User talk:Dolovis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Your name on ANI

Howdy. It appears you have not been notified yet, but you are being talked about on ANI.--Rockfang (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Then what exactly was this edit for?--Atlan (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess I missed it. No harm done.--Rockfang (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible future problem

On our local OHL team there is a player named Alex Galchenyuk. He was one of the members of the first all-rookie team for the 2010-2011 OHL season. Knowing this, there is a very good possibility he could be selected in the first round of a future OHL draft, making him notable enough for an article. While I am not trying to create an article now (indeed someone did once, it was deleted), and while I am not invoking WP:CRYSTAL, there is a good possibility that I or someone else will be taking over the redirect as this player's name is simply Alex, not Alexander. He'd be in good company; his teammate and CHL Rookie of the Year Nail Yakupov was my submission to the hockey section of Wikipedia.

Just a future heads-up on this. CycloneGU (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If and when Alex Galchenyuk (born 1994) achieves notability, you might want to become familiar with [[WP:Disambiguation] as it may give you the information you are looking for. Dolovis (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It will be addressed when the time comes; I've been around here for years. I already have the intention to include an Alexander Galchenyuk link at the top of the page. But again, I'm not looking for an article restoration now, so it's not an issue at present. CycloneGU (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I am very confused as to why you are bringing this to my talk page. Dolovis (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Brett Ritchie for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brett Ritchie 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/Brett Ritchie 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. Mtking (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Page move ban

Per consensus of the community, you are hereby banned from moving any pages. Should you require a page to be moved, you are to propose it at WP:RM, and if consensus can be established for the move, it will be moved by another editor. Please note that further attempts to frustrate reversal of moves by editing redirect pages will be considered as disruptive, and sanctions will be applied, up to an indefinite block. This restriction will be logged at WP:RESTRICT, so you will not be able to claim you haven't been notified of the restriction. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Changes to diacritics in external links

Hello Dolovis. There is disagreement regarding your edits to external links (at least I and HandsomeFella do not agree with the edits), which change the diacritics of the links to non-diacritics. Your explanation is that the hockey profile sites itself do not use diacritics, however that may be because they originally were non-European websites. Please provide a policy or guideline justification for your edits; your page-move ban is meant to stop you from changing diacritics in articles. If you do not provide a policy or guideline justification, this may be seen as an attempt to continue your (controversial) changes of diacritics, and you should instead seek consensus for such edits. Regards, HeyMid (contribs) 09:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Since it is HandsomeFella's bold edits to change the external links so that the name parameter shows the BLP's name differently than shown at the external link, per WP:BRD it should be he who needs to provide a policy or guideline justification for such edits; nonetheless, I have raised the question concerning the proper use of the name parameter templates here. Dolovis (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the third parameter in templates like hockeydb is not to replicate the spelling in, or the title of, the linked page, but to lose the disambiguator (if there is one). And you know it. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Dollas

What vandalism are you referring to? I removed the tag because I felt the issue had in fact been suitably addressed. If you disagree, then what else do you feel needs to be done to "wikify" the article? 24.137.71.242 (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Like this reply, the "career stats" for Bobby Dollas are presented in a non-formated text. You made no constructive edit to that article by removing the tag. Dolovis (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested moves

I note that you have some misconceptions in your move requests and comments. First, "a non-English title that is not verified by any sources used in the article" is not a correct argument. The page title shouldn't be based on the sources used in the article, but on the (preferably English language) sources available on- and offline. Before requesting a move (or ma,ny moves), you should check whether the current title is verifiable, not whether the sources in the current article verify it or not.

Second, you claim that "non-English letters which, per WP:UE , “must be transliterated.”". This is not true: the actual policy is that "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated." However, you used this argument for a Czech player at Talk:Miroslav Blaťák, but the Czech language does use a Latin alphabet (Czech alphabet: "The Czech alphabet is a version of the Latin alphabet"), and so it is not one of the alphabets that must be transliterated.

Please keep these two points in mind before making any more similar move requests. Fram (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha, don't waste your time, Fram. This was discussed ad nauseam all over the Wikipedia and Dolovis knows very well what's going on. It looks that nobody can prevent this craziness. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

He has been restricted in using some other means. He is for the moment free to use move requests. However, it it turns out that he continues misquoting policies and suggesting many moves without doing the necessary checks before, further restrictions may follow. Please try to remain civil and give him a chance to reply and to adjust. Fram (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I interacted with User:Dolovis on several occasions in the last months. I hope he doesn't take my comments as "incivil", and I apologize if he does. In any case, civility/incivility is not the main point here. What bothers me more is the fact that I'm probably condemned to spend the rest of my WikiLife repeating the same arguments at his WP:RM's. I don't want to look like a parrot or an idiot. See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Practical_problem for proper explanation. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP question

Further, Dolovis, you claim that having an article title in a person's language writing system instead of havibng it without diacritics is a violation of WP:BLP (see Talk:Toni Kirén). Could you either explain this, or remove this argument? BLP violations are serious stuff, but I can not fathom how having an article title written in the way this person presumably writes his own name in his own language is a BLP violation.

Reply: Per WP:BLP, any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published reliable source using an inline citation. When I made the BLP comment the name spelled as "Kirén" was unsourced (a poor quality non-English source has since been added, but still without an inline citation). Dolovis (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

But that is not a reason to request a move, obviously. You are not even challenging that the name is written in that way, you are just challenging that is the common name in English. Calling this a BLP violation is a serious misunderstanding or misapplication of the policy, and looks a lot like a bad faith argument on your part. Please don't use that argument except for those cases where you actually, seriously doubt that the diacritical version of the name is really correct (not that it is less common, or less used or even unused in English sources, but factually incorrect). Fram (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Fram: I honestly have no idea whether his correct name is “Kiren” or “Kirén”, and that is precisely the point of why we must follow BLP and COMMONNAME. Under BLP policy, any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. In your example of “Toni Kirén”, an editor boldly re-spelled the name “Kiren” to include diacritics[1] and then the article was controversially moved to “Toni Kirén”.[2] This was done, of course, without any reference to sources or policy.

I would like to bring your attention to the BLP article Eric Chouinard. Some editor boldly moved the article moved to “Éric Chouinard” [3], and then went about to rewrite the name in the article as “Éric”[4]. The only reason given for the move was the unfortunately typical “Missing diacritic in name”. This was done, of course, without any reference to sources or policy. This BLP error continued for over two years before I came across the issue and acted to correct it by way of an RM. Unfortunately wiki-policy arguments were initially overlooked in favour of the POV argument that “Diacritics are common in names of people of French Canadian descent” which collected the usual POV support. An editor actually had to contact Eric Chouinard who confirmed that his name was indeed “Eric” and not “Éric” before the move to correct the BLP error received consensus support.

All of the drama and disruption would be avoided if the policies of BLP, COMMONNAME and WP:EN are followed in these situations where diacritics may be an issue. Dolovis (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have any idea whether his name is with or without the diacritic, then perhaps you shouldn't start a move request but just ask a question on the talk page of the article? That other articles actuallo do have an incorrect title is not a reason to blindly claim that this is a BLP violation. And a simple check of Google News would have returned things like this. If you want to claim a BLP violation, either look for truly contentious and unsourced material, or show that you have done a search yourself, and that this normally uncontentious material is incorrect. Otherwise, stick to better arguments and leave such heavy-weight policies out of it. Fram (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

How can any editor know what the truth is? That is why the policy WP:Verifiability exists. And I did not "blindly" make the BLP claim - the name “Kirén” was completely unsourced. That is a BLP violation. It is the responsibility of the editor making the change to properly support it with reliable sources pursuant to BLP. This was not done. BLP is only one of several reasons why the article move should be reverted back to its original location. And please, if it is your intent to argue the RM, please do it at Talk:Toni Kirén. Dolovis (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it is a general remark, intended to discourage you of using the same wrong argument at other RMs. Note that verifiability is not interested in which sources are available in the article, but which sources exist. Fram (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

But BLP is interested in which sources are available in the article, and requires that those sources be made available through inline citations. Dolovis (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Only for truly contentious material though. For most people, these diacritics disputes would only become contentious enough to be a BLP violation after a search had revealed that there were no or next to no sources for that version, like in the Eric example you gave above. To claim that the lack of a source for a diacritic is contentious, when you are perfectly well aware that many, many Czech, Finnish, ... names have them, and when you know from earlier debates perfectly well which ice jockey databases do use the diacritics, making it very easy for you to do a basic check, is not a genuine claim of a BLP violation, but a bad faith attempt to strengthen your argument for moving the article. Again, use BLP for those cases where you have made a genuine effort to chekc the diacritics version and couldn't find an acceptable source for it. Fram (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Google search question

Another thing to keep in mind is that if you want to use Google searches, you should put the name of the person between quotes: something like this gives a quite different figure from what you did[5]. It would be better if you didn't use such Google searches at all, and restricted yourself to reliable sources, but there as well, you need to search using quotes. Fram (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I followed the method as suggested at WP:COMMONNAME, and I appreciate your advice on using quotes and will use that method in the future. You may be interested to know that the searches I made for Talk:Martin Ruzicka have been re-run, and while the numbers do change, the results showing that the verdict is overwhelming did not change. Dolovis (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? I get 283000 hits for the diacritical name[6], and 241,000 ones for the one without the diacritics[7]. Perhaps there is a good reason why Google numbers aren't accepted as a good reason for page moves. There seem to be decent sources in English for both ways if writing, including e.g. a New York Times blog[8]. Fram (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Really. I get 193,000 hits for “Martin Ruzicka”[9], but just 9,240 for “Martin Růžička”. [10] Remember, per COMMONNAME, we are searching for English-language sources. Dolovis (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Google may pretend that these options only return results in English, but looking at the actual results reveals that this is clearly not true, even on the first page of them. Again, Google numbers are not reliable at all. Fram (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"I followed the method as suggested at WP:COMMONNAME": I see no evidence that you actually did though: "When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources". While Books won't give many results, News Archive should be able to return things on sports persons. Fram (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I did first run the news search before defaulting to the web search because of limited results. Even then it still supports the justification for moving the article. Using news sources returns 1 hit for “Martin Ruzicka” [11] and 0 hits for "Martin Růžička"[12] Dolovis (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You can find a suitable tool for searching accented or unaccented characters here. Result:

• "Martin +Ruzicka" -wikipedia - 226 000 hits
• "Martin +Růžička" -wikipedia - 302 000 hits

Btw, remember that Martin Růžička the hockey player is not the only person of that name in the Czech Republic and the search is therefore flawed.

I agree with Fram, Google numbers can't serve as a justification for page moves. Do we want to split the names into accented/unaccented groups generated in accordance with G-Search results? It would be really encyclopedic. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Vejvančický: The justification for the move is WP:COMMONNAME, the Google numbers only provide evidence to support the justification. Please remember to keep in mind that COMMONNAME refers to references found in English-language sources. It is not really relevant to show that his name is spelled differently in a different language. The fact that different languages spell words differently goes without saying. For English Wikipedia, the policy of WP:AT states that the article's TITLE should be the name commonly used in English-language sources. Dolovis (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mark Howell (ice hockey)

The article Mark Howell (ice hockey) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Coach is known for a single event in a university-level hockey team. The coach is not covered in detail in multiple sources.

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. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Calgary Dinos men's ice hockey

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.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Calgary Dinos men's ice hockey. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Calgary Dinos. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Calgary Dinos - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Calgary Dinos men's ice hockey

The article Calgary Dinos men's ice hockey has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable Canadian university-level hockey team with limited coverage in independent sources. Only source is reference to coach who won an award.

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. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter

We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. 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 11:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Dolovis. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A thank you and a request

Hello. Thanks for adding the Lucien Laviscount account I wrote into the main article space for me in light of his new-found passing of the notability rules. It was greatly appreciated. I was wondering if you could also do the same with the Bobby Sabel article, the stub for which I have created below. He is another subject who has now passed the notability rules due to better sourcing. Thanks in advance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=445690103

188.220.151.140 (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vladimir Isaichev

The article Vladimir Isaichev has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't seem notable enough for Wikipedia

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nathan2055^{talk - review} 17:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Petr Ignatenko

The article Petr Ignatenko has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't seem notable enough for Wikipedia

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nathan2055^{talk - review} 17:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

Of course, this is your talk page, and you state above that you're unlikely to respond to less than civil comments. So stipulated; I expect no response and won't be looking for any.

But bloody hell, are you completely unwilling to count? SIX editors stated outright that they'd be happy to see the "major awards" clause go. One was neutral. YOU are the only one to uncategorically oppose. Do you just not believe that anything contrary to your own opinions is valid, or do you just tune out anyone who contradicts you? This has been your pattern for many months now, it's nonsensical, it's needless, and it's caused many of the editors on the hockey project to regard you as a disruptive presence. The nature of a consensus-based encyclopedia is that sometimes you're going to be on the losing side of an argument, in which case your only recourse is to lose gracefully and move on. Give it a try.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  18:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same discussion? I am looking at this discussion that was opened on August 23rd, and then, on August 24th, after limited discussion and no consensus, you declare that a consensus in support of your POV was reached and you change WP:NSPORT. Unless I missing something here, from my perspective it appears that you are trying to do a quick run-around any serious discussion on this issue. Dolovis (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be SEVEN EIGHT editors now supporting the consensus which you alone oppose. If there are any points for discussion which anyone wishes to make that have not otherwise been covered, he or she can raise them. The discussion has not only been open for two days now, but it's a matter that has been discussed before.

Beyond that, stop attempting to conflate this with AfDs, which operate under different rules. There is NO requirement that the discussion be held open for any statutory period of time, and NO requirement that it be "closed" by a non-participating editor. It can be closed whenever a reasonable consensus has been reached - 8-1 certainly being that - and notability guidelines can be changed by any editor respecting such consensus. How about giving WP:Consensus a lookover before courting another block for edit warring?  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  04:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You might want to take a step back and breath a little. You may be too close to this issue. Dolovis (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter

The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:

• Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
• PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
• Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
• Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
• Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
• Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
• Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, Another Believer (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Grandiose (submissions), Stone (submissions), Eisfbnore (submissions), Canada Hky (submissions) and MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, 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 23:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Categorization

When creating new Categories, please categorize them. For example Category:Nijmegen Devils players with this additional wiki code [13]. --Sporti (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Tomas Hyka

I noticed you added this kid to the Flyers roster...where did you get this information? I can't find anything supporting this. Thanks. TerminalPreppie (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Eliteprospects shows him to be transferred to the Flyers here. Dolovis (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking closer at that source, it appears that he has just been added to the practice roster and is not actually signed. Dolovis (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Found it. He's invited to camp, along with a handful of others (can't include the link because hockeyfightsDOTcom is apparently blacklisted). He's not on the roster. I'm going to remove him. TerminalPreppie (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Peter Metcalf (ice hockey) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Metcalf (ice hockey) 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/Peter Metcalf (ice hockey) 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. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Marty Flichel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marty Flichel 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/Marty Flichel 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. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Chris Richards (ice hockey) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Richards (ice hockey) 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/Chris Richards (ice hockey) 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. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Maxim Shuvalov for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maxim Shuvalov 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/Maxim Shuvalov 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.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  10:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Pavel Snurnitsyn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pavel Snurnitsyn 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/Pavel Snurnitsyn 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.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  10:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dolovis. You have new messages at Fayerman's talk page.
Message added 17:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fayerman (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mike Clarke (ice hockey b. 1953)

Hello! Your submission of Mike Clarke (ice hockey b. 1953) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PM800 (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Move of Nikita Schitov to Nikita Shchitov

As I posted when the page was moved, it fits commonality of others who have an have "shch" in their names (i.E.: Polishchuk, Troshchinskiy, Grebenshchikov, etc.) as shown in various IIHF tournaments and says Shchitov on the back of his KHL jersey. If you still don't believe it, look at the video evidence in the KHL.ru game highlights.

"If you are using original research for your translations of the players names, please stop." You're really going to question MY research on the KHL, considering that I'm the one that made the roster template for every KHL club in the first place and am the one who maintains them? (Saint0wen (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

Yes, unless you are able to provide verifiable sources, then I will continue to question your research. Dolovis (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Dolovis, just wanted to let you know that I saw that you created the new article 2011–12 SM-liiga season--The content seems well-organized. It's nice to see you editing!Jipinghe (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Kind words from other editors go a long way to making Wikipedia a positive experience. Dolovis (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter

We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by Miyagawa (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Sp33dyphil (submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, 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 12:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN discussion

Hello. Your page-move ban is under discussion at WP:AN#Page moves for User:Dolovis, with a proposal to lift it. Note that I'm not the filer of the thread. Regards, HeyMid (contribs) 22:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, Dolovis..... you're kind of stacking the deck against yourself with some of your posts. It could have been closed by now. It's gonna require someone coming along and deciding to be cool, so it's worth thinking about just how appealing you make that look to them. Caviling over the difference between "lift" and "relaxation", and insisting that, no, really, you're being treated unfairly, are two ways to convince lots of potentially helpful admins to instead walk on by... -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your constructive comments. All I am asking for is for the community to take a sober second look at the reasons for the ban, and then the action of an uninvolved administrator to lift it. The only reason for a page move ban is to prevent disruptive editing, and I believe that that concern has been fully addressed. Dolovis (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the concern has been fully addressed, which is why I've supported you. I hope others will feel the same way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hi Dolovis, How are you? My name is Matthew Roth and I'm a Storyteller working on the 2011 fundraiser with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. In past years, we've relied on Jimbo to carry the bulk of the fundraising weight and he's done very well helping us hit our yearly funding targets. This year, however, we're broadening the scope and reach of the fundraiser by incorporating more voices and different people on the funding banners and appeals that will start running full-time on November 7th. We're testing new messages and finding some really great results with editors and staff members of the Foundation. You can see the current progress of the tests here. I'm curious if you would want to participate in an interview with me as part of this process? The interviews usually last 60 minutes and involve a number of questions about your personal editing experiences, as well as general questions about Wikipedia and its impact in the world. Please let me know by emailing mroth (at) wikimedia.org. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 22:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

John Ramage (ice hockey)

Won't lie, I see no value in redirects such as this. I have started a discussion at RfD on it here Resolute 00:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia:DGUIDE

Hello Dolovis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:DGUIDE, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: R2 only applies to redirects from mainspace. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

RMs on article names

Keep up with the RMs, Dolovis. Even if you do end up getting barred or blocked by the pro-diacritics crowd, atleast you didn't cave in to their 'mother country pride' PoV. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why on Earth would I be barred or blocked when I am following following established wiki-policy and protocol? I have been told numerous times that RM is the proper way to open a discussion for an article move. It appears to me that there is a double standard. I wish other editors would also use RM for controversial moves. Dolovis (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, you shouldn't be barred or blocked. But the pro-dios crowd have had a majority control for quite a few years & will fight tooth & nail to keep that control. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is in no way a majority; just a very vocal and militant minority, several of whom abuse and misrepresent wiki-policy, to further their POV goal. Dolovis (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

They are a stubborn group. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dolovis. You have new messages at WhiteWriter's talk page.
Message added 21:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

RM Milan Jurcina

Hi Dolovis:  First, congratulations / thanks re: the Marek Zidlicky RM.  I take it success in these requests is rare of late; always nice to see the right outcome happen.
I recently came across the RM for Milan Jurcina; but I just wanted to give you a quick heads up before I posted there.  In doing a quick check and gathering some facts before posting, I noticed that, as with Zidlicky, all English (and several foreign) press dropped the diacritics; however, in checking the book references, I found that, of the 18 publications with Jurcina, a single English reference listed him as Milan Jurčina in relation to the 2006 Turin Olypics.  Since I do, as I trust you and most of the others seeking to drop incorrect diacritics, want Wikipedia to be correct, the question then becomes what's correct?  And I believe that (generally) English country resident / citizens have the diacritics (properly) dropped by default in our culture.  That said, were it apparent that Zidlicky wanted his name spelled with, and typically spelled his name with diacritics, I'd consider it to be more a question of treating him with simple respect to spell his name according to his wishes (not to be confused with the apparent desire of some to use them even when they aren't appropriate [such as Zidlicky & Jágr, as well as Tomáš Vokoun whom I'll be searching for info on, and likely RM'g, shortly]).  And while I do agree that the title of Jurcina's article should be the most common English spelling (without diacritics), I also think that, given that his name is listed as Milan Jurčina in this single reference, that spelling of his name should be clearly mentioned in the body of his article.  But given what I understand to be the historical outcome of these RMs, I'm sure my mention of any source with diacritics will just make it that much tougher; so I just wanted to make sure you understood that I have no desire to sandbag this RM or the cleaning up of all these mistitled articles.  Anyways, I'll post on Jurcina's talk page a little later, but I wanted you to have a heads-up first.  Cheers til I see you out there again. — Who R you? Talk 22:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
(P.S. I posted a big-assed note on my otherwise relatively blank User page to notify of these diacritic related issues, since I wouldn't want to WP:CANVASS again; I've updated it right now with Jurcina's link and, should I find or nominate any others, I'll add them there; should you decide to do the same on your page, great, once I spot it I'll start watching your user page; or alternatively, feel free to update that section of my userpage should you come across any that I don't seem to know about.)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter

The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Hurricanehink (submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:

1. Hurricanehink (submissions)
2. Sp33dyphil (submissions)
3. Yellow Evan (submissions)
4. Miyagawa (submissions)
5. Wizardman (submissions)
6. Casliber (submissions)
7. Resolute (submissions)
8. PresN (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The Featured Article Award: Casliber (submissions), for his performance in round 2. Hurricanehink (submissions) matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
• The Good Article Award: Yellow Evan (submissions), for his performance in round 4.
• The Featured List Award: Miyagawa (submissions), for his performance in round 4. PresN (submissions) matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
• The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics): PresN (submissions), for his performance in round 3.
• The Did You Know Award: The Bushranger (submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The In the News Award: Candlewicke (submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews): Wizardman (submissions), for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiCup participation

Awarded to Dolovis for participation in the 2011 WikiCup.

It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Back atcha

• It has been proposed that Ľubomír Višňovský be renamed and moved. Dolovis (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletionish discussion

There is a deletionish discussion about some of the articles you created at Talk:Dominik Halmosi/AfD discussion. Since the person who initiated the "AfD" failed to notify you, I thought I'd let you know. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Blatak

Howdy. You should've reverted Djsasso's page move, instead of opening an RM - to revert it. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Even though BRD is the right thing to do by policy and process, if you remember, the pro-dios crowd piled all over me for performing BRD moves, resulting in a page move ban for me - but not for the instigators who were then able to continue their moves unabated. Dolovis (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dominik Halmosi

Ah, that's got nothing to do with the "AfD" discussion. That page is transcluding Wikipedia:WikiProject English/WPPolicy, which is part of Wikiproject English. That Wikiproject has been sent to MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject English, so all its pages have MfD templates on them. The article isn't currently nominated for deletion. Hut 8.5 14:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re RM close on Lubomir Visnovsky

Dolovis, clearly you are unhappy with the close decision, but in my opinion the discussion did not result in a clear consensus to move to a new title. Everyone had their own arguments. You firmly believe that your position was policy based and other positions weren't. I am confident that the opposers feel the same way. There are a lot of subtle things going on with Diacritics in WP and its an unresolved issue. Until those subtle issues are resolved at the guideline or policy level, title changes like this are likely to be contentious and unresolvable. I would encourage you to work for resolution at that level instead of fighting battles at the individual article level. Remember, above all WP is for readers. Redirects and article content ensures all possible spellings of a name can be found and read about by an interested reader. For this particular article, the current title does no harm to the encyclopedia. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Because this is a controversial issue it is important that Admins follow actual established policy, and not to just blindly accept that the contributing editors "firmly believe" in their positions. I have asked you to explain your written reasons for the “No Consensus” close on the Ľubomír Višňovský RM where you stated “Everyone made a good case based on policy and guidelines”. I am confused by this statement as the RM was nominated based on the established Wikipedia policy of WP:UE, including WP:COMMONNAME, with the Support side providing overwhelming evidence of reliable sources to support the policy-based Requested Move. The Oppose side quoted no established policy at all to oppose the move, instead arguing broad POV concepts of using the “correct” non-English name for biographies. Please enlighten me on exactly what established policy the opposed side based their “good case” upon, because I just don't see it. Dolovis (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the discussion with an open mind and you'll answer your own question. Enough said. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, My request was for you, Mike Cline, to answer my question. You appear to be unwilling, or more likely, unable to point to an established policy which supports the opposed side. Please explain yourself. Dolovis (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Archives

I've got a Bot, which archives my talkpage for me. An adminsitrator, should be able to set one up for you. GoodDay (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are the instructions for the most common archive bot. -DJSasso (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)