User talk:Johan Elisson/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Johan Elisson, for the period 20 October 2006–18 December 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.

This article is proposed for deletion. I believe a case could be made for its notability, but I am not challenging the prod. With the current state of the page (a one-line substub), I think allowing it be deleted now and hoping somebody will recreate it in better shape at some point in the future, is better than wasting time defending it at AFD. u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 14:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm the editor who prodded the article; it looks much stronger now, I'm not going to bother to afd. Good job improving it! --Brianyoumans 19:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, im really sorry, i dont know many things yet in wikipedia, i used the text of World Soccer Ranking to do a copy for World Volleyball Ranking and i didnt know what was that template talking abou volley, im really sorry.

Football stadiums should be the #1 football articles on Football AID. I've look at a lot of football stadium articles and most of them are nothing but stubs like 1 or 2 sentences. Kingjeff 17:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've proposed a sports venue WikiProject. Come here and check it out. Kingjeff 04:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The October 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 21:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have decided that the Wikiproject must focus on all articles related to Sweden. Could you create a {{WPSweden}} template to put on article talk pages? Thanks.

Fred-Chess 06:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I have already created a list of core articles, it seems like a good idea to also include an importance field to the template.... / Fred-Chess 15:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Assessment page. Sure, why not?

Fred-Chess 13:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that our paths cross entirely too often Mr. Elisson; however, on this particular issue, I do have the immovable upper hand. You see, I served in the 3rd U.S.Infantry (The Old Guard -- the abbreviation 'TOG' was how it was written on all official papers), with distinction (as a mortar man and a squad leader), from 1991-1994 -- which, if I read your bio correctly, would have been from about the time you were 7 until you were 10.

Regardless of the intent of the move, the official names of United States Army units are simply not negotiable. Addressed improperly, mail sent to a unit will often not be received, save for perhaps the common human decency of the Postmaster -- and believe me, I have had plenty of mail lost during my stay in the army due to improperly addressed mail.

a sample of the address, incidentally looks like this:

SGT Joe Snuffy, HHC CO., 3rd US INF (TOG), Ft. Myer, VA 22211

The number in a regiment is what always goes first; and in the cases where the 'U.S.' occurs -- which it does in relatively few places and these are most often very old units -- it is included after the regimental number. In this particular case, the 'U.S.' in the 3rd US Infantry, serves to distinguish it from 3rd regiments in the Confederate Army during the American Civil War. I know this because we had to know it for the "Soldier of the Month" board way back when.

Conforming to Wiki standards is one thing when it comes to categorical nomenclature. But changing the name of the unit to fit such a standard is akin to changing the name of a country from (for example) The United Sates of America, to: The American United States. Anyone who claims to be a military history buff, should appreciate that. If you have any further comments on the matter, please post them in the discussion section of the article. Ryecatcher773 23:04 27 October 2006

I'm editing that article; would you be kind enough to wait until I've done before reverting me? Thank you. John Reid 18:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, making one edit, only inserting a header without content did not look like something that was worth keeping. Why not add both header and content in the same edit, to minimize misunderstandings like these? Anyway, I removed the whole section, see WP:AVTRIV as well as the football (ball) article, which covers that piece of info. – Elisson • T • C • 19:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Inserting the section header first minimizes edit conflict, reduces the chance of iatrogenic error, and makes the page history neater. I almost always do it this way. You might assume that any editor with as much time on project as I have must have some definite purpose in mind.

Good that there's a page that includes that information. Why can't I find a link to it from the main article? John Reid 19:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Inserting the header first might minimize edit conflicts, but it certainly increases problems like this. If you would have written a longer trivia piece, maybe writing for 30 minutes before adding the actual content, do you not expect people to remove the header, seeing that it is the only thing having been added, and it has been there for 25 minutes? Oh, you assume that I know who you are? No, I don't, and either way experienced editors make mistakes too, including me.

The link to the article is in the first section, "Nature of the game": Football is played in accordance with a set of rules, known as the Laws of the Game. The game is played using a single round ball (the football)[...]. – Elisson • T • C • 19:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, there it is. And yes, there's an explanation of ball construction, so I'm happy.

When I see that a registered editor has done something I don't understand, I don't assume it's a mistake; I AGF, contact the editor on talk, and ask for an explanation. It's just polite. John Reid 23:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming it is a mistake, is assuming good faith, isn't it? And I do not have the time, nor the will to contact every editor that I've reverted, even if I know they made an honest mistake or screwed something up without the intention to. Well, we're both happy, and that's the important thing. :) – Elisson • T • C • 23:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Er? No, it's not polite for you to assume I've made a mistake. That's assuming I'm careless or foolish, not that I edit with reason. Let's get this straight right now. You will come across my edits again. You should assume that I have a definite reason for everything I do. If you don't understand that reason, contact me on talk or leave the edit alone. If you don't have the time or will to work with other editors instead of against them, edit somewhere that nobody else does. Thank you.

-- And no, I'm not swayed by arguments along the lines of "this is what I do all the time". That compounds your error. I put thought into everything I do on this project and I consider it rude, offensive, and patronizing for you to assume otherwise -- worse, for you to fail to put any thought into what I'm doing before reverting me. I don't always do right -- not by any means; I make mistakes just like the next fellow. If you are sure I've made a mistake, you have a duty to point it out and fix it if you can. If you just don't know, you need to ask me, politely, as you would any other professional collegue.

I was wrong about the ball being missing and you were right; you were wrong about assuming that I inserted a new section header "by mistake" with edit sum "insert section header". You could well have waited until I was finished and reverted out the entire section with an appropriate edit sum, as you eventually did [1]. That was correct. You did wrong to revert like this, with a nasty, automated deskbot edit sum and no thought given to asking me why I did such a thing.

I am personally insulted. I'm happy about the ball, that's all. John Reid 13:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It is interresting that you brought up WP:AGF, considering WP:AAGF. The moment you accused me of not assuming good faith, you assumed bad faith from my side. I was personally insulted... Why should I judge edits by the contributor, and not by the actual edit? Yeah, right, I don't have time to work with other editors... Yeah. That's why I maintain a pretty large WikiProject. And yeah, I edit a lot of articles that pretty much nobody else edits. What's your point?

You still can't see that you've done at least as many "upsetting" things as I've done? 1) you use a technique to insert new sections that is bound to create misunderstandings. 2) You insert a trivia section, even though you should know that trivia sections are generally disliked. 3) You insert a fact that is already presented in a connected article. 4) You assume bad faith on me, and then accuse me of assuming bad faith. 5) You accuse me of being impolite. 6) You tell me what to do on Wikipedia, when you should know there is no reason for you to do so. 7) You tell me to judge edits by editor and not by the edit itself.

Great. If you feel insulted because I reverted one of your edits, which in the end turned out to be a correct revert, feel free to feel insulted. Feeling insulted by such things, it is surprising to still find you contributing to Wikipedia. Let's end it here. You feel insulted, I can't do anything about it. I'll go edit a few articles nobody else touches to make you happy. I won't bother to answer any more messages from you. You get the last word. – Elisson • T • C • 14:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of the recent call up section in national team articles? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams. Kingjeff 18:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out on the Iraq Super League. I have been working really hard on it for a long time now. What do you think of this template that I created? Template:Iraq football labelled map Chaldean 06:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Very nice, very nice indeed! And good work generally on improving coverage of Iraqi football, we need people dedicated to the less known leagues and teams around the world! – Elisson • T • C • 09:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Norrbottenpansar-reg.gif. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "Public domain", "Free license", and "Fair use" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Norrbotten-reg.gif. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "Public domain", "Free license", and "Fair use" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the manual of style for football academies? Kingjeff 20:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We have no such manual. I don't think we need one either, as there are very few notable academies. – Elisson • T • C • 23:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps 2006 FIFA World Cup squads is a possible featured list candidate? Do you agree? Punkmorten 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It could be. No other way to find out than to nominate. :) – Elisson • T • C • 23:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you be interested in helping out at WikiProject Munich? And you don't have to know anything about Munich. Maybe you could help out on bringing Munich-related articles up to Wikipedia Policies and guidlines standards or maybe another area where you could help improve Munich-related articles. Kingjeff 23:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have already got so much to do I doubt I could help with a project I am not very interrested in. – Elisson • T • C • 23:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How about helping out in Munich-related football articles? I'm sure you still like football? Kingjeff 18:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still have enough to do in the fields I am more interrested in (Swedish football and Swedish history). I think you'll have more luck finding interrested people if asking Germans, primarily. – Elisson • T • C • 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the June 2006 National Geographic. What's the number one sport in Finland and the Baltic States? —Angr 18:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article said. I don't have the issue, I loaned it at a library to draw that map. But I know that ice hockey is the most popular sport in Finland, and that basketball is the most popular sport in Latvia and Lithuania, and IIRC, Skiing(!) is the most popular sport in Estonia. The article National sport supports this, but do remember that "national sport" and "most popular sport" isn't always the same thing. – Elisson • T • C • 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes we were talking about soccer, as Americans would say, I was asking if there was a project specifically on soccer in the USA and Canada. XYZ CrVo 00:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Do you know why the entire text of the template has become bolded? Do you know how to fix it? / Fred-Chess 10:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. It had something to do with the {{Namespace prefix of associated page}} function. Removed it. – Elisson • T • C • 16:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I will discuss additions to the infobox football club template with you. For example can you add the chief executive and the assistant manager in the football club infobox

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by SndrAndrss (talk • contribs)

Hi. I suggest you take the discussion to the {{Infobox Football club}} talk page and tell why these two parameters should be added. – Elisson • T • C • 15:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The November 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 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You've met him before (off wikipedia)? --PaxEquilibrium 21:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have. How come you're asking me that? – Elisson • T • C • 22:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Panarjedde has some kind of fascination about deleting players names from players infoboxes. I told him to discuss it at the players manual of style page At WikiProject Football. I'm not sure what you want to do about it. But I'm about to revert some player articles for a 3rd times. Kingjeff 18:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Elisson. I was just wondering whether you had any suggestions for the lead in List of English Football League managers by date of appointment. I've put it through peer review (now fairly dead) and all the suggestions have been implemented, apart from expansion of lead. Do you have any ideas? Cheers, HornetMike 14:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea actually. I've been faced with the same problem a few times before, being requested to expand the lead of a list. And each time I try to find info I may use to expand the lead, I think "I'm only adding this to expand the lead, but it doesn't really improve the article in any way". Sorry I can't help. – Elisson • T • C • 14:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. Ah well, no worries! HornetMike 15:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is edited the football club infobox template again. Thought you ought to know. HornetMike 15:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw it, and I have temp-blocked him for 48 hours for disruption, but thanks for telling me anyway! – Elisson • T • C • 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you deleted this page as CSD A7. This article had previously been prodded and kept, so I'm rather confused how it could be speedily deleted. As I recall, it did contain claims of notability. Gimmetrow 16:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I have to admit that I missed that the article had been prodded and that you had removed the prod tag. I can't really say I remember exactly why I believed the article to fall under CSD A7, I deleted quite a few articles that day, and the days after, but reading through it once again, it might have borderline claims of notability, although I am not sure that having ones poems published along with a lot of other poems in a magazine is a claim of notability. The wording of WP:BIO is that "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" or that the person "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". I am not sure this is the case with Ravi Shankar even after reading through the article a second time, however I have undeleted it and added a procedural AfD here to get things sorted. – Elisson • T • C • 17:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Chaldean 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Keep on contributing! :) – Elisson • T • C • 00:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, why is Assyriska listed on the Division 3 page? Is this another team? Chaldean 00:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's another less known Assyriska Föreningen from Norrköping. – Elisson • T • C • 01:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Lil' Romeo (rapper) should probably be moved to Lil' Romeo - see talk. Can I simply ask you to do it, or should I post a formal request somewhere? // habj 04:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. No need for a formal request in an easy and non-controversial case such as this. – Elisson • T • C • 13:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I just found your userpage, quite randomly, and have to say one thing. It is so well kept, probably the best of its kind I have seen on Wikipedia, ever. Kaiser matias 05:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Feels good to know that it is meaningful to keep it clean! – Elisson • T • C • 13:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that it might be an idea to put english translations of book titles. Kick off: en bok om fotboll is straightforward enough, but as my Swedish is limited to Hej, Tack and Jag taler inte svenska, some of the others are a struggle ;-) Oldelpaso 14:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha :) I've added crude translations to my books now (and in one case the proper English title, which is not even close to a translation from the Swedish title). – Elisson • T • C • 16:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason in particular why you believe the article to be B-class as opposed to A-class? I feel it's a model football club page and certainly the most informative page regarding a football club in the League of Ireland/FAI National League. I see you're an IFK Göteborg fan - perhaps you hold something against Derry? ;)--Danny Invincible 05:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha, that's a good theory! No, I don't hold anything against Derry. :) The reasons that the article is not A-class includes amongst others:

• Recentism in history section. The years 1928–1985 (57 years) is covered in about half the text that the years 1985–2006 (21 years) are covered in.
• Many unsourced "controversial" or "non-obvious" sentences. For example "Even though the club, to this day, still carries the reputation of being a nationalist-supported club with support coming in the main from Derry's nationalist community".
• Using far too many fair use or missing license images. And remove the sponsor images, they provide no more info to the article than text does.
• There really is no need to list other clubs that play in leagues of a country which they do not come from. What has FC Vaduz to do with Derry City?
• Far too many lists.
• Trivia section should be incorporated in other sections.

All in all, the article is a good B-class article, but much needs to be done before it is A-class. I suggest you take a look at articles on clubs that are featured, such as Arsenal F.C., Everton F.C., Manchester City F.C., Sheffield Wednesday F.C. and IFK Göteborg to get ideas on how to get the article further up on the assessment ladder. Hope this helps! – Elisson • T • C • 11:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have been trying to access older historical information in relation to the club as well getting other people with knowledge and interest involved. I will take your other points on board also. --Danny Invincible 12:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Great! Are there any published histories of the club? A jubilee book published by the club or something? Finding such publications help a great lot when improving the older history of the club in question. Good luck! – Elisson • T • C • 14:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been informed of the existence of a 1986 publication, The Derry City Story, by Frank Curran. Now, to get my hands on it somehow ...--Danny Invincible 22:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)