User talk:The does

Welcome!

Hello, The does, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Mário e Dário (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add live scores to 2009 Confederations Cup

I don't know. Someone told me not to change after every goal, and furthermore, it is better to make one single edit, and put the final score and the goalscorers, after the match. -- Mário e Dário (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelback

Thank you for experimenting with the page Nickelback on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it looked as though you were trying to make a sample edit. Keep being bold and remember to add good sources. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:Kimjongil.png

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to File talk:Kimjongil.png, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You "←Created page with 'This guy is an idiot. --~~~~')Skier Dude (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid

Hi, is there any reason you removed my comment about Real Madrid being certain not to finish last in the group in the Champions League? Thanks. Geregen2 (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League top scorers

Hi. Could you explain why you shortened the Premier League scorers and assistants lists? I realize that in the league's early days, those lists can look a bit long when several players are tied towards the bottom of them, but past practice is pretty clear: you show the top 10. It'll look a little neater as more goals are scored. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

Please stop deleting perfectly good and sourced content. Build articles up, rather than reduce them. Your most recent example of removing the efforts of others to build articles up was to delete the red card from the Championship play-off final article. Why? Sendings off are key moments in football matches and usually listed alongside goals scored (e.g. on Teletext). I see from some of your past contributions you have been criticised for removing/reducing content so please stop. --TBM10 (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penalty shoot-outs

The way you're representing penalty shoot-outs is really pretty unclear as it is, without reducing "pens" to "p". The "p" is now the only indication that there was ever a penalty shoot-out. Not only is a penalty shoot-out never referred to in any reliable source as simply "p", but not all readers can click on the link to see what it is you're talking about. This is aside from it being uglier because the bracketed scores don't fit in the box properly. What exactly is wrong with the footnote? Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what other articles say, there's no requirement to make any article conform to another. I disagree with you on both counts, so I suggest a compromise - keep the scores inside the bracket if you want, providing it says "pens" instead of "p" - again, where is any kind of other source that uses "p"? Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good. As for the other league articles, it'll be up to you and the other guys that edit them. I'm strictly a non-league type, so that's the extent of my input. I can't imagine anyone would complain about "pens" but then you never know :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary made me laugh

"MANY TIMES HAVE I SAID, USE DASHES)"

I love that on Wikipedia someone can shout at someone else for using the wrong sort of horizontal line. It's brilliant. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UEFA EURO 2012

head to head games counts only after both games are played. until then, goal difference counts. don't pretend you're smarter than the uefa guys. [1] Eddie Nixon (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euro 2012 qualifiers

Hello! It is of no relevance any more, but I wonder why you deleted my section [2] with a calculation of chances for the "best runner-up" in UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying. It is OR in a sense, but why is it more OR than:

"Scotland will qualify if they beat Spain" [3] ?
"Current standings" and "pot allocation" of runners-up, in particular as these feature a "ranking" which is purely unofficial ?
"Average attendances" ?

Ivan Volodin (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rankings and average attendances are both OR, and in my opinion should be removed as well (the rankings already have been). Scenarios refer specifically to what will happen as a result of what, and so are valid. The does (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So how did the runners-up calculation differ from scenarios? Ivan Volodin (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The scenarios are clear, spelled-out sentences describing what would happen. Your edits were a gigantic table with little to no explanation to the reader of what anything meant. The does (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to change the argument: you started by saying it was OR and now you claim it was not comprehensible. With respect, I disagree on both points. To many (like myself), a clear table with figures is often more understandable than a dozen sentences describing the various scenarios. And note, the "provisional standings" that you supported were giving the reader a much less clear picture. Thus, several teams included in that table ultimately did not finish second (while others, having a better chance to do so, did not appear on the table), and some of them never had a chance of becoming the best runner-up. It will be appreciated if you moderate your enthusiasm in deleting other people's contributions, as indeed supported by many at your talk page. Ivan Volodin (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "provisional standings" you're referring to. I said I supported scenarios. Your edits were both OR and incomprehensible; I merely stated one of these at first and then brought up the other. Do you think that, "to many", it would be easier to understand the meaning of "RUS < AND and IRL > ARM" than to understand the same meaning, written out in text? Or for them to have to refer to "notes" located outside of your table instead of reading all the details in a coherent sentence? I think not. I appreciate your efforts but the contributions were deleted for good reasons – OR and lack of comprehensibility are just two of them. The does (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Provisional standings are those that you reverted my edits to [4]. As you may see, these also feature notes located outside the table. And seriously, "RUS < AND and IRL > ARM" is at least as comprehensible as "Russia lose to Andorra and Ireland defeat Armenia". It has the advantage of being understandable to people with various levels of knowledge of English, and gives a clear view of who play whom, who play home and who play away etc. And remember, it was a table, so using full sentences would clearly be absurd. If > and < is not good (I admit it is rarely used in sports context), I would welcome suggestions as to more understandable stuff (probably 1, X, 2 used by bookmakers? but these are also confusing).

I have no intention to prolong the discussion, but this has been simply to demonstrate that there may be different opinions. Since people have already advised you on numerous occasions to refrain from reverting, why not discussing first, rather than deleting straight away? Ivan Volodin (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak football league level

from the 2011/2012 season, the highest football league in Slovakia called again first League (Corgoň Liga), the second highest football league called the second league (2. liga), the third highest football league called the third league (3. liga) ... it's different than you think!. [5] IQual (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Task Force

Hello, I was wondering if you would like to join a task force about national football teams. There isn't one yet, but you can join by putting your name here. Happy editing, Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 23:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Ozuna

I'm posting this message on your talk page because I noticed that you've recently created the new article Erick Ozuna--The layout of the article makes it very clear.It would be great if you could also add references to the related article Miguel Báez. Amy Z (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valeriu and Gheorghe Andronić

Hi - as it seems that you changed the name of one of these articles to replace the "c" in their surnames with "ć" can you comment on the discussion here. Thanks Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These don't need to be bolded

Do you have a reason (an actual one) as to why you are changing the format of something that has always be done a certain way. They were bold in all the previous World Cups, the UEFA Champions League, Europa League, AFC Champions League, CAF Champions League etc etc etc. I'm sure there is probably somewhere where they weren't bold, but the weight of evidence seem to suggest you are trying to change a standard - as does the sheer number of pages you are editting at once. Has it been discussed in WP:FOOTY or are you just trying to piss lots of people off at once? Jlsa (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merely following the precedents for qualifying group templates set at UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying, 2013 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship qualification, 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA), UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying, etc. The does (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed (and some of those I edited maintain their consistency). Yet that is not a universal system. Is there a particular reason for this change given that (previously) it was consistent but in the other standard? Jlsa (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the bold wasn't necessary from my point of view. Why bold the team names in the fixtures table if they aren't bolded in the standings table? If I remember correctly, Wikipedia discourages unnecessary bolding. Also, I doubt that anyone would be "pissed off" by these changes; it is the Internet and no one should take anything personally. The does (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of vitrolic abuse over whether it's 1–0 or 1 – 0 I think your view is probably optimistic. Jlsa (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents, it should be 1–0 everywhere but in template:footballbox, where it should be 1 – 0. The does (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Widths

Your comment that the words "United Arab Emirates" have no trouble fitting into the standard width of 165 is not correct. It does not fit in the Cologne Blue skin for example. These points need to be checked before making edits such as these Jlsa (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the default skin. The does (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Which "default"? The new one, or the older one that people used to be assigned (and would still have if they hadn't manually switched over)? Stats are hard to come by, but most suggest that Cologne Blue is the second most used "chosen" (non-default) skin available. Are you saying if things don't work at all in certain setups you don't think they should be adjusted? It's almost as if you think wikipedia just needs to work on your computer and not on anybody elses. Jlsa (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Col-3

I think that we should use {{col-3}} only for long lists of names. I think it reads better. At least 5 names should be needed to apply col-3. Two and three are hard to understand that it goes across, and I think 4 looks awkward.

Thoughts? Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 20:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Erick Ozuna (baseball) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Erick Ozuna (baseball) 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/Erick Ozuna (baseball) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Hoops gza (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Fb team Michalovce

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JMHamo (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Fb team Ružiná

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JMHamo (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF) goalscorers

Template:2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF) goalscorers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Giant Snowman 19:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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