article talk pages where the deciding admin(s) can consider them (and I admit I have been remiss in commenting lately on those pages so I'll try to chime in there if I have something to say [Like I've ever been without something to say – Ha!

])— Who R you? Talk 06:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJSasso, see the unfortunately long section below; can we acknowledge that passion can exist without zealotry? I care about this issue; I believe that diacritics offer no benefit to the societies of English speakers while demanding a substantial increase in the complexity of the English language. This means that future generations of English speakers will suffer from greater complexity with no benefit whatsoever; or am I wrong on that point; please, if you can think of any reason, beyond (pardon the intentional over simplification) you should use them as a sign of respect, then please tell me (us). Because honestly, no matter how one dresses it up, the reasoning seems to be that it's just the right thing to do because it's someone's name; but reality is that we, as a society, decide what we do, or don't, accept as someone's name. Read the article on "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince", some time in terms of a totally different POV on what names are. As I've mentioned before, Paulo & Guiseppe were expected to change their names in our country, and that had nothing to do with diacritics; Greek & Macedonian surnames often end in "…opolous" or "…opelousas", but you won't find many in a North American phone book, not because they don't immigrate in large numbers, but because they drop the ending to their family name, many a German "Schmit" and "Schmitz" became "Smith", etc. The fact that some people that didn't move here want to tell use how to spell the names of the people who did move here, well, let's just say it doesn't sit well. Anyways, please don't assume that a passion for the prevention of external parties dictating the spelling of our language is the same as an excessive fanaticism for anything (particularly the dumbing down of WP). Cheers — Who R you? Talk 06:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change in Direction of Conversation!

No one here is stalking, trolling, or anything else as this is my talk page, and you are all cordially invited to discuss. I haven't read what I said I would yet (the policy DJSasso pointed to above), I plan to do that before calling it a night.
I can't actually speak for anyone else, so I merely comment from my perspective and from a POV that I know, at least some, other people share.

Diacritics are not evil, nor do they do anything to enhance the English language. You (DJSasso) (and I'll refer here to you as what I'll classify as the typical [or perhaps the atypically communicative representative for], what might be called, the pro-diacritic group on English Wikipedia; as opposed to anything in any way personal); you say that diacritics are part of the English language; (no offence intended, but) I'd ask you to back that up. You think that because three or four hundred words, out of 170,000+ in the English dictionary, show a diacritic that this indicates their use in English – I strongly disagree.
There is no such word as "café" in the English language (oh, it's listed in the dictionary, likekly as an alternative form or an also as, (while other words might be a rare or obsolete form); and you'll occasionally see it used [for example in a sign for a coffee shop which is trying to advertise its non-Englishness], but that is not what any natural English speaking person would ever write — to do so would, in fact, be deemed incorrect) the word is "cafe". There is a possibility you'll see "Fasçade", but only on the rarest of occasions (from my experience); the English word for the front facia of a building is "Fascade"; this is the same as the "Fascade" one puts on in the sense of a false or deceptive appearance. "Résumé" (also "Resumé") [a written history of work experience] is occasionally used, but the fact is that the majority (I'll guess 70%) of the time it's just plain "Resume", and that's a word that might be confused with "Resume" [to continue or commence again], but we still typically drop the diacritics; I've read too many conversations on this topic where it is stated that these words prove that diacritics are used in English; and the fact is that this standard part of your argument is wrong. These are not actually English; they are quirky, rare, obtuse, optional forms which we occasionally use for specific purposes (like to indicate the foreignness of a word or idea, etc).
The (North American) English mentality, social aspiration, is against elitism; our societies (as a whole) may desperately want to be a part of the rich, powerful, famous crowd, but there is an intrinsic dislike (often bordering on hatred of) snobbish, arrogant, aristocratic, superiority. Those who have wealth/power as a result of inherited good-fortune, particularly those who then use/display that with an aire of "I'm better than you", are often hated. The same is true for those who exemplify that "holier-than-thou" attitude because of self-obtained wealth and status. Conversely, those who achieve great social stature (through wealth, fame, etc) and maintain their common-man sensibilities, who don't put on a phoney show, are typically much loved and respected.

The inappropriate use of diacritics exemplifies this aforementioned attitude of entitlement, superiority, and arrogance. Recognize where America was born from, rejection of a King and House of Lords; rejection of an arrogant aristocratic class. The addition of inappropriate diacritics was a historical method by which formerly common folk identified their entry into the aristocracy; "John Smith" became "John Smithé", and was not longer "one of the average people". In North America, that would typically signify the end of respect for them from the masses. If Wayne Gretzky (a very much beloved Canadian by the way) had demanded that he be called "Wayné Gretžky", he'd probably would have had a hard time finding a job; and you can pretty much bet that number 99 would be just one more number. There are countless exceptions to this, but they are the exceptions, diacritics are, on the whole, an indication of foreignness.

We, as a society, don't want to, any likely won't, accept that others will dictate to us how we spell things, even their own names; if Marek Zidlicky had insisted, as part of his NHL contract, that the league include diacritics in his name, his name wouldn't be an issue on en.WP, because no one in the English speaking world would have ever heard of him; he would never have had an NHL career because he wouldn't have been offered a job. Names of people in North America do not (except for the exceptions) have diacritics, companies won't print them on a business card or paycheque, customers won't include them when writing to the person, and people will likely ignore them when pronouncing unknown names; there is an inherent tendency to disrespect those who are perceived as putting on airs or who refuse to join our culture; the logic being, if you don't want to be a part of our culture, we are quite okay with that, but don't be surprised when you're treated like you aren't a part of our culture.

These scrawls are meaningless. They have no meaning in the English language, it is the equivalent of me telling you to "ڏڀڧڇژڞ" or calling this "Þhe þorn in my ßide" (and I'm merely assuming I haven't said anything bad to or about you in the meaningless scribble above). No English speaking child, adolescent, or adult has the faintest idea what this "ĿŁŧĦƋƢƧ" means, any more than we know how to pronounce "Ťžňőŗȭvșḱӳ"; nor do we have any intent of teaching our children such things. To put it plainly, we have more important things to concern ourselves with.
Because of these facts, adding diacritics to names of people resident in English countries is a method of ensuring that they are not considered to be a part of the people in an English country. If, after signing with the NHL, Jurcina or Jagr or anyone else were to ask North American media to use diacritics, I'm not sure what media's response would be; but, if they were to get all pissy about it and demand that the media write their names with diacritics, I wouldn't be surprised if the most probable response from the media weren't to simple not write about them; if they needed to refer to them they might well write that "#55 scored 4 goals last night in one of the most impressive displays of hockey skill this reporter has ever seen. One really must have the greatest respect for #55's ability to handle the puck. After the game, Hacek, Jagr, Zidlicky, and #55 were all seen celebrating the incredible show of hockey demonstrated here." But, I expect, these young guys, living in a foreign country, would probably like to be feel like they were a part of the society, rather than feeling like, and being treated like, they were snubbing their noses at the society that was paying them a whole lot of money to play a game they love.
If English Wikipedia adds diacritics inappropriately, we are, in a way, separating ourselves from the people who we are supposedly intending to offer something to. Sure, the Czech spelling of Marek Zidlicky is (whatever it is because I don't remember, and can't be bothered to go search for his page to cut and paste the symbols that don't appear on my keyboard), same goes for Jurcina (except I remember the "c" in his name has the little cup over it, but I still don't have one of those on my keyboard), and I don't believe that anyone is saying that their articles shouldn't include the national spellings of their names. The problem is, when the title, and the entire article on English Wikipedia contains the name with nothing but diacritics, we are telling our readers that writing "Marek Zidlicky", "Milan Jurcina", or "Jaromir Jagr" is an error; we are telling our English readers (particularly the kids who might tend to believe that what they read here is the truth) that North American English press are incompetent boobs, implying that they can't spell the names properly, which of course isn't the case, they correctly spell the names in English on a regular basis (although I'm sure they have, on occasion, made typos); we are implying to those kids that they are idiots if they don't memorize this meaningless information, use it, recognize it, and correct others who misuse it (which would, in fact, make the child look dumb since the truth is that there is no word in the English language with an accent over the "Z", or the "y", or with an " i " with a " ì ", " í ", or a " î " over it) so we actually put the uninformed reader in a no-win, less informed than when they started, position.
Foreign people/places in foreign lands get foreign spellings if they contain characters that are part of the extended Latin character set; Foreign people/places resident in English speaking lands get English spellings using the basic Roman English character set; Foreign people/places in foreign lands that uses characters other than those commonly part of the English used Latin character set get transliterated (Korean, Chinese, Cyrillic, etc); but that's just a summary of how it works out; the determining factor really has nothing to do with us, it has to do with the English RS.

If you'd like, start a campaign to compel the New York Times and every other print media outlet in the English world to begin using diacritics; I expect any such attempt will be laughed at by them, because they recognize that that isn't what their readers want (any more than it is what our readers want); but feel free to try and if you're successful then I'll support the use of diacritics in a whole bunch of places on Wikipedia, because that will be the way the RS spells things and I'll continue to follow the RS (although I might also start a campaign of my own to compel the Times, et al, to stop printing everything with diacritics, because I believe they have no use in English).

Show me a word that can't be spelled in English ("Résumé" should probably be something like "Reseumay", or something equally foolish looking); with the exception of clicking sounds from certain parts of Africa, I seriously doubt that there is much we can't successfully transliterate; as for the rest, harsh as it may sound to a non-English person, we (English speakers) reserve the right to decide how English words are spelled and pronounced; just like Czech speakers have the right to decide how words are spelled and pronounced in their lands (although perhaps the English world should start hounding the Czech world to change [in consideration of the ratio of global usages of English versus Czech]; but then we usually try to let other people decide for themselves what they do and say in their own country, [not that our governments don't occasionally have their own opinions in that area, and not that there aren't times (such as human rights considerations) when the opposite is true.])

All-in-all I recognize that you believe that adding diacritics is a minor thing which doesn't have the slighest negative effect; as you can see, I disagree on so many levels.

Those are the logical arguments as to why Wikipedia should only contain diacritics in article titles under certain circumstances (where having them is the most common English spelling); the policy agruments against WP:Hockey having their own policy which goes against consensus policy, and the arguments that it does, in fact, go against those other policies, and that those other policies do, in fact, exist, is an entirely different conversation which I believe we've had much of on other talk pages already. I may well copy (or refine and reenter) all this into some of those conversations. Wish I could figure out how to say what's on my mind without going on and on; but I haven't yet.
I'll respond on that other stuff (perhaps in yet another section here) once I've read it. Cheers — Who R you? Talk 02:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

Ya, right.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bön. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sudo Ghost 06:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of WPrj:Eng

A tag has been placed on WPrj:Eng, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bön#Moving_on

As the two of us were involved in the content dispute, I wanted to wait for your input before changing anything in the article, could you please read and respond at Talk:Bön#Moving_on? Thank you. - Sudo Ghost 18:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, could you review this edit I made to Talk:Bön#The true policy to ensure that I am not misrepresenting your position on holding off on the matter of the article's title? Thank you very much. - Sudo Ghost 20:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General Status Update

Just commented again on the RfD regarding Prolog's WP:DGUIDE link to the middle of his (anti-policy) userspace essay.
Also, waiting to see what happens with Category talk:Bön RM/SpeedyMove-not even sure if that process involves a !vote / consensus or what; (not to be confused with everything at Bön which was put on the far back-burner for a while.
~~Hoping to take~~ Will be taking WPrj:English live ~~before quitting tonight~~ after some sleep. — Who R you? Talk 00:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject English (WPrj:Eng) is now Live; please check the Articles page. — Who R you? Talk 12:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You may be interested to know that the issue of Darwinek's article moves has been raised on his talk page. Dolovis (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say this yesterday...

I just wanted to apologize for the whole thing over at Bön the other day. It started off just with a BRD revert because the reference I looked at showed Bön as the spelling, and gbooks turned up some good sources with that spelling. I'm not trying to make excuses, because it was still wrong, but I had an ingrown toenail that was killing me, and I ended up taking out my frustrations on that talk page, and for that I sincerely apologize, because you didn't deserve to be on the end of that. My toenail was removed not too long ago today, so there won't be a repeat of my earlier behavior, and I feel a million times better. I'm not trying to bore you with my personal life, just wanted to let you know so that the next time you run into me on a talk page your first reaction won't have to be "Oh crap, not him..."

So again, I'm extremely sorry about all of that, and I hope that you can look past my transgression. - Sudo Ghost 22:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments, apology accepted with thanks! I'm working on comments on the Talk page (but it does take me forever); so that can continue there. But thank you for the msg. Cheers — Who R you? Talk 22:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Please see Talk:Dominik Halmosi. I think everyone is missing the point. The reason all those player’s names haven’t be Anglicized is because they are Czech players playing on Czech teams and hardly anyone in the English-speaking world has ever heard of them. It would be nice to see if any of these players are even sufficiently notable to appear in the Slavic-language Wikipedia. As I wrote in my post on that RM, you need to find a ‘crat and have him assign a good admin to speedy-close that RM. Then an RfC (is that what they call it?) needs to be started on deleting those articles; they appear to have no place whatsoever in an English-language encyclopedia.

It seems that those editors responsible for WP:HOCKEY are a loose cannon and their activities will have to be reigned in. Greg L (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See also, this thread on my talk page. Greg L (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, I think you may be missing the point. Those names are anglicized, with the pro-DIOS group trying to move them to non-English titles. It is the actions of “Darwinek”, who has moved thousands of articles in violation of WP:FAITACCOMPLI, who needs to be reigned in (see the most recent of numerous threads here). Dolovis (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I chose to ignore irrelevant non-points and focus on the salient issues. Whether diacritics are used in the players names (they should be used, IMO) is utterly beside the point now.

All ten of those articles, which you created over a timespan of 14 hours, have no business whatsoever being on Wikipedia because none of those players are notable in English-language RSs. A Sports Illustrated search for “Dominik Halmosi” comes up snake eyes. Not surprisingly, so too does a search on “Dominik Halmoši”. Fortunately you have put a limited amount of effort into those articles and little will go down the drain when they are expunged from Wikipedia. I personally know of an editor who labored for a l-o-n-g time on a music-related article, only to see it get erased. Wikipedia is not a sports directory to list all the world’s hockey players. There must be a proper degree of notability in the English-language press; the fact that each of those players A) skates on ice, and B) has a heartbeat, and C) those two attributes are—amazingly—attributes of hockey players who receive copious attention in the English-language Rs doesn’t cut it. Now…

Please spare us your posturing and save your arguments for the inevitable RfC on all ten of those articles. Debating these points over on Talk:Dominik Halmosi will afford the rest of the community a far better chance to see what is being written and weigh in themselves; the sunshine of public inspection tends to sanitize weak and infected arguments. And count yourself lucky that I’m not bothering to pore through your edit history to see if there are even more utterly non-notable articles that you’ve salted all over the place that are equally deserving of being trimmed from the project. Greg L (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wiki-acronym you're thinking of is AfD. And I don't necessarily disagree with you; while sending a few hours investigating all available sources for these 10, before posting at the RM discussion yesterday, I considered that question; but I wasn't as absolutely convinced as you obviously are. Also a review of WP:NSPORTS makes the issue just that much murkier (but those standards are simply guidlines created by WP:Hockey, including Dolovis and DJSasso, which don't necessarily agree with the consensus policy from WP:N, but which would, I suspect, need an RfC to fight properly).

By all means, feel free to request an AfD, LMK here, and I'll chime in. I recall at this point that none of the 10 have Britannica entries, and most (I think I only did indepth checks on the first 3 or 4) only appear in Google sources because other people (in totally different fields [i.e. nuclear engineering, saxophone player, and artist if memory serves] with some of the names with alternate diacritic forms); but unfortunately I didn't save the file with all that OR info. But personally, I have no desire to spearhead an AfD on these 10, not unlike I would have rather simply made the move at Bon if you had agreed and made it unanimous; I find repeatedly returning to these discussion to be tedious to say the least.

As for approaching a 'crat on Halmosi, again, if you think that's the proper approach, WP:Just do it; but I note that this RM was "relisted" by Admin Aervanath earlier today (guess he didn't want to have to decide this one and !votes weren't sufficiently definitive), so I'm not sure what the argument would be or what you'd be asking said 'crat for. But like I said, I don't disagree that there doesn't look to be much WP:N for any of these guys, but as I considered whether or not to pursue their deletion, it seemed more straight forward to argue against the RM in this case since there obviously isn't any RS to prove the proposed Czech spellings; same factors that, in this case, likely support AfD under WP:N. ttyl — Who R you? Talk 03:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is no coincidence that I created those articles, as that is obviously why HandsomeFella chose those 10 for his RM nomination. They are, admittedly, stub articles, and I have no ownership over them. If you feel that they do not meet the notability standards for inclusion, wait until the RM has concluded, then feel free to follow the appropriate Deletion policy. And while you are looking at the deletion of stub ice hockey bios, you might also want to consider taking similar action on the thousands of one-line articles for identified asteroids,[9] then after that you might want to go after all those Bollywood/South Asian cinema related articles... Dolovis (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure to see the no ownership attitude on this; truly. Like you say, it seems logical to me that the RM finish before the AfD start; but, the lack of more English sources, which supports the AfD, also makes the RM harder to argue, but from what I remember of looking at these, there was the odd English source, all of whom, not surprisingly, supported English spelling. I guess we'll leave it Greg L to see if he wants to wait or nom for AfD at the same time. On some levels it could make sense to have both going on simultaneously so others can decide: a) "Is the guy notable?" and b) "If he is, what is the English name of this notable guy?; but we'll see what Greg L thinks.

And I suspect you're right, not just about HF's RM on Halmosi being covered by WP:POINT (which my post was already too long to comment on), but also about Darwinek's efforts being problematic for him under Fait accompli, IMO anyways; and if there's a similar situation demonstrating that (and I do think you'd need the repeat), I'd say the appropriate action might be to take him to ANI. If that's the case, by all means feel free to discuss w/me first, if you think it'd help to go over it and have a second opinion, and (if you think it'd help) I'd comment there as well (but let me review the supporting facts first if you'd like to know my opinion beforehand). Cheers — Who R you? Talk 05:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The asteroids topic should likely have sufficient English RS to support, (but I can't say I looked at them [maybe some other time]); you might well be right about the Bollywood articles since I wouldn't think many mainstream English publications cover them; but then again, India was a Commonwealth country with imposed official English, so there are no doubt many English publications being produced there, so then the question has to be are those sources "reliable" which then might mean a much more up-hill battle; I don't know about you, but personally, while I'm willing to go through a lot of hassles like these in hopes of making WP better (and I do believe these arguments are about making WP better), I don't enjoy all these discussions, bureaucratic processes, and battles every step of the way, and I'm certainly not looking for more of them.

Very well, Dolovis. Some thoughts:

Some editors claim (with “surfer dude” accent) as follows: “The English-language version of Wikipedia is the world’s encyclopedia, maaan!’. Yes, that is partly true. English is the “universal translator” language that is spoken as a second language by more people on this pale blue dot than any other. But the refrain of “world’s encyclopedia” is typically invoked when editors try to justify either embracing and honoring a cultural practice of their country (they want us to allow delimiting big numbers like this: 189.864,5) or they want the en.Wikipedia to include an article that is notable and of great interest to Mongolian yak herders but is of precious little interest to readers for whom English is their first language.
As wikipedians, we contribute to this project for a variety of personal reasons. But we don’t compromise the fundamental principle of our mission: to build the project so it better serves the interests of our readership. If there is only a snowball’s chance-in-hell of an English-speaking reader typing a subject into the search field, then it probably isn’t notable. An article about the Czech league could reasonably be of interest to some American, Canadian, British, Australian, and New Zealand readers who are avid hockey fans. But extrapolating that logic to “well, these players are on that league and maybe some readers will click the hyperlinks” is pushing it beyond the point of credibility. Hyperlinks are a convenience for our readership. But if a reader has near-zero chance of ever typing a player’s name into the search box, then all hyperlinks amount to is a vanity tool so a player can boost his bragging rights: “My article in the English-language Wikipedia is read eight whole times a day!” Sure, because six hapless readers per day click on a link wondering what the article looks like, and the editor responsible for the article checked in on the article twice that day to see if it’s been flagged for removal.

Seriously, Dolovis, would a print version of a Czech encyclopedia have an article on an individual Czech hockey player?? As for List of asteroids, we also have List of chemical elements. A detailed accounting of the items comprising a whole is sometimes of great value to students and researchers; perhaps someone has a hypothesis about the mean orbital period. When an article reads He played with HC Plzeň in the Czech Extraliga during the 2010–11 Czech Extraliga season, were you thinking an English-speaking researcher might be poring over each individual Czech hockey player to see what percentage had ever played in the 2010–11 Extraliga? Like I said, those ten articles wouldn’t even make it into a Slavic-language print encyclopedia. It is solidly the domain of Slavic-language hockey magazines. Greg L (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started an RfC with a motion to AfD all ten articles. Could you help by figuring out what sort of bot-tag to put at the top of that thing so the RfC gets posted in the proper place? Greg L (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now have that whole discussion as a centralized page that can be transcluded to the talk pages of all ten articles. Just do to all the others what I did, copy my motion under the == section, and put {{Talk:Dominik Halmosi/AfD discussion}} under the === subsection. Now we can have one single discussion thread to address all ten articles. As I wrote there recently, there is absolutely no point having the same discussion ten times. Greg L (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone pointed out this process to nominate multiple related pages for deletion. Can you help on this? Now that we already have a discussion ongoing, I’m sure there is a relatively painless way to ensure there we have provided a good and proper opportunity for wide participation in the discussion. Greg L (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind helping, but I don't intend to be the one doing the 10 actual nominations. And since you haven't actually nominated anything for deletion (i.e. added the AfD tag to the Article itself and created a sub-page for it at Articles for Deletion, I don't see that there's anything to be done on the other pages). Putting a note on their talk pages that there is a discussion which, regardless of outcome, can have no effect whatsoever, won't attract any attention and isn't worth creating. Even if the discussion you started actually decides something, even if everyone involved was convinced and unanimously agreed, it still wouldn't mean anything because the bureaucratic processes of WP don't delete anything without a lengthy AfD discussion. So absolute best case of your discussion is that you have the same discussion all over again with different participants. If you want to do steps I - III of How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion for Halmosi, I don't mind helping to add the templates to the other articles as per steps IV & V, but I'm not looking to be the one responsible for responding to every comment on the topic (which is pretty much what it seems to take if the closing admin is going to do anything more that rule a general non-consensus with a default to keep). From what I know of AfD, it's a pain in the ass waste of time where regardless of what the discussing editors decide the closing admin decides what they'd like to see and that's what happens. As for RfCs themselves, I don't think I've even looked at (other than perhaps a quick read when I first started editing) the overall process; about all I know of it is from the two month long hundreds of posts discussion at WP:V about changing the first sentence of the policy. I personally think of RfC as a method of locating the Wikipedians who are lonely and just want to talk about their thoughts and ideas as long as it doesn't actually affect anything or cause anything to happen, and a few people who want to change something and have no option but to pursue RfC in order to get an Admin to make the change or in order to not end up in an edit war over a change to something. But RfCs a not about deleting things, AfDs are. Meanwhile you'll notice the list of people supporting the move to non-English for these is growing. — Who R you? Talk 00:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, sometimes Wikipedia does dumb stuff. Let them. Greg L (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be wise to pay attention to the edit histories of the growing support. It would not be the first time that some editors have used meats and socks to push their agenda. Dolovis (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────┘

To AfD these

Ok, I finally got as far as reading through the AfD posts; and I'm not too surprised with some of their comments given the missing first step of having the big template on each article to say that a deletion discussion is taking place. But seeing, based on your comments there, that you obviously know as much about the details of AfD process as I do, I'll do some looking up and you can post the stuff and I'll try to help with responding to points in the AfD conversations once they start, but I'd say (as Masem eluded) you can expect to be swamped with comments making it a pain in the ass to commit the next week to doing nothing but arguing this thing. My understanding of the basic AfD process is:

1. Add " {{subst:afd1}} " as the first line of Dominik Halmosi with the Edit Summary: " AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominik Halmosi and 9 others]] " – (Not a minor edit; none of these are).

2. After saving the page, (the instructions say that) the tophat message should contain a link to "Preloaded Debate"; click it; this will bring you to the preformatted AfD discussion page.

3. Add your reasons; personally I'd say (in parts similar to more detail explanations to Dolovis elsewhere on my talk page) something like (and don't quote me but feel free to rephrase me

):

they don't belong on en.WP because, they aren't notable to English readers; besides no one reading these articles, no one is going to maintain them; the pages fail to meet the requirements of [[WP:N]], that there is no indication that these players have ever had significant coverage, which is a primary requirement of [[WP:GNG]]; further, these players don't realistically have a [[WP:SNOW]] chance of ever becoming notable, it's not that the articles could someday be expanded or that better sources might eventually be found to demonstrate the notability of these players, rather it's that these players have not yet progressed to a level where they are notable and, while they someday might, it is [[WP:NOT]] the role of WP to be a list of hockey players that potentially might someday be more notable than a small league which would, in most countries, constitute nothing more than a municipal league; the Czech league is, itself, only a [[IIHF World Ranking|fifth ranked league]] in the IIHF and therefore does not meet [[WP:NSPORTS]] requirements that a player have played in a ''"top level professional league"''; so even by the private standards maintained on the [[WP:NSPORTS|Notablity page]] by WP:Hockey, these 10 players fail to meet the bare minimum requirements necessary to have their own WP article.

Sign but Don't save yet.

4. After your reasons, the instructions (if I understand them correctly) say to add the following:

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here] of the reasons above?:
:{{la|Dominik Halmosi}}
:{{la|Jiri Hanzlik}}
:{{la|Jan Herman}}
:{{la|Martin Herman}}
:{{la|Jan Kovar}}
:{{la|Patrik Petruska}}
:{{la|Tomas Pitule}}
:{{la|Petr Prikryl}}
:{{la|Dan Ruzicka}}
:{{la|Jan Stransky}}

and Save that with the edit summary " Creating deletion discussion for [[Dominik Halmosi]] and 9 others ".

5. I would then add it again to the articles for deletion log, adding " {{subst:afd3 | pg=Dominik Halmosi and 9 others}} ", and save it with edit summary " Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominik Halmosi and 9 others]] ".

6. Then I would update your previous AfD entry, <s>strike</s> out your initial statement (and the title if it works) and just add a " <big>This AfD was relisted [[ cut & paste the shortcut to the new AfD discussion |here]]</big> ".

7. Lastly it's just a matter of editing the 9 other articles (Jiri Hanzlik, Jan Herman, Martin Herman, Jan Kovar, Patrik Petruska, Tomas Pitule, Petr Prikryl, Dan Ruzicka, Jan Stransky) and adding " {{subst:afd1|Dominik Halmosi and 9 others}} " to the very top of each article and saving each with the edit summary of " AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominik Halmosi and 9 others]] "

I'll do step 7 if you like, but the cut & paste seems fairly easy (though apparently the edit summaries are important as well so it involves switching back an forth 18 times (or edit all 9 articles simultaneously). Meanwhile, I'll post a comment on your existing thread suggesting that you relist at AfD. I hope this all helps. Cheers — Who R you? Talk 03:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or just use Twinkle (tab "xfd") and start an AfD for each - that would be the right way to do it as these players have different levels of experience which may be relevant on an individual basis. Dolovis (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly great for those that Twinkle works for; personally, I've selected the option for it in my Preferences / Gadgets but nothing appears any different (however WikiLove & other options like enhanced diff work, pretty much, without issue). Needless to say I haven't invested the time to try to resolve that yet. But hey, if you've got it, and it works, that sounds soooooo much easier! — Who R you? Talk 01:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Let's hope that the investment of all our individual time and effort in these numerous areas results in some long term improvement.

I use "my preferences" -> "appearance" -> "MonoBook", and the Twinkle tabs appear at the top of my page. P.S. - The 'Ales Hemsky' RM has closed and the article has been moved. My nominations are now 3 for 3. Seems that our valid policy arguments are starting to make a difference. I will continue to select NHL players who have established a commonly used English name for future RMs. Dolovis (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the Hemsky move; the edit conflict as I was trying to save my comments told me

; pisses me off to have wasted my time writing an (of course long) support justification; but nice to see that it wasn't needed (but why couldn't that have happened ½ hr earlier? [oh well; c'est la vie!])
If you find two or three appropriate candidates, where the RS all point to the English spelling (but of course if the majority of the English RS points to a spelling with diacritics the article title should reflect that), but if you find appropriate candidates, I think it might be appropriate to do a {{ multi-move }}; but you're the nominator on these Hockey articles, so it's obviously up to you. I notice Kauffner has had several on the pending list (I've never checked to see if he's actually RMed any of them, but assuming he hasn't yet, I'd think it's appropriate for him to put one or two up while you spend a couple days locating and verifying sources on suitable Hockey candidates. Agreed? If so, you or I can post a note on his talk page. And BTW; nice job. — Who R you? Talk 03:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'll try the monobook thing (I've always stuck with the default Vector except for a few test things); Thx.

I just left a message for Kauffner too. — Who R you? Talk 03:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on hockey names

Yet another RFC discussion has been started at [10]. Dolovis (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Commented. — Who R you? Talk 03:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stay focused

My interest is in promoting the guideline of WP:Naming conventions (use English) and in enforcing the policy of WP:Article titles (which includes WP:COMMONNAME). I believe in the policy of WP:NOTPAPER, and if you were to label me as an inclusionist I would not be offended. I created those articles because those hockey players are playing professionally in the Elite European Leagues, and it is my opinion (shared by others) that they are notable as elite level professional athletes. I think it is unfortunate that Greg wants to muddy the on-going RM with his side-issue, and if this talk page wants to bog itself down in deletionist issues, then I will likely make the choice to not involve myself. However, if the intent is to focus on the issue of enforcing WP:UCN, that is, to use as the article's title the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources, then let's stay focused on the task at hand, and get the job done. Dolovis (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am, and I believe Greg L is, equally concerned about ensuring that the policies for naming articles on en.WP are followed, particularly in this area; but I also think, as is my sense of Greg's position here, that there are other important factors which all contribute towards creating the best possible English encyclopedia for English readers. I totally agree with Greg, and WP's consensus policies, that the inclusion of trivial information should be strongly discouraged; part of the problem being that no one is ever going to update the meaningless little articles, so the site will simply continue to bloat with more and more out-of-date, inaccurate, trivial, meaningless information until it comes to the point where viewing a random article (a feature which we offer and, I assume, promote) is more likely to bring you to something inaccurate and a general waste of time than it is to provide you a new and undiscovered bit of knowledge.

The problem, from my POV, is that a league from a small country of 10½ million does not represent anything notable; it is the equivalent of providing articles for players from a New York City Hockey League from a city of 8 million or a New York City Metropolitan Hockey League from a population of almost 19 million, (although I see there is an article for the New York City Gay Hockey Association, but I just assume that there aren't WP articles for each of the players). People from these size leagues just don't represent the best of the best, they're drawn from too small of a source population, and therefore they aren't notable; and, of course, some of them will go on to be drafted by the NHL or an elite European team drawn from a large pool of potential European players and thus become notable, but the individual players in the Czech league are no more notable than the individual players in any other regional league.

But you're right, we should be focusing primarily on issues of article naming if we want to correct the issue. And in that vain, I created the WikiProject English pages to hopefully allow us to have somewhere to collectively discuss these issues, and to pool our resources to come up with potential solutions. So if I might suggest that we start having conversations on the main WP:Talk English talk page of the WikiProject, we can try to keep concentrating on the rest of these countless problem articles. I had hoped to draw other editors, similarly concerned about the issues, to join the project, but at this point I'm the only member so it seems a little unlikely that anyone else, who hasn't already chimed in on the topic, is going to want to become involved. Perhaps you guys would care you join the club as well. — Who R you? Talk 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject English

BTW, you do realize that WikiProject memberships aren't restricted. So, don't be surprised if a bunch of pro-dios editors join the membership -- in order to sink it. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed they would, and we'd just have to ignore them. — Who R you? Talk 02:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject English

Wikipedia:WikiProject English, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject English and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject English during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Reso lute 02:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who R you. Ya gotta 'delete' the "F--K YOU" from your post at the Deletion nomination page 'or' you'll surely be blocked. Take if from an old pro, loosing your cool may feel good, but it won't help ya on the 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the concern and advise, really; but if the choice is being blocked or putting up with censorship; I'll gladly request (or self-impose) a lifetime ban. Meanwhile I'm trying to concentrate on wasting my time and efforts on commenting on (at this point the RfC conversation) rather than worrying about asinine crap like that. I came to realize very early on that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy, where a bunch of wannabe's, who are likely scared of their own shadows in the real world, get off on acting tough and pulling shit, manipulating a bureaucratic system for the sole purpose of irritating people and wasting their time. It makes that type of cowardly little twerp feel tough because they can do stuff that they know they'd never get away with in the real world. I, on the other hand, am the guy that never accepts this kind of BS in the real world, and if the options are to either accept it here in Wiki-Land or not be allowed in Wiki-Land, I choose the latter without so much as a second thought. I can certainly have a more enjoyable time playing 'Solitaire' on the computer that I can here, I invest my time here only in the hopes of some minor/miniscule contribution and benefit to the project, but if the price of that is accepting a communistic utopea complete with wet-behind-the-ears overlords that will decide my fate, I'll pick up a gun! But, truly, thanks for the advise. — Who R you? Talk 03:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Do vote to Keep though if you haven't already, (I'm just assuming that you think the WikiProject's worth keeping).

I've alredy voted to 'keep'. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I thought you might have, but I haven't been back to the page since. I, like most, usually prefer to just avoid that which pisses me off, which most often seems to be Wikipedia. On the other hand I get to interact, at least on a superficial level, with some interesting people like yourself, and the rest of the crew at WPrj:English, and occasionally the odd other person as well; so, as with everything in life, there's good & bad. But we'll just see what comes of this over the next 7 days or so and, in the meantime, keep trying to concentrate on all these RMs, the RfC, etc. Just have faith that whatever is supposed to happen will happen. And meanwhile, maybe I'll post something at the Village Pump to see if others in the community support freedom. But obviously that'll depend on how many are put off by my FU comment, but so it. — Who R you? Talk 04:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you get yourself indef-blocked or topic-banned, you'll only be taking yourself out of the diacritics debate. Then there'll be 1 less editor to uphold the usage of english sources & limiting of diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact is that I care far less about the diacritic debate that I do about freedom of speech. Not that I don't want to see the diacritics problem resolved; I most certainly do; but if that means having to grovel and beg and spend another week wasting my time in a discussion at MfD or ANI or wherever because Resolute or other WP:Hockey members know that they can abuse the system and my only option is to deal with the uselessness of ANI, whose attitude is calm them down and get them talking and get them to fuck off and leave us alone, is about the equivalent of global legal systems and other useless bureaucracies. I certainly don't need WP anymore than it needs me, but if I've got to accept this kind of crap then, like I said, I'd rather play Solitare and chat on blogs, it's more productive.
I doubt I've done more than five edits (and those would have only been vandalism reversion) in the last two weeks that weren't related to an absurd never ending argument on diacritics, instead I should now waste my time arguing at MfD or ANI, Wikipedia just isn't worth it. Once the project pages get deleted, just get an admin to restore them into someone's user space and you guys can use them there — Hell, just move the development copies in my user space over to someone else's space (or use them where they are).
Reality is that scum are always around to abuse the process and whine and complain how they aren't treated nicely by the people they're fucking over, I'm getting mighty fed up dealing with those types; and I end up having to deal with them, instead of you guys, because they've learned how to work the system to simply keep wasting people's time and efforts in bureaucratic processes. And with the msg below, it doesn't fucking matter any more (I was going to at least take away either the <big> or the ''' bold ''' with an edit summary something like 'because one of the guys asked me to', but it makes no difference now) and so I'd rather just let the next week count down and then find something else to occupy my time. Sorry as I can understand that that's not the answer that you guys were looking for. — Who R you? Talk 06:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, mon ami. You did not disappoint. It's exactly the answer I was looking for. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to apparently take offence while stalking someone elses talk page is quite something. — Who R you? Talk 06:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had quite enough of your rants and your abuse. Please refer to this thread I opened at ANI. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't go looking the hassles nor will I run from them. But regardless, the comment was not then and is not now directed at anyone other than who it says. If I meant to aim it otherwise I certainly would have. But I am not looking for fights, rather for change in the direction things appear to have gone and be going; unfortunately others seem to disagree and than leads to confrontation. But with the exception of what ends up appearing to me like blatant abuse of process, I hope I'm pretty good at not quite crossing that NPA line; I'm certainly trying to stay on the right side of it; notwithstanding the sensibilities of some others ↓. Cheers (and thanks for the warning) — Who R you? Talk 06:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to say that again please, and louder and in a more prominent place? The Czech bacteria must have affected my hearing ;-) I'm not baiting you, just wanted to give you the opportunity to withdraw your most blatant personal attack. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject English

You seem to be mistaken about the purpose of the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject English. That specific page is not the correct venue for discussing the use of diacritics in article titles. Please take up the issue in a more appropriate venue, which I suspect would be WP:UE or WP:TITLE or something like that. You've left several walls of text which are ultimately unrelated to the matter of deleting or keeping the WikiProject in question. The closing administrator is unlikely to give any weight to non-sequitur arguments not related to deleting or keeping the page. Additionally, once you have "voted" in the discussion, additional comments which are largely identical to your previous comments have diminishing returns. Please consider letting the debate run its natural course, instead of trying to overwhelm the debate by the sheer volume of your comments. It is unhelpful, and its starting to get a little disruptive. If you have nothing additional to add to the discussion, about the specific topic of the discussion, please don't. --Jayron32 14:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the discussion is to delete my work and, more importantly, to stifle my ability to communicate and work collaboratively with others on what is viewed as harmful and damaging to the encyclopedia, I rather tend to take it as my responsibility to defend my work and explain the reality of the situation; as opposed to leaving it to the same small group of foreign editors who stalk the WP:UE and related pages and go after who ever doesn't submit to their opinions on the topic. Seeing as numerous other users, who had nothing to do with the project, have also made large numbers of posts on the MfD, I assume if I bother to check I'll find similar messages from you on their talk pages asking them to not comment; or have you reserved your suggestion to STFU for me alone? — Who R you? Talk 00:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may consider this your only warning for violations of our no personal attacks policy at the debate; I'd advise you to read WP:FREE for your enlightenment. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Run for Arbcom!

The deadline is Monday. Let the MfD take care of itself. Kauffner (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there's major time commitment; don't know that I could GUARANTEE to meet that; and I don't see me being in a lot of peoples good books (I assume it's a popularity contest to get in). I saw the Ad, but really didn't think it was me though?!? I'll read a little about it though. — Who R you? Talk 08:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just being a candidate gives you a platform. Illegitimi non carborundum. Kauffner (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD

I thought you would be interested in this talk page post (∆ edit). Greg L (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Screen Shot of User talk·Whatamidoing.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screen Shot of User talk·Whatamidoing.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed election templates

Hello, I am torn about these electoral result tables and their inclusion in articles about politicians. Aesthetically speaking they tend to unbalance the look and detract from the text of the article. In terms of information and its relevance to the article they are largely useless trivia. That is why I prefer that they start as collapsed when the article is opened. A reader will not be automatically drawn to them (IMO). That said, I do agree with you that they are pertinent to the riding articles and should be initially in an uncollapsed state. I don't know of way to change the behaviour of these tables based on the article. Do you have any suggestions? EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EncyclopediaUpdaticus:I hear where you're coming from. It is possible to change the setup so that they can be set to collapse in politician's articles but not in the ridings; but I'm not sure I agree with you conceptually that they're distracting/trivial or that that's the way to go. I'm one of those people that gleans more info from a quick glance at a table of numbers than a wall of prose, so I'm biased that way; but I think the fact that the “Electoral record” is generally the last section in an article (before the references), means readers can easily ignore the stats at the bottom of the page, so to speak. I guess I'm inclined to see what others feel is most aesthetically pleasing and functional. Are there other editors you've dealt with often on Cdn Politics pages that might want to chime in? Should we have the discussion here or elsewhere? Cheers — Who R you? Talk 18:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued at Use of “Election results” tables in politician articles.

Swing

Hi, the swing is calculated as the average difference between the top two parties (or the party that won vs. the party that previously held the seat if that is the case). See: Swing (United Kingdom). Easiest way to calculate it is (x+-y)/2 -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued at Calculation of Swing.

Electoral districts

You're wrong about what Wikipedia's standard practice is. Provincial electoral districts do not automatically go at "(provincial electoral district)" regardless of any ambiguities about their title. Rather, a provincial electoral district gets the "provincial" added to its title only if there is also a federal electoral district competing for the same name. Any article always goes at the shortest possible title that does not conflict with other meanings, and so the rules are as follows:

If the electoral district's name is unique, then the article goes at just "Name" regardless of which level of government it serves.
If the electoral district's name is not unique, but another electoral district is not one of the competitors for its name, then the article goes at "Name (electoral district)" regardless of which level of government it serves.
When there are both federal and provincial electoral districts with the same name, then and only then does the provincial district get bumped down to "Name (provincial electoral district)".

Hope that helps a bit in the future. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat:Thanks for the msg; but in the case of Ontario's electoral districts, with the exception of the few northern ones, the only reason a "Name (electoral district)" for the federal riding doesn't exist is because it hasn't been created yet. Regardless, the riding names are (currently anyways, and with a few exceptions) the same; and as one looks through the various articles at their links, there are all kinds of incorrect links with articles referring to provincial ridings while linking to federal articles, and references to federal ridings that incorrectly link to provincial articles because that particular federal ridings article hasn't been created (probably because an article named "xyz (electoral district)" exists where the federal riding's article would normally be created). I didn't claim it was policy; rather, standard practice, which I'd still submit is the case. I don't believe the 1,2,3 reflects policy or consensus. Niagara Falls is the city or region article (should one exist), Niagara Falls (electoral district) is the federal riding, and Niagara Falls (provincial electoral district) is the provincial riding; which is pretty standard across the board except for a few provincial ridings that are (inappropriately) under the "(electoral district)" name, plus a few rarities (like St. George (Ontario provincial electoral district) where even "(provincial electoral district)" is not sufficiently unique to distinguish. The point of the article name is to inform, classify, and make information easier to locate, not to save a couple keystrokes. Cheers — Who R you? Talk 00:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that prior to 1999, federal and provincial electoral districts did not have to correspond, and so many provincial electoral districts that existed prior to that year never had a same-named federal analogue at all — and yet you moved many articles (e.g. Sturgeon Falls, Oakwood, etc.) that were in that class, and thus had no ambiguity issues to resolve. And no, the point of the article title is not to provide any information about the subject beyond the absolute minimum necessary to ensure that its title is not in conflict with another topic — it's the body of the article, not the title, that's meant to inform, classify or educate the reader; the title's only job is to provide the article with a location, and the rule is that we always use the shortest possible name that doesn't present a conflict with another topic. (Just as another example, the current Prime Minister's article is located at Stephen Harper — not at "Stephen Harper (Prime Minister of Canada)", which is what it would have to be if the job of the title were to act according to your interpretation.) Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: WP:NAMINGCRITERIA Recognizability – Precision – Consistency — I've seen your user name in enough other places to know you know what you're doing, please don't expect me to go off and read the policies for you and then spoon feed you the relevant parts; I've no doubt you're capable of finding these references for yourself. On the other hand; if I went overboard with Oakwood, etc; then my apologies, but when you're reading through dozens of electoral district related articles, and when the difference between finding the same reference, over-and-over again, and following the link to verify that it is, in fact, the provincial article that it is supposed to be and that the article's title doesn't claim it to be, versus simply moving it to the standard provincial name so that it is, forevermore fixed and will never lead to further confusion or question, my preference is to make the move per Consistency. Cheers — Who R you? Talk 01:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As for what Harper's article name should be, I won't get into that

cheers.

Wikipedia's naming criteria do not require us to preemptively disambiguate all titles in a class, even if their names aren't ambiguous at all, just so that the entire class has identically-formatted titles; they only require us to have a rule that is internally consistent with itself, which the three points I outlined above satisfy completely. The only thing the "consistency" rule, for example, required us to do was to make a decision between "electoral district" and "riding" for the cases where disambiguation was necessary; it does not require us to ensure that every electoral district has the words "electoral district" (or "provincial electoral district") in its title regardless of whether there are actually any other topics competing for its name or not. We only disambiguate articles when another topic is actually in conflict for the title — but it's explicitly stated right in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA that the standard rule is that every article always gets the simplest, least disambiguated title that it can be given without creating a naming conflict with another topic (which is why an article only gets bumped down to "provincial electoral district" if there's actually a federal district of the same name, and not if it's the only electoral district in the naming mix.) Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Then I guess the logical thing would be to move them all to "Name (Ontario riding)" which will be shorter and more concise (but I don't really want to do 200+ moves plus thousands of related edits). But I also simply don't want to waste time & bandwidth following links in every article in order to discover which ones are wrong in order to fix them… so I guess the easiest for me is just to leave them wrong and spend my time elsewhere. — Who R you? Talk 01:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trinity—Spadina (provincial electoral district), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CBC and CTV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Election

Hello. I see you are really anxious to update the articles about ontario provincial politics. However, for many of the changes, I think we should wait until the swearing of the MPPs by the lieutenant governor. The candidates who were elected tonight are not MPPs yet, they have to be sworn in the legislature. So the update you made to the Ontario Legislature standings template, for an example, are not official yet. Votre pseudonyme ici (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OntMPP template and bloc voting

Hello again! Your OntMPP template is great, and I've adapted it into the copy-cat templates of CanMP and NB-MLA. While doing so, I ran into a stumbling block: some ridings in the past were using bloc voting systems, electing 2, 3, up to 5 members at a time. I worked around this by using the Col-2 template, but it's clunky, it repeats the assemblies and years, and they don't line up as well as I had hoped. Please see Victoria (electoral district) and Albert (provincial electoral district) to see what I mean. I don't understand the programming architecture well enough to affect the necessary changes, so I was wondering if maybe you knew of a way? Thanks! FUNgus guy (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There don't seem to be any differences between Template:OntMPP and Template:NB-MLA other than the  (and the template names); if that's the case, it should probably be just set up as a pair of redirects with the comments removed from some common code.

It looks like the only difference in the Template:CanMP (other than those same comments) is replacement of “Assembly” with “Parliament” in the titles; in that case, it should probably just be some parameter to flag that the description used in the title should change.

I take it, other than those things, you're envisioning a format similar to:

Assembly	Years	Member		Party	Member		Party
38th	1935 – 1939		Fredrick Colpitts	Liberal		Harry O. Downey	Liberal
39th	1939 – 1944		A. Russell Colpitts	Liberal		Harry O. Downey	Liberal

with support for up to 5 sets of columns (although that may not fit well on the screen, but is presumably very rare). Should be doable, but it'll need a fair number of mods. I'll look at making the changes. — Who R you? Talk 04:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for entertaining my ideas! That is exactly what I had envisioned. And yes, that is how I copy-cat copied your template to Canada and NB. Now that I see what you've made (and hear your concerns), maybe we could have a provision to shorten the party names for >2 member bloc ridings (Lib, PC, NDP), and perhaps a darker line between members to differentiate them. Thanks again for your help, this is great stuff. FUNgus guy (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, while I haven't ever actually tracked down the necessary information to fill in all of the MLA information, I've done a few of Prince Edward Island's old dual member electoral districts in the past (6th Queens) — and you'll find that I did them in basically almost exactly the chart format that you're suggesting above (slight coding differences, but exactly the identical basic idea.) So feel free to copy and paste from there too if desired. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your input! I have started with the bloc voting ridings of New Brunswick, you can see the results thus far at Albert (1846-1973 electoral district) (2-member), Carleton (1834-1974 electoral district) (2-3 member) and Charlotte (1785-1974 electoral district) (4!-member). They look great, if I may say so. Any comments/concerns would be welcomed. FUNgus guy (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Karygiannis

I just saw your question at Template talk:Infobox officeholder about the infobox on Jim Karygiannis. You didn't get a very helpful or productive answer there, so I just wanted to let you know that the infobox actually already has the ability to do exactly what you asked for. If the person has been elected but has not yet taken office, what you actually want to do is replace the "predecessor# =" field for that office with "succeeding# =" instead, and the infobox will automatically switch the wording from "assumed office" to "taking office".

And then of course, on December 1 once he's been sworn in you can go back and switch it from "succeeding# =" back to "predecessor# =" again, so that the wording switches back to "assumed" and the incumbent flag turns on.

So, yeah, I just wanted to let you know that the functionality you asked for already exists. It's actually always existed — so I'm really quite shocked and surprised that nobody who responded to you was aware of that. Bearcat (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: That kind of defeats my purpose of suggesting the change, to have the computer do the time-based mindless work rather than creating make-work projects for editors; but, as I said in the template talk page, it isn't that vital and I leave it to others to arrive at a consensus on the issue. Thanks for the input though. Cheers — Who R you? Talk 20:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:From-To

Template:From-To has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Alakzi (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ontario Libertarian Party new small logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ontario Libertarian Party new small logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Election term dates

Different countries have different rules about how their election processes work, so "date of the election" isn't a universal transnational consensus that would have been discussed at Template talk:Infobox officeholder — each country has to have its own country-specific consensus, particular to its own circumstances and its own form of government. For example, the US Congress isn't "dissolved" prior to a congressional election, and in fact the outgoing Congress (including the defeated or retiring congresspeople) still holds caretaker meetings for a full two months after election day — so the US uses the January date for the installation of the new Congress, not the election date, because the outgoing incumbents actually still hold the office for several weeks after the election is over. But conversely, both the UK and Australia follow the same rule as we do, using the election date itself as their systems work much more like ours does. The Canadian consensus, accordingly, was established in Canadian venues — mainly the talk pages of a few specific MPs where a dispute was raised about which date should be used — rather than the talk page of the template itself.

I don't remember who the specific MPs were, but the consensus is documented at WP:CANSTYLE#Terms in office if you want to link to a supporting document. The other caution to be aware of is that the rule only applies to "MP (MPP/MLA/MHA/MNA) for Specific Riding" offices — for an executive position such as the Prime Minister or Premier, we wait until their official swearing-in after the election date (e.g. Justin Trudeau still isn't actually the new PM until tomorrow, and does not have his term in that role denoted as beginning on October 19.)

Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 3 November 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) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I quote your post above: "Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not". What "illegitimate" use do you accuse of? Has any article, comment, talk page, or topic ever been edited by both accounts? No, it hasn't. Identify just one example of illegitimate activity. But of course there isn't any.

I used "Who R you?" until I got so p'd-off with the bs games of wikipedia (an arbitrary unjustified block proves the point) and had no wish to ever return. 1½ years later, I found issues with an article & created Wikierroneous to fix them, but given the childish crap that takes place in the rest of the WP environment, I had no intention of having talk page discussions on anything. 7 months later there were articles that had previously been edited with this account that needed updating so I used it for those changes in order to adhere with the rules against sockpuppetry. Once again, the defect in WP shows itself, where people who enjoy the thrill of the illusion of meaningless power can't even be competent enough to exercise that power properly, instead expecting others to waste their time justifying themselves, sufficient to placate the ego of someone with admin rights. There's a reason every western nation's Constitution precludes the need for people to defend themselves without a the accuser first making out their case; but, of course, WP most closely resembles an aristocratic dictatorship. And to think, Wikimedia spends money trying to determine why so many leave WP. — Who R you? Talk 07:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC) cc:User talk:Wikierroneous[reply]

Your comment here pretty much describes point #6 to a tee. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. And since you challenged them to find just one example Alok Mukherjee. -DJSasso (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:WPrj:Eng/Member

Template:WPrj:Eng/Member has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Who R you?. 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]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Canadian monarch, current/core

Template:Canadian monarch, current/core has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Canadian politics/candlist row

Template:Canadian politics/candlist row has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]