User talk:Johan Elisson/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Johan Elisson, for the period 12 April 2006–2 July 2006. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Ukrainian Premier League has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

History of football (soccer) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

I proposed a merge of History of football in Poland into Football in Poland, and being new to the whole thing and all, I don't know if there is something else I should do/have done as well, so I thought that I'd just run things past you, as you seem quite a senior member of Wikiproject football. Thanks Philc _T+C 22:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed yesterday that some anon added stuff from "a Finnish encyclopedia" or something like that, but without actually adding a reference. It seemed pointless at the time to try to clean up that, but maybe you should go through and check and reference alt. remove whatever can't be found somewhere. I don't know how many useful edits were actually made yesterday, as opposed to the pure vandalism that seems to have been more common, but maybe you should just revert everything to its pre-mainpage state and then re-insert whatever could have been useful after it has been checked. BTW, I don't see Lars Ericson's Svenska knektar among the references. Are you familiar with it and found it less useful, or have you just not got around to reading it? up+land 06:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

History of the FIFA World Cup has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Reading F.C. has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

I see you reverted the article List of football (soccer) clubs recently?

If you insist on using tables rather than dot points, then rather than being lazy, fix the rest of the confederation sections with tables/city names, so the page doesn't look messy with dot points here and table there. 203.164.184.107 12:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I tried but couldn't get rid of the question mark on the shirt. I left it because I thought the next guy would see they were changed, and you fixed it. User:Drogo 16:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watch it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
• Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
• Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific nations or periods.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 00:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 00:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to reject a potentially interesting article, then you're perfectly entitled to do so according to Wikipedia law. I can't stop you.

So is there anywhere else on the Internet (wikicities for example?) that might be interested in hosting my research? Some website might want it, if not WP. --Mark J 19:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As an experienced Wikipedian with an interest in football pages and a record of work on a Featured Article, your opinion would be welcomed on a discussion at Talk:Swansea City A.F.C.. After various attempts to add a site with no original content, the site's owner has now recruited someone else to do the same. The question is this: am I correct to delete links to sites which themselves consist of others' copyrighted material and links to other sites? Given the paucity of real content, I have a strong suspicion that the site is operated on a "cash for clicks" basis.

I would like, ultimately, to see the Swansea City A.F.C. Wikipage reach Featured standard, so I am inviting opinions from Wikipedians with sustantial edit histories. Thank you for your time. - Stevecov 14:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please could you do a map for Marske-by-the-Sea? Computerjoe's talk 20:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, not sure exactly what kind of map you want. I'm sort of a little busy the following days but in case there's no hurry I guess I'll be able to help you if I get some more info on what type of map you want. :) – Elisson • Talk 23:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I want a map like Image:Saltburn - North Yorkshire dot.png. Computerjoe's talk 08:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just edited the position of the dot slightly, Image:Marske - North Yorkshire dot.png. Good enough? – Elisson • Talk 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. Oldelpaso 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My mistake on the archive there, i figured since the page was so long it would be appropriate. Batman2005 01:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

For participating in my insane project and surviving, here is a present! Enjoy! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So how much time of no one disputing anything further do we allow the dispute tag to stay on United States men's national soccer team? You were the one to place it there most recently. Uris 03:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Answered on Talk:United States men's national soccer team.

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I award you this barnstar for the neat World Cup template you made. Sweden is not doing so well though. Minfo 03:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, didn't expect that when I created it. :) – Elisson • Talk 11:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think FIFA World Cup 2006 should use Ivory Coast or Côte d'Ivoire? For reference Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup. Kingjeff 02:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Johan. I have some serious concerns about the (probably unintentional) misogynistic POV in Football Project articles and am hoping to enlist your cooperation. I've attempted, over the past year, to begin correcting the biased POV by:

• including women in football articles that previously made it seem as if only men play football or only men play well
• creating new content/articles about women's football (e.g.: history, national teams and international competition)
• wikifying articles related to women and football

I appreciate your passion for football and the enormous effort you've put into maintaining articles, the portal and the project. But, it is disconcerting to find my work undone without so much as an attempt to collaborate or find ways to improve the representation of women in Wikipedia football articles. Reverting to the biased content on women's role in soccer (Football (soccer) culture article) as "soccer mom or fan" is a violation of NPOV. And removing the Norwegian Premier League for women link from the Women's football around the world article is counter-productive, in the most generous interpretation. Perhaps it was not your intention to do anything POV. I would appreciate if you'd collaborate. Would you consider helping by finding a group of editors interested in improving the representation of women in football articles? Thanks. Deebki 00:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[The following italic text was pasted from Deeb's user page for reference:]

I can't see how there is any anti-"women's football" POV in the Football Project, could you point me to something specific? You may even note that under the heading "Goals", the Project states that one of its 6 goals for writing articles is to write articles "on women's national teams in every country". Or are we writing somewhere that women aren't allowed to contribute? Or are we talking bad about women's football somewhere? Not as far as I know. It is great that you have tried to promote women's football, but do not try to tell anyone what to do. I, along with everyone else here, write about, and create articles on, exactly what we ourselves want to as long as it is accepted by the guidelines. You can not force anyone to write about women's football.

The truth is, Deeb, that no matter how you want to represent football, the overwhelming majority of players, youth players, referees and spectators of football—bot for "regular" (and yes, there generally is no "men's football", as both men and women are allowed to play in most of those leagues and competitions), and women's football—are men. In Europe, Africa, Asia and South America, less than 5 % of all players are women or girls. In North America, the number is of course much larger for women, but still only around 1/3 or the players. Putting those numbers together gives a hint on how much actual focus we should give to football and women's football respectively, on Wikipedia. Calling that POV pushing is lying, it is merely presenting facts.

Regarding my revert of the Norwegian Premier League for women addition, that was a pure mistake, I just wanted to revert your addition of strange categories to that article, as I have already pointed out here above. Regarding my revert of your change of the Football (soccer) culture article, I can't see that being POV? As said above, football in general is about men, and having a section for what differences there is for women is just natural. Having a section named "Women and men spectators", then a link right below that says "Main article: Women's football (soccer)", then the section itself almost exclusively talks about women or women's football, is in my opinion worse POV than it originally was.

No, my intention is not to have a POV, I am merely contributing to the things I am interrested in, and that generally does not include women's football. I don't have anything against collaborating with you, but then please be willing to collaborate with me too. As I wrote on your talk page in March this year, your addition of largely unrelated categories to several articles disturbed the general category layout the Football Project had created over some months, I told you to stop, and you did, great! But now you have started doing that again, and that is not what I want when trying to collaborate with you. I would also advice you to take a look at your contributions to articles and the fact that most of it is only taking the situation in United States into consideration, on for example Women's National Team (notice that someone has slapped a {{globalize}} on it) and Women's professional sports. It would be great if you could try to NPOV it a little to include the situation in other countries.

Regarding your final request, for me to find you "a group of editors interested in improving the representation of women in football articles", I don't know how I could do that better than you? There is around 100 more or less active members of the WikiProject, of which none of the more active editors seems very interrested in women's football. I think it is up to you to find people interrested in contributing to those articles. I myself is the only Wikipedia editor interrested in Swedish football and the only editor contributing regularly to Sweden-related football articles, but I'm not complaining about that. Instead I'll just have to accept the fact that not many persons are very interrested in that specific subject, and then do the best out of the situation. Best regards – Elisson • Talk 11:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Would you care to answer my conserns? – Elisson • Talk 12:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Johan. You requested a specific example of misogynistic POV. A perfect example is your revert of my edits to the Football (soccer) culture‎ article: [1]. You've reverted to a misogynistic POV, moving the section about women back to the "Fans" section and the making it sound as if football is a men's sport and women are only fans. A second example is your redirect of Soccer dad to Soccer mom. Soccer dad is a legitimate topic. Your elimination of the article on Soccer dad makes it sound as if dads don't take that role with their children. There are numerous other examples of this POV in football articles. United States POV, BTW? I "slapped" the globalize tag on those articles. Sounds a bit like you're dodging the issue by attacking me. As a responsible admin and leader, I'd expect that you would welcome any awareness of misogynistic POV and take immediate action to correct it. Although misogynistic POV is common, it is still unacceptable. And I am requesting that you correct your mistake.

As an admin and "keeper"/leader in the Football Project, you've an opportunity to encourage all the editors to correct the misogynistic POV in football articles. I needn't tell you what those means/tools are. They're the same as are used for Football AID, etc. Deebki 11:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting the section on Sweden about their World Cup campaign so far? I have done this for all the world cup teams so far and is consistent so please stop rmoving this seciton. Thankyou.

Have little awareness that nationalist expression is forbiden in the articles of Wikipedia, see article Skanderbeg. If you wan't to contribute to the article Skanderbeg, you are more then welcome but be aware of the many nationalists who like to claim he was Greek, Macedonian or Serb when such claims have not been confirmed by science. Please see talk page of the article Skanderbeg. Thank you. Hope you reply. --Albanau 17:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Woohoo, we drew, you deserved to win by a mile (sorry, 1604 metres [or whatever!]) and now you take on the hosts. I think you stand a great chance, and I think we'll be lucky to grab a draw vs. Ecuador. But nice to see you around the Wikipedia (causing trouble...!!)... Good luck v. Deutschland! Budgiekiller 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, nice to see another editor take an interest in editing this template. :-) I noticed that you changed the width of the side columns. I suspect you've done that because you've encountered text that has broken into two lines when in fact it should occupy only one. There's a little trick that you can apply in such cases where in the concerned text you replace all blank spaces " " with "   ". This will in effect prevent the line from breaking whenever possible. Cheers again! Netscott 21:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just applied this principal to Template:CONCACAF_teams. The other possibility is to widen a given template's own table. :-) Netscott 22:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Greeting again, I noticed on the above template that with respect to Template:fb start it could not be easily widened (it looked too "bunched up" to me). I've solved this type of problem by developing another template that's meant for spacing using   called Template:nbsp {{nbsp}}. It'll include a given number of  's (up to 10) on a given line by giving it a number corresponding to the number of   desired as indicated after the | (ie: {{nbsp|3}} corresponds to     and so on up to 10). I've utilized this new template to widen the above template and was wondering what you thought of its new wider appearance? Ok, look forward to your response. Cheers. Netscott 01:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Another update, scratch what I said earlier about replacing space with   as there's no longer a need to do so. I've set up some rules in Tnavbar-header that disallow line breaking. Cheers. Netscott 04:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny enough using the &nbsp; is equivalent to just using NOWRAP. The reason that I opted for NOWRAP is due to the fact that in lieu of having to potentially use several &nbsp;s one would only need to use the occasional <br> as you correctly mentioned. The <br> is just much easier to control in terms of predictability across a wide variety of operating systems and browsers. Netscott 15:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an explanation is warranted. I see why you're motivated to add a font color attribute... I'll look at that and see what might be the best solution. Netscott 16:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Greetings Johan Elisson, just thought I'd inform you that there's a new Template:Tnavbar-header-sandbox in the works: {{Tnavbar-header-sandbox}}.

Please don't hesitate to edit on it! :-) Netscott 18:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I made them before the new "design" came, and on the old, there was some of the points I could not fill out. There fore i made {{Marcus Allbäck infobox}} and {{Álvaro Santos infobox}}, when i thought it filled to much space on the articles. When the new design came, I just replaced them with the template - that is so long ago, I didn't knew to delete articles, but I have learned now. kalaha 14:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove it? I spent quite some time working on it and preparing arms for that kit was next on my to do list. Your reaction seems discouraging... //Halibutt 22:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought that the reason why the football kits are uniform is because nobody had enough time to make them look real. I had some time, which apparently was wasted by the fast revert. I understand that you don't like the greyish look though. I would've corrected that but now that all instances of the shirt were removed from any place I doubt it has any sense. Why waste another 2 hours on something Johan Elisson would revert on the spot. //Halibutt 10:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if my reply above sounded uncivil to you, that was not my intention. I also understand that your fast revert was not a result of some malice but rather a matter of some rules stated somewhere (where?). I was merely asking for some clarification as to why did you revert my changes on the spot. The hussar might be nice as a picture on its own, but we can't add it as I believe it's copyrighted by Puma. That's why I reverse-engineered it using one of the historic pictures, and in such a small scale it looks almost identical. Anyway, apparently there's no need to waste more of my time on the matter, 2 hours is enough. Just tell me what should I do to make the Polish football kit look real instead of plain white. //Halibutt 11:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Might do. I'll also add a note to the plain white kit in the infobox explaining that it's not used any more and referring to the thumbnail below. How about that? //Halibutt 12:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you are interested in military issues, please take a look at Swedish Army rank insignia whenever you're back. There seems to be diverging opinions on how to define and translate Swedish army ranks. up+land 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that you just got back from vacation, I'll remind you of this and point out that some of the articles linked from that one, on Swedish army ranks, are affected by the same problem. It appears to be a discussion spilling over from a forum (http://forum.soldf.com - this discussion thread for instance, but search for "Wikipedia", as I think there are others). The articles all need rewrites and proper referencing. up+land 11:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Är det verkligen nödvändigt att ha ett foto på gbgtifo? Bilden är liten och tifot är väl inte så himlans imponerande? Tycker en bild från något storlag skulle vara mer passande, speciellt om laget är känt för sina vackra tifos. Yeye, over and out. Eller vänta, du är VPL på PBAT antar jag eh? Jag rycker in om ett tag på A9, vet du hur deras lokaler är? Hmm, hej då! --84.217.122.26 02:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)