Fly by Night (talk | contribs) →Edit war: new section |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
== Ice Hockey Players == |
== Ice Hockey Players == |
||
Hello there. I noticed that you've been very busy making new articles about ice hockey players. At the moment these are all stub article with very little content. The only notability of any of the players seems to be that they all played for [[HC Litvínov]]. I would suggest that these stubs be merged into that club's article. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">— [[User:Fly by Night|<span style="font-family:Segoe print">'''''Fly by Night'''''</span>]] <font color="#000000">([[User talk:Fly by Night|<span style="font-family:Segoe print">talk</span>]])</font></span> 14:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
Hello there. I noticed that you've been very busy making new articles about ice hockey players. At the moment these are all stub article with very little content. The only notability of any of the players seems to be that they all played for [[HC Litvínov]]. I would suggest that these stubs be merged into that club's article. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">— [[User:Fly by Night|<span style="font-family:Segoe print">'''''Fly by Night'''''</span>]] <font color="#000000">([[User talk:Fly by Night|<span style="font-family:Segoe print">talk</span>]])</font></span> 14:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
: Thank you for taking an interest in the articles that I have created. Please know that hockey players who have played in the [[Czech Extraliga]] meet the first criteria of [[WP:NHOCKEY]] and are therefore deemed notable for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. [[WP:MERGE|Merging]] should be avoided as stub articles about notable ice hockey players can be expanded. Cheers. [[User:Dolovis|Dolovis]] ([[User talk:Dolovis#top|talk]]) 14:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:00, 17 June 2011
Hi there! This is my talk page, and I do hope that you will leave me a pleasant message to help make my day a bit brighter. I am open to hearing your constructive comments concerning my editing, but like all humans on this planet, I am more likely to take your comments to heart if they are written in a civil and polite tone. If you have come here to harass or bait me, please don't. If I do not want to respond to your message I won't. Don't take it personally. This is my talk page, so I will choose which discussions will continue, and which discussions will not. If you have been asked to stay off my talk page, then I ask that you respect my right to do so, and to refrain from posting your comments here. On a similar note, please don't censor my talk page. Just because you don't support what someone is saying is no reason to remove it. However, if it is clear and obvious vandalism, then please feel free to do it. That's not censorship, that's a neighbour looking out for its community, and I thank you for taking it on. A non-abusive heads-up on the antics of the contributor would still be appreciated, and even then, it may be better to just leave me to clean up my own page. You take care now, y'hear? Dolovis (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
One-line stubs
It isn't useful to create one-line stubs that state "X played for Y at the 20xx IIHF World Championship". A reader would click on a link hoping to find more information on the player; this sort of one-line stub defeats the purpose, as it is redundant to the team page. If the reader searches for the item, then that information would be better conveyed by the team page. All of this would not be as problematic if your creations didn't have to prodded (correctly!) for lack of sourcing, and then renamed, or they required other basic fixes. Wikipedia has more than enough biographies of marginally notable people that are underwatched, and adding such BLPs, which are one line long and unsourced, makes this problem worse. Maxim(talk) 21:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- The basic concept of creating a stub article is to provide adequate context for other editors to expand upon. Please feel free to build upon the ice hockey article's as you find the time and inclination. Dolovis (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think you undestand WP:BLP, and consequently, the ethical issues with creating an underwatched substub that is unlikely to be expanded, on a marginally notable athlete, which is freely editable and most likely one of the top Google hits on the person in question. You really shouldn't be editing biographies of living people if my previous assumptions are correct. Maxim(talk) 00:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This isn't the first time that this problem has been brought to your attention. These one sentence sub-stubs are not beneficial to the project, are very unlikely to be expanded - god knows you'll never do it - and show only that you can read the roster page on the IIHF's website. Since polite discourse has failed to yield any results, I have therefore deleted your latest batch of sub-stub BLPs per WP:IAR. If you wish to find sources to re-create viable articles, feel free to do so, but for the benefit of Wikipedia, take the effort to do a reasonable job of it yourself. Don't try to download the work of creating viable stubs to other editors. Resolute 00:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Given these concerns from multiple users about this user creating one-line stubs, I have revoked autopatrolled privileges to ensure the normal review process of new articles created by this user. Toddst1 (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Diacritics in ice hockey artcles
I don't mean to bother you, but I think you're somewhat misguided about diacritics. I've seen the discussions up top and I've read your points, but those policies/guidelines do not represent what is actually occuring. Wikipedia policies are descriptive, and not prescriptive, so while on the letter of them the diacritic-less titles might well be correct, the reality is that they seem to be universally used; for example, in hockey, as far as I remember individual player pages have always been with diacritics. While the actual rule may be contradictory to the status quo, its intent (consistency) would be best implemented if article titles weren't named against the status quo. Maxim(talk) 22:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are correct in that there are a small group of dedicated editors who have been spending their efforts to wilfully ignore and supplant the existing wiki-policies concerning the use of diacritics in articles. It does not follow, however, that such insurgent tactics have resulted in re-setting the status quo. And, with respect, your memory is clearly faulty concerning the use of diacritics in individual player's pages. Allow me to refresh your memory by quoting the Guideline in a Nutshell from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey): “Hockey article titles should use the most common spelling in English as described by reputable reference books and media outlets. In most cases this means the omission of diacritics and other characters not commonly found in English.” Dolovis (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- You do see that that page is marked as historical right? Because it was supplanted by a new consensus to use them. A very great many things on that page are very out of date including things like naming articles Joe "Smoking Gun" Smith. You have had a number of editors on both sides of the issue show you the current consensus on the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Dolovis, please see Wikipedia:HOCKEY#Wikiproject_notice. You've brought two threads to AN/I that went against you, and you're continuing to try to unilaterally get your own way. For hockey articles, all player pages get diacritics. This has been the status quo ever since this dios problem was resolved. Darwinek brought a similar threat to WT:HOCKEY lately, again, it was in favour of status quo. The onus is on you to change the current practice -- you are the one use renegade tactics. With this in mind, I would be interested in a reason to not revert your most recent page moves, that excludes the nonsense from my talkpage. Maxim(talk) 00:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- The moves were reverted for the reason given in the edit summary, which is to invoke the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. This is the English Wikipedia, and according to the policy of WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), this article does not use the subject's name as it might be spelled in non-English languages as its article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. You have failed to find any reliable source to verify your preferred form of name. If you wish to pursue this matter the process it outlines at WP:BRD. Dolovis (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Continued WP:POINT moves like you have been making will eventually land you blocked. You have been shown the community consensus to use diacritics on hockey articles. Yet you continue to move them against the consensus of the community and you do so by trying to sneak them by using db-author to delete and recreate articles and placing them as uncontentious moves when they clearly are. Such actions are likely sanction-able. You have had numerous users tell you to stop. At both of the ANI reports you tried to make and at the hockey project and by many uninvolved editors on your talk page. Maybe its time to stop and think gee maybe its you that is against consensus when you keep seeing everyone disagree with you. Using or not using diacritics doesn't change that the name is still the common name. Really considering you were creating articles with them awhile ago yourself it makes no sense why you are suddenly so anti-diacritics other than to try and cause trouble or to make a WP:POINT. -DJSasso (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- The moves were reverted for the reason given in the edit summary, which is to invoke the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. This is the English Wikipedia, and according to the policy of WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), this article does not use the subject's name as it might be spelled in non-English languages as its article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. You have failed to find any reliable source to verify your preferred form of name. If you wish to pursue this matter the process it outlines at WP:BRD. Dolovis (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Howdy Dolovis. Nobody hates the usage of those non-english symbols, anymore then I do. But, you are heading towards a block, by not abiding by the NHL players page agreement at WP:HOCKEY. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- You're not being reasonable Dolovis. You know full well that setting up multiple discussions at various talk pages won't help to resolve the issue. You should also be fully aware that you moved a dozen pages after a number of editors pointed out the current agreement about hockey players. If you want to reexamine this agreement, then make your case at that central location instead of creating twenty small-scale fights. Pichpich (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Howdy Dolovis. Nobody hates the usage of those non-english symbols, anymore then I do. But, you are heading towards a block, by not abiding by the NHL players page agreement at WP:HOCKEY. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Dolovis. I have reverted your last moves since you have not provided an acceptable explanation. To change the status quo, you are the one that has to initiate discussion at WT:HOCKEY or similar. Unilateral moves, in face of numerous objections from both sides of the debate, are not the solution. Maxim(talk) 17:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Revert explanation
I had to revert some of your edits to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) because you removed large part of several sections. I've noticed you tried to fix it yourself, but unfortunately, you did not. Feel free to check if there is anything you would like restored from the edits I was forced to revert. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Dolovis, Thank you so much for capturing a few Van Gogh articles about the Old Tower at Nuenen that needed to be redirected. Very much appreciated!!! I've not seen anything about bolding titles of paintings in the WP:VAMOS or in practice. Just so I better understand going forward, did you bold the names of the paintings in Old Church Tower at Nuenen ('The Peasants' Churchyard') image captions because of the redirect? Another reason? Thanks again!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Good work on the Old Tower article! It is a very effective way of organizing the information for these paintings. From my observations, it is common practice to bold the titles that are redirects. I do not know if this practice is suggested is in the manual of style or not, but I think that it improves the appearance of the article, and also assists the reader who may have found the article by way of the redirect. Dolovis (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, makes sense. We'll see if one of the VA editors disagrees, but it does catch your eye.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
2011-12 team Hockey seasons
Hey, great to see someone else working on these with me. Could you please leave the player signings at the bottom of the transactions sections so we keep the seasons looking uniform? It was like this at least the 3 previous seasons, so let's try to keep it that way. Also when using a signing reference, could we please try to use the team's official website? "team.nhl.com" That way we aren't sending people to many different websites if they want to look at the reference. Appreciate the fact that someone else is doing it with me, I've definitely felt like I've been working alone on these pages! Thanks! Piemann16 (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am happy to collaborate with you to keep the teams' current season pages updated. It is my opinion that putting the Player Signing at the top of the Transactions section makes logical sense, as this section will (hopefully) provide a comprehensive and chronological list of all of the team's signings throughout the year - with the transactions below it breaking the signing down by type of signings as appropriate (such as Free Agent signings). If uniformity is your only concern, then previous season's article can also be edited to conform. As for references, while team.nhl.com does often provide a Press Release for signings, other sources may also provide the required verifiability, with the additional benefit of potentially providing additional editorial information that may not be included within the standard NHL press release. There is no reason why we should not include more than one source if available. Cheers! Dolovis (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Definitely see what you're saying about the multiple sources, I've been using the "Player signings" section as a place to list signings of prospects or re-signings of players that were previously under contract with the team, the seperating and free agent signings in the free agent section rather than listing the signings twice. I guess it's all up to personal preference, so since I've been the main editor for a few seasons that's how I saw it, but now with more people working on it, it surely could be a topic to bring up to a possible vote or something like that. Piemann16 (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Are you saying that you are open to my idea of moving the player signings to the top of the Transactions list? If so, I will continue to put the player signings in chronological order at the top, and to establish a uniform template for all the teams for the 2011-12 season. It is easier to decide upon a format now and add to it, then it will be to try to update multiple articles to conformity at a later date after numerous signings have been listed. I look forward to your continued feedback. Dolovis (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would prefer to keep the player singings at the bottom (have it going trades, then free agents acquired/lost next to each other, then the waivers, then player signings) and only including the prospects and re-singings in that "Player signings" section if you are ok with it, keeping any free agent signings seperate (maybe adding a date category to that section). I think keeping it this way (as I have done in the previous 2-3 seasons of team season pages) would be less work on both of us and I feel like it looks nice on the previous seasons. Again, nice to see passion about keeping these season articles going strong and I am definitely open to suggestions/changes! Piemann16 (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The article Eric Gryba has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable hockey player. Less than 100 AHL games, no major awards, not a first round draft pick, no press coverage beyond routine mentions that he was in the lineup.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
Speedy deletion nomination of Winnipeg NHL Team
A tag has been placed on Winnipeg NHL Team, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria 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," 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 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. Dr. Pizza (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have userfied it here because yes, irrefutable, but not done yet. Your work will be useful over the next week. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know how major Wikipedia edits work, but I knew in general that there is no Winnipeg team yet. Thats all. It wasn't anything against you. :) But If it wasn't me, someone else would have. So i apologize for coming off like a newbie. But this place goes by facts, not speculation. And that was my own Criteria that i went by.--Dr. Pizza (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Appropriate notification
- If you think that my edits are quick, perhaps you should look into getting a faster Internet connection for your own computer. I did not use any bot or automated editor, if that is what you are asking. I gave appropriate notification to those editors who had contributed to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Following the edit history for the article, I made the limited posting that was neutral, nonpartisan, and open. Dolovis (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The article Michal Jordan has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. USA1168 (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Winnipeg NHL team
I should be around when the announcement happens, so if there is a need for some moves and redirect deletes (should they go with Moose or Jets as a team name), I'll try to take care of it quickly so the draft article can go live. Otherwise, other admins will undoubtedly be around. I half suspect that someone's going to create another new article about 2 seconds after the press conference starts, so probably a history merge will be required also. Resolute 13:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why not just move it now (2 hours early) and save all the trouble. Once an official name is announced it can be moved to the correct team name title at that time. Dolovis (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- For the same reason it was userfied in the first place: It is speculation until the league confirms. It's only about 90 more minutes... Resolute 14:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- It passed the point of speculation 10 days ago. Dolovis (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I get what you are saying, and you are probably right. But officially, there is no Winnipeg NHL team until so announced. FWIW, at the end of the 1994-95 season, the Winnipeg papers were lamenting the demise of the Jets and how the team was moving to Minnesota in the summer. What appears to be a done deal isn't always so. Resolute 15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- It passed the point of speculation 10 days ago. Dolovis (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- For the same reason it was userfied in the first place: It is speculation until the league confirms. It's only about 90 more minutes... Resolute 14:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Heh, I see you moved it already anyway. No worries. I did delete the cross-namespace redirect, however. Resolute 16:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Steinbach, Manitoba
Hi Dolovi, you may want to keep an eye on this pape. A user by the name Skol fir has been posting false information. Best Babafat22a (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I struck out the above inappropriate comment according to your own instructions above. This was pure vandalism. Period. --Skol fir (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dolovis, I happen to be a victim of WP:Wikihounding by a purely disruptive editor, User:Porgers, who has been using numerous sockpuppets over the last two weeks. If you look at the pattern of edits he has done, most tend to be nonsense and unfounded, just what he is accusing me of doing. His message to you was a red herring. As for User:Toddst1 removing the comment above, he was just following through on removing any false accusations being spread by this person. I am surprised that you allow such a vindictive comment to sit on your Talk Page without at least qualifying it. Therefore, I am doing so. Carry on. --Skol fir (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Racepacket (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.
A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
No rollback rights
Your user page states that you have rollback rights. You do not. You shouldn't display that userbox. Toddst1 (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I did not even realize that I had a rollbacker userbox there until you pointed it out. I think that I must have been trying to add an Autopatrolled rights user box and just made a mistake. I have removed it. Dolovis (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
ANI discussion
Just a heads up, another editor has started a thread at WP:ANI that involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dolovis. Resolute 04:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hockey players
Hi, Vitali Koval is the same of Vitaly Koval. And Evgeny Skachkov = Evgeni Skachkov. --Benj05 (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Right you are, thank you for catching that. I have now converted the new articles into redirects. Cheers. Dolovis (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The article Zack Phillips has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable junior hockey player, nominated for minor QMJHL award, but did not win.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Canada Hky (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Answer to...
What is your relationship with User:Darwinek?
What is your relationship with User:Darwinek? Dolovis (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I dont have any relations with that user and dont know who he/she is. Why? Ratipok (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- None. It seems your paranoia is rising. - Darwinek (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Probably because he has been known to sockpuppet he assumes everyone else does too. -DJSasso (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Djsasso, you know very well that the sock puppet allegation was demonstrated to be a false positive, and that all of the editors involved were unblocked. You have also read the top of this talk page where I have politely stated: "If you have come here to harass or bait me, please don't." Because it appears that you have intentionally ignored my request, I am now requesting that you stay off my talk page. Thank you. Dolovis (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know that. It was actually demonstrated to be probable. What you were given was a second chance. Or third since it happened twice. You also realize you can't ban people from your page right? -DJSasso (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Probable is far from confirmed, and in the end it was demonstrated to be an untrue allegation. That is why all of the accounts that you accused (the alleged socks and puppets) were unblocked. And yes, I can ban editors from my talk page, and you are banned from my talk. Do not post here again. Dolovis (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Alright then. Whatever you say. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you post here again you will be reported. Stay off my talk page. Dolovis (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're going to want to take a peak over at WP:UP#OWN, Dolovis; specifically the quote "a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to". You have no right to "ban" a user from your talk page, you can only request they do not post. Threatening reporting of a user goes against Wikipedia policy regarding user pages, and is far more of a "ban" than a "request to not post". – Nurmsook! talk... 16:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- As my page top paragraph clearly states, this talk page is open to receiving appropriate project notices and communications, and there is no attempt here to avoid administrator attention. I do, however, maintain the right to request that a specific editor is not to post to this page. Dolovis (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're going to want to take a peak over at WP:UP#OWN, Dolovis; specifically the quote "a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to". You have no right to "ban" a user from your talk page, you can only request they do not post. Threatening reporting of a user goes against Wikipedia policy regarding user pages, and is far more of a "ban" than a "request to not post". – Nurmsook! talk... 16:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you post here again you will be reported. Stay off my talk page. Dolovis (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Alright then. Whatever you say. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Probable is far from confirmed, and in the end it was demonstrated to be an untrue allegation. That is why all of the accounts that you accused (the alleged socks and puppets) were unblocked. And yes, I can ban editors from my talk page, and you are banned from my talk. Do not post here again. Dolovis (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know that. It was actually demonstrated to be probable. What you were given was a second chance. Or third since it happened twice. You also realize you can't ban people from your page right? -DJSasso (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Djsasso, you know very well that the sock puppet allegation was demonstrated to be a false positive, and that all of the editors involved were unblocked. You have also read the top of this talk page where I have politely stated: "If you have come here to harass or bait me, please don't." Because it appears that you have intentionally ignored my request, I am now requesting that you stay off my talk page. Thank you. Dolovis (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Probably because he has been known to sockpuppet he assumes everyone else does too. -DJSasso (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Poor choice of wording on your part then? Especially considering the situation? Perhaps that's because you're trying to arbitrarily define what you deem the definition of this is "a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to" (emphasis mine). I'd just relax and worry about editing - I suspect you'd avoid such notices and communications entirely by doing so. But that's just my suggestion. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 21:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, Dolovis, you certainly do maintain the right to request a user do not post on your talk page. But you have ignored the other half of my comment. Comments such as "I can ban editors from my talk page, and you are banned from my talk" are by no means a request to not post, are simply not true according to established Wiki guidelines, and are an aggressive and disruptive style of commentary that certainly does not take the civil tone that you wish to represent on your talk page according to the header to which you have referred. – Nurmsook! talk... 01:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Season numbers
Hello. I notice you're creating BLP articles. Just note that "2011" in a roster at Eliteprospects' website is the ending year of the season. In other words, it should be 2010–11 Elitserien season. Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 22:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Nathan Beaulieu for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nathan Beaulieu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Beaulieu until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. USA1168 (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Page moves to diacritics
Howdy Dolovis. I'm not too surprised by those current page moves to diacritics via by-passing RM. That's how alot of the hockey player articles ended up with diacritics to be begin with. Years ago, the pro-dios pushers arbitrarily moved them & then began shouting "it's the correct names" & "it's a consensus". Anyways, you can appreciate the frustrations I have on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- The term to describe this is Fait accompli. It is frustrating because it is a disruptive strategy that ignores both process and policy. Dolovis (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that the NYT article might be used to improve the current policy and clarify wp:Diacritics. Thanks for bringing it up! Let's work together into improving the wikipolicy. See my edit here. Divide et Impera (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Wrt 'the Dimitri Tsyganov article'
Apologies - was trying to be helpful while patrolling new pages Greenmaven (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article titles
My talk page isn't really the place to discuss this kind of thing; you'd do better to gain consensus on the talk page and then use the {{editprotected}} template to get an admin's attention. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- The change was made without consensus, but you say a consensus is required to revert it back to a status quo? That is not right. Proper WP:BRD process says that the article should revert back to the status quo before the discussion takes place. Dolovis (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- As the protecting admin, it's not my place to decide what does and does not belong in the page: I protected it because edit warring was going on, and stability is important. Requests to change the content of a protected page are supposed to be made at the respective page's talk, not the talk page of the administrator who protected it. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Edit war
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am not involved in any edit war. I've made just two edits to that page in the past week, and those edits were six days apart, and made in keeping with the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Have you given the "other party" in this alleged edit war the same warning? Dolovis (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you don't think [1] and [2] is edit warring, then you don't understand the policy. If you think additional warnings are in order, then issue them. Your history of conflict around diacritical marks speaks for itself. Toddst1 (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Ice Hockey Players
Hello there. I noticed that you've been very busy making new articles about ice hockey players. At the moment these are all stub article with very little content. The only notability of any of the players seems to be that they all played for HC Litvínov. I would suggest that these stubs be merged into that club's article. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking an interest in the articles that I have created. Please know that hockey players who have played in the Czech Extraliga meet the first criteria of WP:NHOCKEY and are therefore deemed notable for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. Merging should be avoided as stub articles about notable ice hockey players can be expanded. Cheers. Dolovis (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)