TheShadowCrow (talk | contribs) →Cenk the Legal Nazi Terrorist: new section |
|||
Line 362: | Line 362: | ||
: I don't have a strong opinion about it to be honest, although I thought group was fine, and given that they represented the UK at Eurovision that ought to expand their scope to being British rather than just English. I might comment at some point, although you seem to be winning the argument at the moment as it is, as boy band makes more sense in this case. I understand that a future boy band group called blue might be formed, but policy does not allow for pre-emptive disambiguation, so unless there actually is another group that passes [[WP:N]], it is irrelevant. [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]]</small> 15:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
: I don't have a strong opinion about it to be honest, although I thought group was fine, and given that they represented the UK at Eurovision that ought to expand their scope to being British rather than just English. I might comment at some point, although you seem to be winning the argument at the moment as it is, as boy band makes more sense in this case. I understand that a future boy band group called blue might be formed, but policy does not allow for pre-emptive disambiguation, so unless there actually is another group that passes [[WP:N]], it is irrelevant. [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]]</small> 15:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Cenk the Legal Nazi Terrorist == |
|||
Why are you in love with this guy so much? A you a turk living in Germany? --[[User:TheShadowCrow|TheShadowCrow]] ([[User talk:TheShadowCrow|talk]]) 20:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:57, 23 June 2012
User:CT Cooper/Floating buttons User:CT Cooper/Talk page templates
Corrections
Hi, I made again some articles in English. Can you please correct them?
- SK Aaigem
- KRC Bambrugge
- KFC Olympic Burst
- FC Mere
- FC Edixvelde
- FC Oranja Erpe
- KVC Erpe Erondegem
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KFC_Olympia_Erondegem&redirect=no
- Template:Football clubs in Erpe-Mere
thanks Klodde (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I will get myself a drink and look at them now. CT Cooper · talk 01:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Would you like a helping hand Cooper, I'm struggling to sleep, so I don't mind. Wesley☀Mouse 01:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Okay feel free. CT Cooper · talk 01:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Cool. I'm looking at the template one, and I think it can be modified into a similar style as Template:Premier League, as all the clubs in the Belgian template are in the Belgian Provincial leagues, so that gives me something to work off. Wesley☀Mouse 01:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Okay feel free. CT Cooper · talk 01:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Would you like a helping hand Cooper, I'm struggling to sleep, so I don't mind. Wesley☀Mouse 01:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I've had a look at SK Aaigem, took my time on it, and did some re-structural work on the paragraphs, to make it look more grammatically correct. Only thing is it has just one source, so I've put a maintenance tag as a reminder, and hopefully encourage other editors to contribute sources to it too. Wesley☀Mouse 02:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Good work Wes with the project tagging and copy editing; I have finished copy editing all the other articles listed as well. I am also concerned about sourcing, and fear that someone will come along sooner or later and nominate these articles for deletion. Local football clubs ought to be notable in my opinion, but while villages, towns e.t.c. tend to get a free pass, there is a lot of controversy on the English Wikipedia about the inclusion of articles about local organizations (schools, restaurants, football clubs e.t.c.). Please ensure the articles pass Wikipedia:Notability, then they should be fine. CT Cooper · talk 02:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll do some digging into sources for them, I'm sure good'ol google should produce something that'll add V and N to them. I've also added the articles to my watchlist, just in case some meanie PRODs them. The next 24-hours I should have those articles reffed up to the rafters. Wesley☀Mouse 03:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Good thinking. CT Cooper · talk 04:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've hit a brick wall in finding sources for all these articles. Google search for the first 4 on that list only produce links to the official websites (all in Dutch) and a handful of links to YouTube for some reason. The three that follow on from that list are clubs that have now closed, and no results come up whatsoever, not even websites for them. I think that those articles are going to have a short lifespan if nothing else can be found. Do you think we should notify the creator of the articles, and see if he can find reliable sources to include in the articles? Wesley☀Mouse 15:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Good thinking. CT Cooper · talk 04:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll do some digging into sources for them, I'm sure good'ol google should produce something that'll add V and N to them. I've also added the articles to my watchlist, just in case some meanie PRODs them. The next 24-hours I should have those articles reffed up to the rafters. Wesley☀Mouse 03:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I ringed to the Royal Belgian Football Association myself, there they gave me the dates of foundation of the 7 clubs, I don't know how you can put it in the article.
- http://www.kvc-eendracht-nieuwerkerken.be/IMAGES/Algemeen/PDF/de%20eendrachter.pdf (A pdf page of the football team KVC Eendracht Nieuwerkerken that describes FC Edixvelde
- http://www.fcmere.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=223&Itemid=197 Description of the current football grounds of FC Mere you see also the grounds of FC Edixvelde FC Oranja Erpe and KVC Erpe Erondegem
- http://www.bloggen.be/erperondegem/archief.php?ID=255924 Description of the former mergers between FC Oranja Erpe and KFC Olympia Erondegem, Description of the absorbation of KVC Erpe Erondegem in FC Mere (one bourd member left)
- http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=BP28713C another article about: Description of the former mergers between FC Oranja Erpe and KFC Olympia Erondegem, Description of the absorbation of KVC Erpe Erondegem in FC Mere (one bourd member left)
- http://www.voetbalkrant.com/nl/nieuws/lees/2008-10-18/krijgt-erpe-mere-1-grote-fusieclub Description former mergers between FC Oranja Erpe and KFC Olympia Erondegem, older article so they are talking about merging KVC Erpe Erondegem, FC Mere, KRC Bambrugge, SK Aaigem, KFC Olympic Burst
- http://www.webnieuwserpemerelede.be/index.php/201107317295/Erpe-Mere/Weinig-enthousiasme-voor-fusieplannen-voetbalclubs.html 31 july 2011, an article about merging FC Mere, KRC Bambrugge, SK Aaigem, KFC Olympic Burst, but they mark they disagree in that article, in the article that is already sourced december 2011 they agree to merge in 2015
- http://www.webnieuwserpemerelede.be/index.php/200905033010/Erpe-Mere/Akkoord-voor-fusie-tot-een-voetbalploeg.html 3 may 2009 they announce that KVC Erpe Erondegem is absorbated by FC Mere and that there are future plans for merging FC Mere, KRC Bambrugge, SK Aaigem and KFC Olympic Burst, they describe again that FC Oranja Erpe and KFC Olympia Erondegem merged already before in KVC Erpe Erondegem
sorry if there are mistakes in my Englisg but I tried to describe what is in the articles, now you can see what you want to add.
thanks for helping Klodde (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- No worries about the English, Klodde. You do very well to make yourself understood, which is a good thing. I'm assuming these clubs all have club badges (logos)? Only reason I ask that, is because articles on English Football Clubs all have their logos appear in the infoboxes too. This would be something to look into, once we can find more sources to add to the articles. The other concern is you mentioned you telephoned the clubs yourself for information. That would be original research, and go against no original research guidelines. If other editors knew the articles where written purely on original research, then they would just get deleted as quickly as they were created - and I would hate to see all the hard work you've put into these to vanish in an instant. Wesley☀Mouse 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The Royal Belgian Football Association is the most reliable source you have!!! The lady on the phone looked in the club information on there PC and also in an old book of The Royal Belgian Football Association, maybe I can call her back and ask what is the name of that book? For KRC Bambrugge there is a book where I found information, the name is: Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van Bambrugge, it's written by Jules A. Colen Klodde (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is worth remembering though that these teams are quite old and only the tip of the iceberg is online - books, old newspapers, and other online materials can be used as sources too. If possible, if someone living locally can retrieve such materials, then more sources might be found. CT Cooper · talk 15:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Klodde (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I've done another search on google for SK Aaigem, and defined the search for books and newspaper clippings, and a success too. 4 books, 1 newspaper article. Wesley☀Mouse 15:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- KRC Bambrugge logo: http://cache.images.globalsportsmedia.com/soccer/teams/150x150/15873.png
- KVC Erpe Erondegem logo: http://blogimages.bloggen.be/erperondegem/P16-244e9c6da93989c7597e33de87ee0203.jpg
- FC Mere logo: http://blogimages.bloggen.be/hokalken/248-7513e7003abb87b0774b4344a242506c.JPG
- SK Aaigem logo: http://www.zamante.com/content/photos/201101/zi34dlzvcml.jpg
- KFC Olympic Burst sort of logo: http://www.voetballinks.be/images/logos6/03901.jpg
Klodde (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll see who can create those football badges into SVG (vector) format. Looking at the image used for Arsenal F.C., they are done in SVG format, and the licensing shouldn't be a problem as long as they are accredited properly. Wesley☀Mouse 16:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've added all the sources that were provided above to the relevant articles. Although at the time I noticed all of them had PRODs added to them. I informed the prodder, and was advised to remove them, but regardless of that advice, they go ahead and nominate for AFD instead. So I literally fuming with rage at the underhandedness, despite the fact that I have explained why sources hadn't be added at the time. If you have any ideas then feel free to implement them. Wesley☀Mouse 17:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
It is hasty yes. Kosmo added the prods, and I explained to him that the user is new and not fully aware how to add refs, and that the refs are here on your talk page. Kosmo advised me to remove the prods and add the refs myself, and that he would consider nominating afterwards. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that implies he is waiting for the refs to be added before making a decision, right? But instead of waiting, he just goes behind my back and nominates anyway before I had even started to add the refs. I'm literally pee'd off at the ignorance. Wesley☀Mouse 17:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Are they crazy, can someone here explain me why, this is so disgusting? They really don't know how much time I putted in the articles to translate and write them. He putted 5 of the 7 articles on the deletion list. SK Aaigem FC Edixvelde KVC Erpe Erondegem FC Mere FC Oranja Erpe Klodde (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Don't worry Klodde, I am just as annoyed at the way this has been treated. I'll do what I can to oppose the deletions, but I'm no superman, so can't promise that my arguments to keep them will get listened to. Like Cooper said, we need as many sources as possible, and add them to the article very rapidly. Wesley☀Mouse 18:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
In Dutch wikipedia they give people 2 times to discuss an article before deletion. Very rapidly? Why the're is so a hurry in deleting articles on the English wikipedia. I really don't understand it. If it was a bad and short article, I could understand. But in this case I don't Klodde (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I ring back to the Royal Belgian Football Association, and ask the person to send me an official mail of the Royal Belgian Football Association with all the information about the clubs. But please ask that people te wait with deletion! Another proposal is a merge of the 7 page in one page.
Example:
Football Clubs in Erpe-Mere
KRC Bambrugge
History
KFC Olympic Burst
History
SK Aaigem
History
FC Mere
History
FC Oranja Erpe
History
FC Edixvelde
History
KFC Olympia Erondegem
History
etc...
if they don't delete Burst and Bambrugge, adding Aaigem and the 4 others on one page could avoid deletion.
What do you think?
Klodde (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, don't panic. Articles for deletion (AfD) discussions have to last at least seven days, so the articles aren't going to be deleted immediately. As for your suggestion on a merger, notability is judged on a per page basis, so even if the clubs are not notable enough for their own article individually, they may be notable enough for a collective article. If the AfD doesn't go your away, I would suggest having a go at creating a merged article. CT Cooper · talk 18:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I send an email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org with the following information, I don't think there is more possible that I can do
Hello,
I'm writing about the articles that can be deleted in 6 days:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SK_Aaigem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Mere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Edixvelde http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Oranja_Erpe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVC_Erpe_Erondegem
there was a problem with the source, I have send an email to the Royal Belgian Football Association (KBVB) to ask them to confirm the information. That it's certain that the information on the wikipedia page is correct. I send the mail from my emailaddress (my mail) to dpf@footbel.com and to affi@footbel.com I asked them to send a copy to you're emailadress. The mail is written in Dutch, but that won't be a problem because there are enough Dutch-speaking users on wikipedia to translate the information. I hope you can help me.
Greetings (my name) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Klodde )
From: (my email) To: dpf@footbel.com Subject: Bevestiging stamnummers, oprichting en andere informatie (dringend!) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:57:41 +0200
Hallo,
DRINGEND WANT ARTIKELS DREIGEN BINNEN DE WEEK VERWIJDERD TE WORDEN OMDAT ER EEN PROBLEEM IS MET BRONVERMELDING!
ik werk mee aan wikipedia maar ik heb een probleem. Ik heb van 7 voetbalclubs een pagina gemaakt maar er is een probleem met de bronvermelding.
Het is absoluut noodzakelijk dat er een email komt van de Koninklijke Belgische Voetbalbond zelf om te bevestigen dat de informatie klopt.
Het gaat over stamnummers:
- 3901 Koninklijke Football Club Burst
aangesloten bij de KBVB op 20 augustus 1943 (kan u deze datum bevestigen?, heeft u eventueel de oprichtingsdatum van de club)
- 4057 Football Club Mere
aangesloten bij de KBVB op 31 maart 1944 (kan u deze datum bevestigen?, heeft u eventueel de oprichtingsdatum van de club)
- 4141 Koninklijke Voetbal Club Erpe Erondegem OF Koninklijke Football Club Erpe Erondegem (kan u aub de juiste naam van deze club geven), het vroegere Koninklijke Football Club Olympia Erondegem
aangesloten bij de KBVB op 3 oktober 1944, 1999 fusie met FC Oranja Erpe naar Koninklijke Voetbal (Football?) Club Erpe Erondegem en opgeheven in 2009 door opslorping door FC Mere (kan u deze datums bevestigen?, kan u de volledige datum van de fusie in 1999 geven?, kan u de volledige datum het opheven van het stamnummer in 2009 geven?, heeft u eventueel de oprichtingsdatum van de club)
- 5343 Koninklijke Racing Club Bambrugge
aangesloten bij de KBVB op 24 juni 1950 (kan u deze datum bevestigen?, heeft u eventueel de oprichtingsdatum van de club)
- 7017 Football Club Edixvelde
aangesloten bij de KBVB op 1 april 1967 en opgeheven in 1999 door opslorping door FC Mere (kan u deze datum bevestigen?, kan u de volledige datum het opheven van het stamnummer in 1999 geven, heeft u eventueel de oprichtingsdatum van de club)
- 7329 Football Club Oranja Erpe, stamnummer opgeheven in 1999 door fusie met Koninklijke Football Club Olympia Erondegem (kan u deze datums bevestigen?, kan u de volledige datum het opheven van het stamnummer in 1999 geven?, heeft u eventueel de oprichtingsdatum van de club)
aangesloten bij de KBVB op 4 mei 1969 (kan u deze datum bevestigen?, heeft u eventueel de oprichtingsdatum van de club)
- 7938 Sportkring Aaigem
aangesloten bij de KBVB op 13 juni 1973 (kan u deze datum bevestigen?, heeft u eventueel de oprichtingsdatum van de club)
Dit is heel erg dringend en belangrijk! Want men zou binnen de week de geschreven artikels kunnen verwijderen omdat men niet genoeg bronvermelding heeft. En de KBVB is de officieelste bron die er is. Wat er ook bij kan is het boek met de stamnummers, hoe dit heet en wie dit geschreven heeft want iemand van jullie heeft dit in een boek opgezocht. Zou u aub deze mail kunnen beantwoorden, mij een mail sturen op (my mail) en een kopie sturen naar het emailadres info-en-q@wikimedia.org Die kopie naar dat emailadres is absoluut noodzakelijk omdat ze een rechtstreekse email van jullie nodig hebben.
Alvast bedankt
MVG (my name)
Klodde (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- If others don't participate then the AfD is likely to be re-listed and you will have even longer than six days. Even if that doesn't happen, the availability of sources and a good effort to improve the article may attract the sympathy needed to get the article kept. Failing even that, the merge proposal is still a possibility. CT Cooper · talk 21:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but I'm uncertain and I'm really afraid that Kosm1fent will delete it. Nobody supports him but maybe he convince the administrators to delete. He has much persuasiveness and maybe the administrators agree with him. I didn't hear anything from Football Association.
Klodde (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's a little bit far-fetched. Firstly, Kosm1fent doesn't have the power to delete an article, only an administrator can delete. Secondly, you can't really accuse Kosm1fent of persuading administrators to agree with him, it is just wrong to make that assumption about a user. Besides, as much as I disagree with the deletion nomination Kosm1fent has made, I cannot see him canvassing administrators to back his decision to delete. I did mention to Cooper a few days ago that I had concerns about the articles, and the fact they lacked a lot of sources, which would make them targets for deletion. However, there is now a lot of references been added, and if nobody has commented on the AFD's, then the decision making admin would look at the article and make a decision based on criteria. So don't panic. If they do get deleted, then look at it as a learning curve in article writing, don't let it beat you up with disappointment. Wesley☀Mouse 16:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi CT, you told me "If others don't participate then the AfD is likely to be re-listed and you will have even longer than six days." Can you please ask a delay then. Today I ringed back to the "Belgian Football Association" to ask them about the email I send Thursday. The service "receive emails" forwarded it to the service "communication". So they gave me the telephone number of the service communication. So I ringed that service and a person told me he will answer the mail in the end of the week but first he has to take contact with the service "assignment" of the matricule numbers. So it's normal that this take a couple of days. It would be ridiculous that they would count the 7 days on wikipedia and that for example the 8th day I will receive confirmation of the Football Association and that it's too late to save the article. I really try what I can. Klodde (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I have left a note on the AfD. I don't think it will be a problem. CT Cooper · talk 12:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- @Klodde: Accuracy is not the problem. Notability, on the other hand, is. The articles require significant coverage in reliable third-party sources in order to be kept. Also, sources need to be published in order to count as reliable, so personal e-mails do not justify notability no matter where they come from. Unless they can give you a list of published sources (anything from books and newspapers to websites), the e-mail will not be of much use to you. Regards. – Kosm1fent 18:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Kosmo, you may have got the wrong end of the stick here. Nobody said Klodde would be using personal emails as sources. I know there is a lot been said in this thread, but sometimes taking that extra moment to read it does help. Both Cooper and I mentioned about books and newspaper clippings etc, which can be used as sources. Klodde nominated himself to email the football association for details of books/newspaper clippings, so that we knew exactly where to start finding other notable facts, and reference the newspaper/book details that have been mentioned in the email. Note, the email isn't being used as a source, just the details within it being used to assist editors to find sources. Wesley☀Mouse 18:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Some posts related to a misunderstanding have been removed from the record following mutual agreement between the authors. 13:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't follow this discussion any more, to be honest it's too difficult to understand what Kosm1fent and CT Cooper are saying. The Royal Belgian Football Association is the most notable source that exists. Klodde (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Don't worry about the above, just keep doing what you were doing. CT Cooper · talk 21:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SK Aaigem
I have made a proposal to userfy the articles, in other words move them to your userspace e.g. FC Mere would be moved to User:Klodde/FC Mere. This will end the AfD and allow you to continue improving them in peace. When they all have enough sources, you can move them back to the mainspace. Would this be okay with you? CT Cooper · talk 12:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about my late reaction, I had a very bad evening today. If you can save the information in that way, a userspace is good then. I don't know how it works but I think you can arrange it? Today I received an email of wikipedia:
- Nothing received from Royal Belgian Football Association (KBVB) to date - note if the whole e-mail is in Dutch and does not show the urls of the pages it may go to the Dutch list, which English volunteers cannot access. If you can get a reply and put [Ticket#2012060710007867] in the subject line, it will be linked to this thread. Yours sincerely,
So I ringed and sended a new mail to the (KBVB) to tell them to add that ticket in the subject name. Just patience I think ;)
Klodde (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I will be happy to userfy the content, although the closing admin of the AfD will probably do it before me. Keep persevering in finding sources, and hopefully this will go somewhere. CT Cooper · talk 21:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I received an email of the Belgian Football Association, I think we have a really good source now:
http://www.foot100.be/lexicon_der_clubs.htm
that's a book about all the Belgian Football Clubs that had a matricule by the Belgian Football Association,
so the source is good for all the pages, I think it could be enough with the sources that we have already:
Name of the book: LEXICON DER CLUBS aangesloten bij de K.B.V.B. sinds 1895
The book used the following sources (the same sources can be used for the 7 articles!):
- All official information published in La Vie Sportive and Sportleven since 1898 (Sportleven is the official association magazine of the Belgian Football Association)
http://poll.footbel.com/nl/KBVB/publicaties/sportleven.html
- The Procès-verbal of all the meetings of the Executive Committee of the Belgian Football Association since 1895; http://www.belgianfootball.be/en/rbfa-commissions
- The archive of millions of pages of nearly 11000 clubs retained by the Belgian Football Association
- The historically proven discoveries of members of FOOT 100. http://www.foot100.be/voetbalmag.htm (Title: LEXIKON DER CLUBS AANGESLOTEN BIJ DE K.B.V.B. SINDS 1985
Author: Foot Centenaire Description: An excellent who's who of every Belgian club that has ever existed ! Three large size HB volumes with in total over 600 pages. Published in 1998. Country: Belgium Availability: Special order) http://www.heartbooks.be/catalogue.php?cat=soccer&subcat=s021
Do you think it's enough? Klodde (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- A book is usually a very good sign, although my only concern here is whether the book is third-party, as only third-party sources "count" when it comes to passing Wikipedia:Notability. I think an argument could be made that as it is published by the Belgian Football Association, and not the football clubs themselves, it does count. If this book is combined with a few other separate sources not from the Belgian Football Association, then there should be a good case for passing WP:N. CT Cooper · talk 15:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Except for the third-party concern raised by Cooper, I could raise another one: The "lexicon" is a directory with every club registered in the Belgian Football Association, right? If so, it is not considered "significant coverage" for one club, although it could be helpful for verification if the article is kept. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 15:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- KRC Bambrugge is not on the deletion list, but fot that one there is a third source: Book: Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van Bambrugge, writer: Jules A. Colen, 1984
I'm also certain FC Edixvelde whas in a book of Nieuwerkerken but I have to find out which one. Tomorrow I will maybe visit the "local history circle" to look in some books there. I think ref improve|date=June 2012 could be deleted on the page of Bambrugge if someone can add the Lexicon and the "Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van Bambrugge"
Klodde (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- KRC Bambrugge is not nominated for deletion because it appeared in the Belgian Cup. Regards. – Kosm1fent 16:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
University of Southampton
My apologies, I was not aware that it was a convention to include duplicate information in the 'lead'. I am new editing articles on Wikipedia so please excuse my mistakes. However, the fact that the University of Southampton was the first university to be granted a Royal Charter was indeed already included in the article; the first line of the subsection headed "University" read "On 29 April 1952, Queen Elizabeth II granted the University of Southampton a Royal Charter, the first to be given to a university during her reign". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.250.86 (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Again, welcome to Wikipedia. No worries but the content you cite is there as I added it last night. The previous version just said she gave a Royal Charter with a date. In any case, I would strongly recommend continuing to use edit summaries so users understand the changes you are making. CT Cooper · talk 08:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok thank you for your welcome and your advice, it is much appreciated. Of course, now I know how it works I will continue to use the edit summaries. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.250.86 (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Disruptive and uncivil behaviour
Cooper,
Matters over at Talk:Ell & Nikki are getting beyond a joke now. The same user is throwing false accusations and asserting a very impolite manner towards others. The same user has even admitted to being purposely uncivil towards another, and that now casts doubt in my eyes, whether they are also purposely being uncivil with everyone else taking part in the discussion. Twice now on that talk page, the user has demanded a user leave the discussion, in the same manner that they "demanded" you leave the discussion at another talk page. And not only that, the constant repetitiveness remarks of telling people to "read again, what they wrote" or "read more slowly, what they wrote", is outright blatantly telling someone they are illiterate. I don't wish to be going do the escalating route, but the way they are behaving is slowly forcing me down that path. Regards, Wesley☀Mouse 12:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunatly I have to agree with everything Wesley is stating above.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was expecting worse to be honest, and to be fair to Bleubeatle, he did say just a "few users", which is accurate, although I'm coming to the conclusion that there is little chance of a consensus emerging for a merge, mostly because the issue is now so polarized. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about winning, but even I who have expressed limited support for a merge, fear that a merge will have undesired social consequences of users believing they have conceded to inappropriate behaviour, and Bleubeatle possibly thinking that the methods he used to get a merge to occur weren't problematic.
- On the question he asked, I don't get many of his points on the group vs. collaboration issue really because a group is a type of collaboration, so approaching the issue as if they are mutually exclusive is logically flawed. Furthermore, it is clear they were a group - the question is whether they are/were a group of enough significance for their own article. What he was asking for sources of isn't clear - there are more enough in the article already. In any case, while calling him silly is uncivil, calling the question silly isn't - I consider his description of it as "immoral" and "demeaning" to be dramatization and won't comment further on that. On the whole, I don't wish to sound mean, but I think he has played the "my feelings are hurt" card too many times now, and done so generally in response to criticism rather than incivility. My sympathy is lowered even further by his comments at WT:EURO, where he straight-up said twice that he didn't care about my feelings.
- As for the reading issue, I have probably told people myself to re-read things if they completely get the wrong end of stick - if I did so, it wasn't because I thought they were illiterate. The reality is though that myself and other users find Bleubeatle's difficult to understand at times and vice versa appears to apply too - I suspect he is not a native English speaker, as that is the most likely good faith explanation on why he repeatedly misrepresents policy and what people say. There is nothing wrong with users who are having difficulties in expressing themselves editing, and I'm always open to being more patient with non-native English speakers, but there does come a point where this project has to draw a line on when communication difficulties cause excessive levels of disruption to collaboration.
- I'm confused about the sentence "I was merely being uncivil in my response because all I wanted was to ask if there are any more sources(or links) so that I could understand the user's answer more and to be sure that they are an official group and did not just collaborate for this contest." He does know about the civility policy as shown by comments on Wesley's page earlier on, though I wouldn't assume that this was some kind of admission as the word "uncivil" really doesn't fit in here - perhaps he meant "civil" but hasn't noticed the error. This sentence makes even less sense given his criticism of Wesley's "incivility" in the same post.
- His comments about people "leaving" aren't very helpful, although again to be fair to him, they are not phrased as a request - but given his earlier behaviour I can see why people will see them that way. I think he is actually trying to calm things down, but actually doing the opposite in practice; he still doesn't seem to get that throwing accusations and negative words at people isn't a good calming method.
- I'm not commenting further at Talk:Ell & Nikki for now, but my my main two suggestions are is to be as calm as you can with him and ignore posts from him which don't contribute to the discussion. As I said earlier, this might just be too polarized at the moment to go anywhere, so it may be better to let it die. CT Cooper · talk 14:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- That is a very good summary, I agree. His behaviour is getting to the point of making blood boil, but I have to disagree that he may have worded "uncivil" incorrectly, and probably have meant the opposite. More so with the way he has worded things to others too, even at yourself Cooper. The discussion needs to be back on track, but I don't hold much prospect of that happening any time soon, not unless Bleubeatle realises that he cannot go throwing accusations at people when they are merely answering (or trying to answer) his questions as clear and concise as possible. I'm surprised with his recent behaviour too if I'm being honest. The user has never shown signs of acting in this way in the past, s/he is generally quiet and placid towards others. This sudden reversal of attitude is triggering off slight alarm bells. A person's behavioural pattern to suddenly change like that can either mean they are going through difficult situations, and unintentionally taking it out on others; or their account is being compromised by another without them even knowing. Wesley☀Mouse 15:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm, yes, I think I may have read it wrong - it does appear to be a justification for incivility. As for his behavioural patterns, I wasn't familiar with him before the WP:V issue over these awards, although I have looked through his Talk: and User talk: space histories, and I can see where your coming from on his present and past behaviour, as he has in the past shown a good understanding of what others are saying and of policy. I can't say whether his account has been taken over by another party; it has happened, but it is unlikely. CT Cooper · talk 16:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll give him a couple of days to settle down; and then I'll post a carefully worded message, and see if he is OK really, and that nothing in his personal life is causing him to stress out at people on here. It could be a case of him needing someone to talk to, and I know that we're not here to play council to folk; but sometimes action like having a small council session, can be beneficial to the community too. I found it hard to talk to others in real-life after my mother passed away; yet I felt so much at ease and comfort discussing with a small few on here. So perhaps Bleubeatle could do with knowing that there are people here to help him and that we're not "out to get him". In the meantime, I'm making huge progress with the article improvements; travelling through Eurovision history faster than red-bull-fuelled Concorde lol. The next edition of the newsletter is coming along nicely too, although nobody has requested anything to add to it yet. Hmmm, perhaps you would like to write a small editorial for it? If so, the draft is in my sandbox (#10). Wesley☀Mouse 16:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- That is very thoughtful of you Wes, and it is certainly worth trying to see if there is anything that could improve relations as this is going nowhere productive at the moment, which is very sad. Bleubeatle needs to know that we are not out to beat him or drive him away - we are just having difficulty seeing eye-to-eye on this issue. If both sides are reassured of each others motives and become less suspicious, then we should be able to consider his merging proposal on its merits and nothing more. CT Cooper · talk 18:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh yes, on the editorial, I would be happy to do that for you. CT Cooper · talk 18:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
What a lovely editorial piece, and cleverly worded too. Something which needed to be said I suppose, and so far (even from the revival edition) the newsletter does seem to impact people, and they take heed of what is said in them. I see the GAN is under review, and with good hopes from the initial comment by the reviewer. With a bit of cooperation, I think we could see the first Eurovision by Year article reaching GA status (I say first, as I have had a look at the GA's on the project and haven't noticed a single annual page in there to date). If GA is gained, then it shows that the new page layout has massive impact. Something which the rest of the project should take pride in, and be inspired to maintain the same layout throughout. Wesley☀Mouse 18:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you; I'm glad you like it. Yes, I can confirm that that no annual page has ever achieved either GA or FA status - hopefully that will change soon. The Eurovision Song Contest article used to be an FA, but was stripped of it quite a while ago now. CT Cooper · talk 20:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- A few minor issues so far with the GAN, but ones that can (and have been) easily ironed out. The ESCToday dead links is a main concern, and I have informed the reviewer about them losing 12-years of work; and that another website (ESCDaily) has similar articles which could easily be used to replace the dead links. Seeing as we knew the ESCT ones were reliable at the time, then we can safely say the ESCD one's will be an ideal back-up option for this circumstance. Only thing is, there's loads of them. Could do with an extra hand resuscitating the dead. Wesley☀Mouse 20:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- All deadlinks have single-handedly been brought back to life. Found the exact same articles from ESCdaily, ESCxtra, and EurovisionTimes; so replaced accordingly. A couple of links didn't really need to be replaced, as they already had other "duplicated" links covering the same details, so removed the dead duplicates, leaving the live ones intact. Wesley☀Mouse 21:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Well I was going to write the words of council to Bleubeatle once the weekend had passed. However, after noticing this post from him, I felt that the time had come sooner. So I posted this lengthy piece to him. Now I know he was online at the time, as he's done other edits after the post was made. So I'm not sure if he's taken notice, or just not bothering to reply. But either way, at least we can say that tactful approach has been made, and in a polite/civil manner. If Bleubeatle views the context as offensive or uncivil, then I would be very shocked and stunned as there has been nothing uncivil written in my message. Each and every word is sincere and came straight from the heart (and believe me, it a hard thing for me to write from the heart). Wesley☀Mouse 16:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- He may still be thinking about how to respond, but even if he doesn't respond directly, it was still a helpful act as you suggest. For now, I would recommend waiting to see his next move. CT Cooper · talk 16:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar | |
Thanks for taking the time to respond to our questions! They definitely help our understanding of how SuggestBot can help Wikipedia's users work better. Nettrom (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC) |
A small issue from the past
Remember the IP you blocked a week ago for being a sock of Antony1821 (here)? Well, now it's back and making similar edits. When you get back from your wikibreak, can you please deal with it? Thanks. – Kosm1fent 13:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- JamesBWatson beat you to it: [1] Thanks anyway. :) – Kosm1fent 11:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
RfC over UK band Blue's ambiguous title
Welcome back on British soil Chris, hope Deutschland was "sehr gut".
Just a quick note to let you know there is an RFC going on at Blue (English band) (that's UK's 2011 ESC entry). Some bright spark submitted a move request from Blue (group) to its current title, due to (group) being ambiguous; even though (English band) is even less distinctive. During the RM, I pointed out several beneficial factors including comparing various other names against the 5 criteria at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Blue (boy band) seemed to fulfil all 5, where as Blue (English band) fulfilled 3 of the 5.
At the RM several of the (English band) supporters, had took into account that boyband would be just as good, and we were all still working on a compromise. But despite that going on, someone closed the RM down because there was support for (English band) title, and didn't take into account that a consensus discussion was still in progress regarding other title variations. Personally, I feel the RM was prematurely closed down, and as a result have opened an RFC for other editor's views on what article name should be used. All the sources on the article refer to the group as a boyband, the article alone and the individual BLP's for the band members refers to the word boyband. Plus the group have established themselves for the past 10 years as a boyband globally. Surely all those facts should scream out to people the obvious boyband is the correct title? Anyhow, if you could be so kind as to have a glance and put your twopence-worth then I'd be truly grateful. Wesley☀Mouse 14:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Berlin war fantastisch!
- I don't have a strong opinion about it to be honest, although I thought group was fine, and given that they represented the UK at Eurovision that ought to expand their scope to being British rather than just English. I might comment at some point, although you seem to be winning the argument at the moment as it is, as boy band makes more sense in this case. I understand that a future boy band group called blue might be formed, but policy does not allow for pre-emptive disambiguation, so unless there actually is another group that passes WP:N, it is irrelevant. CT Cooper · talk 15:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Cenk the Legal Nazi Terrorist
Why are you in love with this guy so much? A you a turk living in Germany? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)