User talk:Dolovis/Archive 1

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to (first, with 487 points) and  (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Anaheim Ducks
--CASportsFan (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2011–12 NHL suspensions and fines


The article 2011–12 NHL suspensions and fines has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No information available as season is too far away in the future; proposed deletion per WP:CRYSTAL.

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 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 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. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 21:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2011–12 NHL transactions


The article 2011–12 NHL transactions has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No information available as season is too far away in the future; proposed deletion per WP:CRYSTAL.

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 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 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. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 21:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Carter Camper


The article Carter Camper has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unremarkable collegiate hockey player.

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 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 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. Strikerforce (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the PROD. This hockey player has been selected to the 2010-11 All-CCHA First-Team and is therefore deemed notable by #4 of WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Dios blues
Multiply your discouragment by 50 & you'll know what it's like to be in my wiki-shoes. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are a good editor so keep you head up and be BOLD. It is unfortunate that certain members the ice hockey project are not more tolerate of alternative viewpoints, especially in debates of a subjective nature. Dolovis (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup
Hello Dolovis. I am just letting you know that I will go through articles, which you have created and I am going to cleanup them. I will add categories, defaultsort, birth information, info about previous clubs, national team info etc. I will also move these articles to reflect proper names of Czech and Slovak hockey players. If needed, I can add rationale to each talk page. Regards. - Darwinek (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW Dolovis, I too disagree with Darwinek's "corrections" method. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is disconcerting when an admin needs to be reminded of policy. Dolovis (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He's been doing these uni-lateral page moves for years. It's quite annoying to us pro-English language editors. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nail Yakupov
Based on the circumstances of the article and its deletion review, it did not seem to be a problem. The article that has been worked on in userspace has much more information. Please participate in that discussion, or let me know if you have any other problems. MrKIA11 (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Hello Dolovis. Did you notice the naming conventions for article naming at WP:HOCKEY? - Darwinek (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Freddie Hamilton


The article Freddie Hamilton has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this junior hockey player. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N.

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 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 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. Auseplot (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the PROD. This hockey player is deemed notable by #4 of WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Freddie Hamilton for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Freddie Hamilton 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 Articles for deletion/Freddie Hamilton 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. Canada Hky (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

2004-05
''Note - This conversation was started here on GoodDay's talk page, however, it has been continued here. To keep the conversion flow I have moved to this page the beginnings of this conversion:''

I have noticed that you have been changing the chronological numbering of the seasons for NHL franchises to be one less than it previously showed, as you did here. Although no NHL games were played in the in 2004-05, it was still a season (albeit one with no game play). This is verified by the NHL Official Guide and Record Book, with that source shown on the article as a reference. The Guide explicitly states that the 2010-11 season was the Senators' 19th season, so the 20th season obviously follows. Your assertion, however, is not verified, so please do not continue to make such a change to these articles. Dolovis (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange for the NHL to do that, but no probs, I'll cease. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to adjust all the NHL team articles 'after' the 2004-05 lock-out, for them to add up correctly to the 2010-11 team articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your reverts have sorta messed things up though. For example, the 2008-09 Chicago Blackhawks season says 83rd & now the 2009-10 Chicago Blackhawks season says 85th. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Each article should be edited as needed so that it contains information that is verified by reliable sources. As factual errors are found, they should be corrected and properly referenced. Dolovis (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These gotta add up though, saying one season is the teams 83rd & the next is the teams 85th, just doesn't swing. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't just go changing articles so they "add up". Check for reliable sources. The articles should be corrected one article at a time, with verifiable sources to support the change to the article. Dolovis (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But you're only changing the 2010-11 & 2011-12 team season articles. This is causing a descrepancy between the 2009-10 & 2010-11 team season articles. It will lead readers to the inevitable question - "What happen, during the off-season of 2010?". GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made the change for all of the Columbus Blue Jackets season, and I will continue to do more of the same as I find the time, but please do not expect me to make every necessary change to all of the articles. As you seem to be an interested editor, your help to correct these articles would be greatly appreciated (as it seems that my time has been wasted, to a great extend, re-doing my edits that you changed against the evidence of a reliable source). Dolovis (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll wait & see what's decided at WP:HOCKEY. I'm not overly concerned with how 2004-05 is handled, just as long as there's an agreement, so that I can then make the post-lockout corrections. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I was curious (for example) as to why you didn't change 20th to 21st, in the 2011-12 San Jose Sharks season article. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a simple typo error. It should properly be the 21st NHL season. Thank you for catching and correcting this error. Dolovis (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

AWB edits
Hi Dolovis. I notice you've been using AWB to auto-replace etc., e.g. and i.e. with and so on, for example and that is. To be honest I don't believe these abbreviations are explicitly disallowed by the MoS, in fact, they're listed here as acceptable. Sometimes it may look better to write them out in full, but not all the time, in fact, usually when I see etc. in article space I tend to think it can just be removed. Anyway, my point is that this is probably best done using human discretion rather than an auto-correct tool. Just something to consider. Have a nice day, - file lake  shoe  14:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your constructive comments and, as a result of your comments, I have made a careful re-read of Manual of Style (abbreviations). As explained in MOS, abbreviations are most often better understood if written out in full as this practice avoids any potential confusion for those not familiar with the abbreviation. Style-wise, I personally feel that an encyclopedic article, in most cases, reads better without the use of abbreviations. Your point about using human discretion, however, is well taken, and the use of AWB, as a semi-automated editor, does not take away from such discretion. I fully agree with you that it is important to check every edit before it is saved. Dolovis (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move
Re this. If you are contesting it, care to say why? I have waited a few hours for you to provide some reason but you haven't said anything else.-- Terrillja talk  20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Page titles
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Mike Reilly (disambiguation) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Mike Reilly. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Edgars2007  (Talk/Contributions) 13:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics
Dolovis, can I suggest you open an WP:RFC on this diacritics issue if you want a site-wide change? Right now you're just wantonly moving pages and your rationale doesn't seem very popular judging by the discussions which are taking place. Reverting a page move agreed on at WP:RM, as you did at František Ptáček, is unacceptable. Best, - file lake  shoe  18:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not notified of the move discussion concerning Frantisek Ptacek, and moved the article back before I noticed that the move had been discussed on the talk page. Darwinek has been warned of canvassing for support in such discussions. You should look into a mirror when you suggest that someone is seeking a site-wide change, as this is the English Wikipedia, and according to the policy of WP:COMMONNAME, articles do not use the subject's name as it might be spelled in non-English languages as its article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. Dolovis (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sven Bärtschi
Hi Dolovis. Why did you copy-paste everything User:Milowent wrote about Sven Bärtschi? This is not permitted per Wikipedia's licensing. See Copying within Wikipedia. Cheers Tooga - BØRK! 21:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, these umlats are funny things, but we don't need to recreate the article due to them! I have made the new spelling article into a redirect. Cheers.--Milowent • talkblp-r  00:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

AWB
Hi. Please don't use AWB to make formatting changes to the date pages like you did here. Those pages have special formatting that allows for better readability when editing the pages. If you have questions please ask. Thanks. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That edit was made in accordance with MOS, specifically WP:ORDINAL. Dolovis (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Mufka wasn't complaining about you changing "sixteenth" to "16th". He was bothered by the many places in which you compressed two spaces to a single space.  Those extra spaces were being used by the editors of that page to keep "2008" aligned with "2008" (for example).  I suspect that edit was probably performed automatically for you by AWB, so you didn't realize you had fiddled with their formatting.
 * However, this whole topic strikes me as odd, because I don't understand why any of those dates are wikilinked at all. Doesn't this say dates shouldn't be wikilinked just because they refer to events that happened to occur in the same year?  There's a whole set of pages that are dedicated to showing all events that happened on December 20th or during 2008.  That seems to be a direct violation of WP:YEARLINK, which appears to say you should only link dates if the events are connected topically.  Am I missing something? Johnson487682 (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your interpretation of WP:YEARLINK. Dolovis (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The date pages are a bit out of the normal MOS. From the MOS: "not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter". In this case, the date articles are about dates and linking is appropriate.  BTW, my comment above was about the spacing, which should remain consistent on the date pages.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Calendar date
I'm sorry, but I had to revert Line 34 of your recent edit. You changed "november" to "November" using AWB, but the text of that bullet point explicitly states that the lowercase is used for the month name in Hungary.Johnson487682 (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting my error. Dolovis (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

AWB correction
I've just reverted your AWB edit to this page, as it introduced an error... Cdmackay (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am honoured to have inspired you to make your very first Wikipedia edit. I welcome you, and hope that you will continue to enjoy your time here proof-reading and otherwise working to improve articles. Cheers! Dolovis (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Myles Bell


The article Myles Bell has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable junior hockey player. Currently in the news for his involvement in a car accident.

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 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 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. Canada Hky (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Dmitri Milchakov
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dmitri Milchakov, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.eurohockey.net/players/show_player.cgi?serial=67685.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This has gotta be a false positive. I looked at the EuroHockey page, and I can see there was no copyright violation. Johnson487682 (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it was a false positive, but these things sometimes happen. I didn't even refer to the Eurohockey site when building the stub article. Dolovis (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 NHL Entry Draft
Actually, the existence of a compensatory pick was already entered, and already referenced. Your faulty assumptions coupled with lazy editing wiped that out. You also introduced a counting error half way through the table that soccerholic had to fix. But then, forcing other editors to clean up after you is nothing new, is it? Resolute 18:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion was started on Resolute's talk page, and that is where it should continue. I request that Resolute stay off my talk page. Thank you. Dolovis (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The order of draft picks in the first round
Another issue: Is it necessary to show the order of draft picks in the first round? I refer to you posting references to prove the Oilers, Devils, Flames, Stars and Caps first round draft picks are the picks listed. I believe that all useful information about this is avaliable in other sections of this draft page, most notably in the draft lottery section. If you were to keep just some of the references in question, I personally believe links to show the Oilers and Devils picks are the most relevant. This is just my opinion, though, and thanks for your contributions. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt, showing the order of draft picks in the 1st round of the NHL Entry Draft is necessary information. The policy on the use of inline citations can be found at Inline citation. Dolovis (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

One line articles
Just wondering, Dolovis, why are you creating so many one line articles about Van Gogh paintings, and not even including the image from the List of Works?

I would be happy to collaborate and at least give you some text that could go with several paintings, such as reference to the period / place the painting was made, etc.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The basic concept of creating a stub article is to provide adequate context for other editors to expand upon. Please feel free to build upon the Van Gogh article's as you find the time and inclination. Dolovis (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I get your point, but you may want to consider from the Visual Arts MOS WP:VAMOS "Generally, very short articles (say less than 200 words of main text) on individual works or art are to be avoided, as the information can be included in the main article on the artist, or incorporated with other similar short pieces in a dedicated article, such as Portraits by Vincent van Gogh."--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Philip Kemi


The article Philip Kemi has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)



Proposed deletion of Alexandr Galchenyuk


The article Alexandr Galchenyuk has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

': Note: This article was de-prodded on May 15, 2011 by a 3rd party with the comment “Are you freaking kidding us? He played NINETEEN PRO SEASONS”'

Proposed deletion of Aleksei Vasiliev (ice hockey b. 1984)


The article Aleksei Vasiliev (ice hockey b. 1984) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)



Proposed deletion of Cory Dosdall


The article Cory Dosdall has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)



Proposed deletion of Ziga Pance


The article Ziga Pance has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Matej Hocevar


The article Matej Hocevar has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David Rodman


The article David Rodman has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mitja Sivic


The article Mitja Sivic has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ziga Jeglic


The article Ziga Jeglic has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jeremie Romand


The article Jeremie Romand has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Damien Fleury


The article Damien Fleury has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Julien Desrosiers


The article Julien Desrosiers has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nicolas Arrossamena


The article Nicolas Arrossamena has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Teddy Trabichet


The article Teddy Trabichet has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maxime Moisand


The article Maxime Moisand has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jonathan Janil


The article Jonathan Janil has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ronan Quemener


The article Ronan Quemener has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jesper Jensen (ice hockey b. 1991)


The article Jesper Jensen (ice hockey b. 1991) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Eskesen


The article Michael Eskesen has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've tagged many articles you created with BLPPROD. I removed all the messages left here because there's no need to clutter up your talk page.  While you're going through the trouble of creating the pages, add at least one reference to avoid the trouble of BLPPROD.  22:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)-- Mufka (u) (t) (c)

Re: BLP-PRODs
To Mufka: Stop your mass BLP-PRODing of articles that I have created. Each of the articles that you have prodded contain links to verifiable sources, as is required for biographical articles. I do not know what WP:POINT your are trying to make, but your edits are disruptive. If you continue to make such disruptive edits you will be reported to WP:ANI. Dolovis (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears that you may have a misunderstanding as to what a source is. An external link is not a source.  All of the BLPPROD tags that I placed were valid.  Also, please don't threaten ANI reports in your first communication with another editor on something that you have a dispute on no matter how frustrated you may be.  That doesn't show that you assume good faith.  Rather than creating a high volume of articles, it might be a good idea to focus on developing just a few good ones.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hockeydb.com and eliteprospects.com  have both been accepted as reliable sources, and every article that you BLP-prodded is linked to one or more such reliable source that verifies the content of the article. If you wished to open friendly communication before you started your WP:POINT prodding campaign, then I assumed you would have done so. Instead you started mass-prodding, and only ceased after I delivered to you the appropriate warning. Rather than focusing on deleting articles about notable athletes, why don't you instead focus on improving references and adding content? Dolovis (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Those external links might indeed represent reliable sources, but you did not add them to the articles as references, you added them as external links which are meant to lead the reader to other items of interest on the topic, not to be used as sources for the content. I see that you are sensitive to having the articles that you created be criticized, and I thought that you would be receptive to the fact that I removed most of the canned warnings and left a personal note above.  But alas, that was not the case.  As you create new articles, it's very easy to add a source at the time of creation.  You went through the trouble of adding external links, but if you had called just one of the links a reference, you wouldn't have a problem.  There is a difference between an external link and a reference.  Please keep that in mind.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In the space of 13 minutes you BLP-Prodded 19 referenced articles about notable athletes (more than one article per minute), only stopping your massive prodding after I sent you a warning. And you are now trying to tell me that you feel justified because you wanted to teach me that I should be using the heading “References”, and not "External links"? That is, in my opinion, an example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I am not sensitive to constructive criticism, but I did not see any such thing in the 19 deletion notices that you posted to my talk page. Please keep in your mind, as I do in mine, the wiki-principle of common sense. Dolovis (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

'To Mufka: The above discussion is over. Please do not post any more comments on my talk page. Thank you.' Dolovis (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Jakub Kovar / Jakub Kovář
Hello, why did you move the page Jakub Kovář back to name Jakub Kovar? I don't understand this revert, correct form of his name is with Czech diacritic Jakub Kovář. Pronunciation with/without diacritic is in the Czech language different. I added interwiki from cs Wikipedia. Sorry for my bad English, with greetings --Midi7 (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the English Wikipedia, and according to the policy of WP:COMMONNAME and Naming conventions (use English), a biographical article does not use the subject's name as it might be spelled in Czech (with diacritics) as its article title, nor does it use the person's legal name as it might appear on a birth certificate or passport; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. The use of "Jakub Kovar" is verified by the sources used within the article, and "Jakub Kovář" is not supported by the sources used as references for the article. Dolovis (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of articles of Czech people are in English Wikipedia with diacritics. It's the same as I write Nový Jork, but correct English form is New York (bad example, but it's similar). I think that web pages in English use form Jakub Kovar because English keyboards haven't keys á é ě í ó ú ů ž š č ř ď ť ň. Sorry, but it isn't correct. --Midi7 (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To quote the first sentence (and central policy) of Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Your example of 'New York' is a good example, as most English-language sources will verify it as the commonly used form of spelling. Dolovis (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, it's English Wikipedia, so leave this topic. People who are native speakers of English never understand rules of inflective languages with declension, diacritics, grammatical cases, ... --Midi7 (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Those of us that have studied German and Latin do - we just can't see the necessity when we've managed to grow out of it. Seriously, both forms should be present when there's a diacritic or similar problem. One or other should be a redirect - probably the 'correct' form as the title and the anglicised form as the redirect. (BTW - I wouldn't have trouble understanding Nový Jork and can pronounce ř even though I can't speak Czech.) Peridon (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * German language is more similar to Czech language than English. In German are four cases; we have seven, but four German are the same as in Czech. If I say some sentence in German as well as in Czech, many Germans will understand. But in English I have to say it different and it's in our language nonsense. It's problem of my sister - she doesn't understand English. In English are auxiliary verbs, we haven't it. For Example sentence Where do you come from? we say only with two words (Odkud pocházíte?) and verb do is in Czech form nonsense; it doesn't exist in our language. And in German it isn't too (Woher kommen Sie?). So some Czechs don't like people from USA or United Kingdom because thinking of this people is different (as well as language). Germans are for us closer than US or UK people, but older generations don't like Germans too - due to history. Sorry for my bad English, I hope you understand me. :-) With greetings, --Midi7 (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ondrej Nemec
I hope you don't mind, but I've reinstated your redirect left by the page move. I've done this because I consider it to be a sound redirect to a title with accents that most English speaking users won't use. If you really want it gone, let me know - but I think it is of value. Peridon (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics in ice hockey artcles
I don't mean to bother you, but I think you're somewhat misguided about diacritics. I've seen the discussions up top and I've read your points, but those policies/guidelines do not represent what is actually occuring. Wikipedia policies are descriptive, and not prescriptive, so while on the letter of them the diacritic-less titles might well be correct, the reality is that they seem to be universally used; for example, in hockey, as far as I remember individual player pages have always been with diacritics. While the actual rule may be contradictory to the status quo, its intent (consistency) would be best implemented if article titles weren't named against the status quo.  Maxim (talk)  22:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct in that there are a small group of dedicated editors who have been spending their efforts to wilfully ignore and supplant the existing wiki-policies concerning the use of diacritics in articles. It does not follow, however, that such insurgent tactics have resulted in re-setting the status quo. And, with respect, your memory is clearly faulty concerning the use of diacritics in individual player's pages. Allow me to refresh your memory by quoting the Guideline in a Nutshell from Naming conventions (ice hockey): “Hockey article titles should use the most common spelling in English as described by reputable reference books and media outlets. In most cases this means the omission of diacritics and other characters not commonly found in English.” Dolovis (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You do see that that page is marked as historical right? Because it was supplanted by a new consensus to use them. A very great many things on that page are very out of date including things like naming articles Joe "Smoking Gun" Smith. You have had a number of editors on both sides of the issue show you the current consensus on the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Dolovis, please see HOCKEY. You've brought two threads to AN/I that went against you, and you're continuing to try to unilaterally get your own way. For hockey articles, all player pages get diacritics. This has been the status quo ever since this dios problem was resolved. Darwinek brought a similar threat to WT:HOCKEY lately, again, it was in favour of status quo. The onus is on you to change the current practice -- you are the one use renegade tactics. With this in mind, I would be interested in a reason to not revert your most recent page moves, that excludes the nonsense from my talkpage.  Maxim (talk)  00:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The moves were reverted for the reason given in the edit summary, which is to invoke the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. This is the English Wikipedia, and according to the policy of WP:COMMONNAME and  Naming conventions (use English), this article does not use the subject's name as it might be spelled in non-English languages as its article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. You have failed to find any reliable source to verify your preferred form of name. If you wish to pursue this matter the process it outlines at WP:BRD. Dolovis (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued WP:POINT moves like you have been making will eventually land you blocked. You have been shown the community consensus to use diacritics on hockey articles. Yet you continue to move them against the consensus of the community and you do so by trying to sneak them by using db-author to delete and recreate articles and placing them as uncontentious moves when they clearly are. Such actions are likely sanction-able. You have had numerous users tell you to stop. At both of the ANI reports you tried to make and at the hockey project and by many uninvolved editors on your talk page. Maybe its time to stop and think gee maybe its you that is against consensus when you keep seeing everyone disagree with you. Using or not using diacritics doesn't change that the name is still the common name. Really considering you were creating articles with them awhile ago yourself it makes no sense why you are suddenly so anti-diacritics other than to try and cause trouble or to make a WP:POINT. -DJSasso (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Howdy Dolovis. Nobody hates the usage of those non-english symbols, anymore then I do. But, you are heading towards a block, by not abiding by the NHL players page agreement at WP:HOCKEY. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not being reasonable Dolovis. You know full well that setting up multiple discussions at various talk pages won't help to resolve the issue. You should also be fully aware that you moved a dozen pages after a number of editors pointed out the current agreement about hockey players. If you want to reexamine this agreement, then make your case at that central location instead of creating twenty small-scale fights. Pichpich (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dolovis. I have reverted your last moves since you have not provided an acceptable explanation. To change the status quo, you are the one that has to initiate discussion at WT:HOCKEY or similar. Unilateral moves, in face of numerous objections from both sides of the debate, are not the solution.  Maxim (talk)  17:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)