User talk:Demt1298

Archives

WP:Selected Anniversaries

@HeartGlow30797: Under the reward board I choose September 1 and looked under ineligible. I found Ferenc Gyulay and there was not a reference for his death date. I have provided a reference for the death date on that article. Hope this is what you were looking for. Demt1298 (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HeartGlow30797: and Harriet Shaw Weaver's birthdate, Othmar Schoeck birthdate, and Giacomo Torelli birthdate for 1 September. ```` Demt1298 (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Well deserved. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward-WoodrowThank You! Demt1298 (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com

Please clip your links to Newspapers.com in citations; otherwise, they are inaccessible to readers without access and are liable to link rot. Sounder Bruce 05:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interest in an unofficial USL project/group

Hey, I've noticed you edit quite a few USL pages and so I wanted to mention that I started an unofficial USL editor project/group in one of my userpages. Letting it be a collective place to chart out goals that folks interested in USL can work on individually or collaboratively.

Feel free to edit the page(s) with your own goals or just use it as a reference point for anything you may want to work on.

If nothing else, I appreciate all the edits you do! Happy holidays! Christiangamer7 (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Christiangamer7 Wow! Strong work you have there. I have only glanced at it, but think it looks good and would like to participate.

Thanks for the invite. I will take a closer look when I have a chance

If you have any constructive criticism for me, let me know. I love to learn more about editing. Happy Holidays! Demt1298 (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Günter English page

Hello, I have just expanded the English article on Christian Günter. If you have any further suggestions, don´t hesitate to edit or contact me on my talk page. Thank you in advance. Wiki User 730 (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Citation Barnstar for you

For good work during WP: FEB24 Davidindia (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Citation Barnstar
		message Davidindia (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Austin FC season

Hi. I was wondering why the format you use is better? the other 28 pages use the format I used. seems we should be consistent on all 29 teams. Thank youTomrtn (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomrtn This is the direct quote off the WP Football - "Concerns have been raised about the football box collapsible and its compliance with MOS:ACCESS. For further information and the most recent discussions, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 238#Football Season articles and football results articles." It can be found here WP Football/used on many pages. It references MOS:ACCESS, which discusses formatting that gives readers and editors with visual impairment the ability to use screen readers to read articles on Wikipedia. I understand your concern for MLS articles, but I think WP Football should be the standard for football pages regardless of league. There are thousands of pages that use the older format and I wouldn't go back and correct those personally, but moving forward I think editors should use the most up to date recommendations on Wikipedia to provide the best access to most people. I would appreciate hearing your input on this. Demt1298 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OKTomrtn (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it may be better but I think all MLS pages should use same format, would be best to revert back to the old way until all pages changed. Maybe we can start a discussion on it with other editors.Tomrtn (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomrtn I appreciate that feedback, but why would we want all of the MLS pages to not be in line with WP Football. I agree with starting the conversation with whatever group of editors you think control MLS articles, but I would use the 2024 Austin FC season page as the example of what WP Football recommends. That allows two things. One people will have a visual reference of how it would look on MLS articles and allow them to comment on likes and dislikes based on that visual reference. Secondly, it would allow the editors to use the 2024 Austin FC season pages formatting to make the adjustment to the other MLS articles. I think if we just revert because other MLS articles aren't in line with WP Football and MOS:ACESS recommendation, it won't lead to progress in getting other editors to adjust those articles to be in line with current recommendations. I know that other leagues also have this issue, because in the Premier League, the 2023–24 Manchester City F.C. season article uses collapsible boxes and the 2023–24 Manchester United F.C. season articles uses current format. I oppose the idea of regressing editing recommendations for standardization. We need to encourage other editors to bring their articles up to current standards and in turn provide a better product for those who use electronic adjuncts for their wikipedia experience. Demt1298 (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boxscores.

Hello, I'm Logan Z Man 2022! I wanted to talk about the boxscores for the 2024 Chattanooga FC season page. I kinda prefer the collapsible Box scores as it allows you to see the opponent's goal scorers and the penalty kicks as well. Is it okay if I put collapsible Boxscores in underneath the schedule page? That is just how I do the schedules and scores. Logan Z Man 2022! (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Logan Z Man 2022! Thank you for reaching out. I am aware alot of editors are more comfortable with the collapsible box scores because they have been using them for an extended period of time. But, the club season template has the concerns for the collapsible box scores template having significant MOS:ACCESS issues for Wikipedia users whom utilize screen readers and fails to meet compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Also, Wikipedia:NOTSTATS suggests that season pages should not just become a listing of stats related to the subject. I personally don't think this second concern is a great concern in the collapsible box scores, but it is still a concern. There is more discussion on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 238#Football Season articles and football results articles about the concerns with this template. I know the new template loses thing like cards and opponents whom score, but do those stats matter to the club the article is about? I would discourage the idea of putting the collapsible boxscore underneath the new template and instead start or add to the discussion on WikiProject Football about the fact these stats don't fit into the new format. Demt1298 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CFU Club Shield

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. BLAIXX 03:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaixx Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate being able to learn more about WikiPedia and want to say thank you for treating this situation as a learning experience for me rather then a negative experience. I do have a question. I see you used a process to merge histories. I know it seems like that is the right answer, but would it be bad if I undid my editing and went through the move process instead, so I can see how that process is completed? Demt1298 (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Thank you for being receptive to feedback.

That's a good question about undoing your changes and completing the page move the correct way but that is not possible anymore. You have the user permission to move pages but only if the target page (new title) does not exist. Since “CFU Club Shield” exists, you would not be able to move “CONCACAF Caribbean Shield” on top of it, even if you blanked the page. In that situation, you would have to go through WP:RMTR (uncontroversial technical requests). Since we need an administrator to fix this up either way, I say we stick with the history merge approach. Let me know if you have any other questions about moving pages. BLAIXX 15:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaixx Darn! Ok, I will learn from this and do it correctly next time. Thank you for doing the behind the scenes work to fix my mistake and merge the history. Demt1298 (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annika Sörenstam

Hi Demt1298 -- I see that you have requested a 20-minute assessment of the article Annika Sörenstam as part of the June Women in Green "Good Article" editathon, but it appears that this article has already met and passed a formal GA review & reassessment (it is currently rated "A-Class", which is actually one level higher than GA!), so this article is not the best choice for working towards Good Article status. Consequently, I'm going to remove your assessment request for Sörenstam, but I encourage you to choose another article (one that hasn't yet reached GA or above) and request a 20-minute assessment for that instead. There are definitely many other biographies about women in sports that would benefit from some concentrated improvements. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanna the Brave Thank you, I should have reread the content assessment prior to asking. I though A was below GA, awaiting the final GA assessment. Thank you! Demt1298 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability and Citogenesis at Anisur Rahman (cricketer)

Thanks for your efforts to clean up {{citation needed}} tags. However, I worry about the reliability of The Roar. Our article about it says some material is written by experts and some by fans. Their website emphasizes that "anyone can contribute" and have their work featured alongside that of sports journalists.[1] Does the user-generated content undergo the same fact checking as the professional? Is Tigerbill44, the author of the source you added to Anisur Rahman (cricketer), reliable?

Examining closely what Tigerbill44 wrote, parts of it are strikingly similar to what was already in our Anisur Rahman article at the time:

Side by side comparison
Wikipedia, February 2017[2]	The Roar, August 2017[3]
However, he struggled to hold his place, as Bangladesh already had two other left arm seamers, Gholam Nousher and Jahangir Alam Talukdar. Anisur's career was also hampered by injuries and No-Ball problem. Still, he briefly emerged in 1994, following the retirement of Prince and Dulu, as the country's top pace bowler.	Yet, Anisur Rahman would find it difficult to get himself in to the main national team. Of course, two other left armers, Prince and Dulu were in the team already. Also, no ball problems combined with injuries hampered Anisur’s progress. Still, following the retirement of Prince and Dulu in 1994, Anis became our main left arm seamer.
He used the reverse swing of the old ball with great effect. In fact, Anisur Rahman was one of the first Bangladeshi bowler to successfully use the reverse swing.	The reverse swing with the old ball was Anisur’s big weapon. In fact, he was the first Bangladeshi bowler to use this technique successfully.

Possibly both Wikipedia and The Roar are based on some third source, but unless it can be identified I think we have to assume that The Roar is a circular source that should be removed. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce Done Demt1298 (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in the June 2024 backlog drive!

You scored 1011 points while adding citations to articles during WikiProject Reliability's first {{citation needed}} backlog drive, earning you this Order of the Lesser Scribe of Wikipedia (olsw). Thanks for helping out!

Pichpich (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Cup

Yes I threw some items on the talk pages however I placed everything that I thought was relevant on the main space with references. Is there something specific you identified? Libro0 (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Libro0No I was just wondering if there was a reference I hadn't found to use. Demt1298 (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those scores came from a multitude of sources. I only put scores on main space that had multiple sources that matched. One of the most frustrating things about that period is conflicting data which happens more than you think clear through the 1980's. I am a stickler for accuracy and unfortunately I encountered errors in modern sources . I noticed you were adding link to references. I have seen other people do that though I have mixed feelings about that because some go to a pay wall or some go to nothing. Either way none of mine have links because when I did the research over twenty years ago it all came from painstakingly pouring through agonizingly small or blurry print on microfilm. I still haven't got around to completing all the American Cup pages because took on too many projects though I promise to get to them soon. Anyway any improvements you see fit are extremely appreciated. Libro0 (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are saying. I am finding much of the same info the early history of soccer. I agree with avoiding the pay sites as much as possible, which is why I linked the newspapers.com link the way I did, it allows them to be linked and reviewed without being a pay member. Demt1298 (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I did review some of the edits to 1885 and I am going to have to revert at least one. One of the references is incorrect. I spent many years working on just that tournament and with 150% definitive proof there were only six teams entered and participated in that tournament not thirteen. No paper at that time says any different. There is a reason I do not use American Soccer Archives, RSSSF, or Melvin Smith's "Evolvements" book --> errors. Even Spalding had a few. Libro0 (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have concern about this, because I also have another reference that states 13 teams entered and the original page didn't have any reference that directly said six teams entered, even your reversion is unreferenced. I don't think we should be removing something referenced without replacing it with a reference that says six teams entered. I will have to mark it with a reference needed due to this. Demt1298 (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Libro0 Soccer in a football world : the story of America's forgotten game by David Wangerin also reference thirteen teams entering the 1885 American Cup, for your review.Demt1298 (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I added the reference. Yes I have reviewed those items. I greatly admire the amount of work done by all these historians and researchers however what I saw in a number of these is compounded errors. People kept referencing the same thing. I went all the way back and scoured the libraries of all the contemporary sources I could to verify these claims. I have also had discussions with some of these historians and clarified some of these issues. Libro0 (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed a few more pages and while I encourage people to contribute to this era because I have been working alone here, I want to caution about sources as above. I worked for a long time to bring information that was not on the internet out in the open with as much accuracy and completeness as possible. You are not the first person that has pointed modern sources to me. I'm seeing sources that I spent a lot of time to remove and replace with contemporary ones only to have them reintroduced. In particular 'This Year In American Soccer'. While I have used Spalding a few times it was only as a last resort. If you want to throw in [citation needed] here and there, I happy to dig through my notes and other parchment. I am not trying to kick you in the teeth but I have had a number of non researchers challenge my info. It seems that I am the only one that has challenged the modern authors. They have all written outstanding books but they are not error free. Kind regards. Libro0 (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work on finding sources that reference this time period of soccer. You in no way are kicking anyone in the teeth, even if you are attempting to suggest there is some form a research you have performed that is in some way better then other editors on Wikipedia. I do have concerns for you response in the fact you present it as if you own the articles in question and would resist their update with cited material. Reviewing the pages, some seems to provide large amounts of non-cited information (i.e. color of uniforms under the participant section of the 1888 American Cup article), and if references are found that counter this information, they should be updated with cited references. I believe when you are referring to the 'This Year in American Soccer' you might be talking about what can be found online at The Society of American Soccer History, but am not sure if that is what you are referring to. I understand a common belief that anything can be placed on the internet without reference, which is why what is written on Wikipedia is best when cited from a secondary source. But attempting to negate a contemporary reference when no historic reference is sourced in the article seems short-sighted. If historic references exist, articles would be improved with those references being notated with in-line citations. Hope this recommendations helps improve these articles that seem to lack appropriate citations. Demt1298 (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don’t claim ownership. I’m just trying to prevent errors because I’ve seen it explode. If it is in the article then I have read it in print. Nothing is made up. I put a reference for every game and elsewhere within reason. I spent an unreal amount of time cleaning up soccer history here because of all the indiscriminate copy pasting from rsssf and the archive from past editors. I have seen some people go overboard on the references and it starts to look hideous. But I get it, it’s not wrong. Give time to dig up the old notes. I’m working rugby right now. Libro0 (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi Demt1298, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Green's "Around the World in 31 Days" GA Editathon – October 2024

Hello Demt1298:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) & Alanna the Brave (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belated happy birthday

It is so belated, hahaha, but yeah, I saw on your user page and just decided to drop a note. It's 17 days late, but please accept my well wishes. Happy editing, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. It is appreciated. Demt1298 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middleton F.C. (1890)

Thanks for the notice that this is an orphan page; it was not when I created it, but I note that someone basically "stole" it for another football club and moved it to this new name. So the links no longer point to it. I'm going to revert that nonsense, given that nobody mentioned it when doing it, but instead first tried to delete it (and was rebuffed). In Vitrio (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]