User talk:Dolovis/Archive 4

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * James Sanford (ice hockey) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link to Dayton Gems


 * Russ Sinkewich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link to Alaska Aces

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. J Milburn (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban is limited and can be appealed
Wikid77 here. Your new topic ban for diacritic-titles is limited to the redirects and titles only, so I think you can still edit or create any article (but no diacritic-titles) when your edit-block expires at 17:47, 8 January 2012. The topic-ban could be appealed, typically after 1 month but more likely 3 months, so your current fight has ended for January. The poll showed a count of 19-4, where 4 of us realized that your ban was excessive, or your actions were permitted by current written policies. Hence, I hope you are not too upset with everyone, because several users were able to clearly refute claims against you, despite busy events around the New Years holiday (on 2 January, this year). Many of us have been blocked or topic-banned, so you are in good company with fellow editors who understand when a gang of users go against you, while other editors are dogpiling in "Support" for them. The closing admin typically sides with the larger number of users, rather than try to examine the exact details of policy. After 11 years of Wikipedia, there is still no WP:FAIRNESS concept which would carefully examine if your actions were a significant "danger" to Wikipedia. Instead, as you noted, you are being held to a higher standard than others, because several other people wrote remarks against you. The exact topic-ban resolution, of the ANI report, was decided by admin User:28bytes and logged into project page WP:RESTRICT:
 * ANI topic-ban decided: ANI diff-5140, 09:37, 5 January 2012
 * Topic-ban log: WP:RESTRICT

Meanwhile, I hope you will not be bothered by the fact that hundreds of other people will continue to double-edit redirects (while you are banned), and so the diacritic-titles will still be double-edited by numerous other people anyway (despite that being called "gaming" for your case, but not for others). The whole situation would be a farcical cosmic joke if it weren't for people claiming you had done something wrong, to "game the system" which others of us had tried to refute. In fact, a 5th person noted it is the fault of the MediaWiki version 1.18 software that edited-redirects prevent rename-moves by non-admin users. So, in a sense, 5 people stated support for you. On balance, whenever I am misjudged by people, I try to remember that it could be worse: I could be one of those people who do not understand the actual events or refuse to forgive minor mistakes. I was an honors student in college, but I have even had people claim that I was below average in intelligence, so other people's judgment is really a sad situation, all throughout life. Working with committees of other people is a real challenge. At ANI, many users did not even understand that your recent ice-hockey stubs were of excellent quality! Anyway, as you can tell, I could ramble about these topics for days, so I will let you get back to your activities. Thanks for understanding. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What concerns me is what it means for me to edit or create any article (but no diacritic-titles)? Does this mean I can edit any article, or only those without diacritics? What if I create an article without diacritics which another user then moves to a title with diacritics? Would I then be in violation of the ban? Dolovis (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to your 9 questions: I think it's 1-Yes, 2-No, 3-No, 4-Yes, 5-No, 6-Yes, 7-Yes, 8-Yes & 9-Yes. That's what I'm figuring. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The lack of clarity of this ban is evident by your use of the words "I think", especially for #2 when you think that I may not create any redirects at all. That is not how I interpret the ban. The ban does not prevent me from creating redirects unless they are related to diacritic-titled articles. I would really like to have this point clarified. Dolovis (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

 * This is just to note that I have clarified the terms of the topic ban in the section above. Any administrator wishing to consider an unblock should review these. 28bytes (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've declined the unblock as currently worded, and I suggest we work towards an agreement on those specific points outside of any further unblock requests, and only go for unblock once it has all been clarified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Concerning #9 - IMHO, Dolovis should be allowed to help uphold WP:HOCKEY's North American half of the diacritics usage compromise. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. 28bytes (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * -:( GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to indefinitely ban your edits
The prior WP:ANI complaint has wandered into a proposed topic-ban while you are blocked and unable to respond to whatever allegations have been made against you. This is the sub-thread at AN/I:
 * WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Some of us other editors will need to copy your replies, from here, back over to that ANI sub-thread. I only just started checking the background about these concerns, but I will add that diacritical letters in some article titles (such as "Dominik Riečický") cannot be handled by some computer browsers (a search for those titles will match only some unaccented letters, not the precise title). Also, Wikipedia needs a lot of help to create and edit article redirects to handle the special accented letters. I cannot believe these proceedings are being conducted against you, but do not worry, I think we can stop this topic-ban, or get it reversed. Happy New Year, anyway. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: there is usually a redirect without the diacritics leading to the article, and if some browsers don't handle the diacritical name, they handle the diacritic-less version, and so the article can be both searched for and found via the redirect. A bot creating diacritic-less redirects from titles with diacritics should be created, if there isn't one already. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that editing a non-diacritic redirect does not edit the text of the actual full article, which some browsers cannot access due to diacritics or accented letters in the article title. For example, some browsers cannot edit article "Dominik_Riečický" by name: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominik_Riečický&action=edit
 * The accented-c letter "č" can be re-coded as Unicode hex-form "%C4%8D" to allow all browsers to access the article, but most readers would not understand the use of "%C4%8D" and so that violates the concept of WP:Accessibility. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * č is a Croatian character, in the UTF-8 character set. HTML entities: &amp;#268; = &#268; and &amp;#269; = &#269; will produce them in the main body text. There's no proof of any browser or reader not being able to read hex URLs, they've been doing it for ages. Given that Wiki is PHP based, a server-side language which has entity encoding and decoding functions to parse URLs, there is no reason to worry about "accessibility".  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 14:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have citable evidence for such an inaccessible article, or an indication as to the browser(s) affected? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dolovis, you should be putting your attention & energy to North American based non-player hockey articles, like me. Help keep the dios pipe-linked and/or deleted on those articles, thus keeping up the North American-half of WP: HOCKEY's diacritics comporomise. GoodDay (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban enacted
I have closed the AN/I proposal as "enacted." You are indefinitely banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles", broadly construed. Hopefully when your block expires you can find less divisive areas in which to contribute. 28bytes (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have questions concerning what broadly construed might mean. To be clear, please answer the following questions concerning the editing ban:

I appreciate your clarification on these questions. Dolovis (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) May I create articles?
 * 2) May I create redirects for articles which are not diacritic related?
 * 3) May I create redirects pointing towards an article that uses diacritics?
 * 4) May I move articles which are not diacritic related?
 * 5) May I invoke WP:BRD for articles that are boldly moved other editors?
 * 6) May I request other editors to invoke WP:BRD on my behalf?
 * 7) May I request moves via WP:RM?
 * 8) May I take part in RM discussions?
 * 9) May I edit articles that contain diacritics?

Feel free to request further clarification if needed. 28bytes (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, you may create articles.
 * 2) Yes, so long as a reasonable person would not view the redirect(s) created as an attempt to skirt the topic ban.
 * 3) No.
 * No, but you may request at WP:RM any article move so long as the move has nothing at all do do with diacritics.
 * 1) No.
 * 2) No.
 * 3) Yes, but only moves that have nothing at all to do with diacritics.
 * 4) Yes, but only to the degree of expressing your support or opposition for a move, with an explanation/reasoning for it. You may not otherwise debate with the other participants of the move discussion, such as by replying to their support or opposition with a rebuttal.
 * 5) Only if you make no changes whatsoever to the diacritics: no adding or removing any, or, in the case of articles that have a mix of uses, changing the balance of the uses to favor one of the uses.


 * Yes, further clarification is needed because the stated editing ban is from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles", yet you are now telling me that I have been banned from moving any article, and from even editing articles, or involving myself in discussions, which all goes well beyond the scope of the ban. Dolovis (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Where did you get the idea that I said you couldn't edit articles? 28bytes (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 9 in a way. And to be honest, as long as Dolovis keeps to only editing body text in articles related to WP:HOCKEY and in accordance with their guidelines, I'd see allowing him to work with GoodDay in maintaining that guideline's spirit as a good thing. At the very least it is a way for Dolovis to earn back the trust of the wider community.
 * @Dolovis, For the most part, if your edit is unrelated to diacritics in any way shape or for, it's OK. The concern related to diacritics in the body of the article would be two fold:
 * Are you changing the character of the article? All things considered it would be wise to avoid this full stop for the time being.
 * Are you pointing links away from articles in favor of "clean" redirects?
 * With what I point out to 28bytes, I can see at leas some cases where both of these become a non-issue. IIUC, the WP:HOCKEY compromise includes maintaining most North American team and tournament articles without diacritics. Civilly editing the body text to remove the diacritics from these articles, up to and including using the "clean" redirects for links instead of pipes, would be within the spirit of that guideline. (And FWIW, redirects are useful things which I believe should be used instead of piped links where reasonable.)
 * - J Greb (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic ban, per consensus, was for double edits to redirects that are related with diacritics, and on moving articles that are related to diacritics. There is no ban on me editing articles, and I may certainly take part in any and all discussions as I see fit. For you to say otherwise is not true. My understanding of the ban, which even so is based on biased and untrue allegations of disruption, is as I set out above in my unblock request. Do not unilaterally expand the topic ban which has already been discussed and decided. Dolovis (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, your double editing redirects/preempting the ability of others to boldly edit is what netted you the expansion of the ban. And that expanded ban clearly covers action you take in regard to titles with diacritics in them - simply you are not allowed to edit in those regards. "Widely construed" will for some include editing links within articles.
 * For me, I see little problem with you editing the text of articles that contain diacritics or maintaining links in the spirit of WP:HOCKEY's compromise guideline. But that is just me. Others may be skittish about you working on those links or altering un-linked text from with diacritics to without.
 * My suggestion above is that while you are not explicitly banned from editing the text, you should use caution in approaching it once your block expires. You have seen how touchy the issue is, ask yourself how likely it is to be touched off again. And frankly, that would not be a good thing. Good arguments have been made that part of where you edit needs you and you have been productive there and that it would be unwise to muzzle a proponent of removing diacritics since a global consensus still need to be found. If there is a repeat of this where it is shown you are gaming the system or being disruptive regarding diacritics, the most likely next step would be a full ban on your editing about diacritics in any way, shape, or form.
 * - J Greb (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is needed is a clear and concise, and accurate list of what the topic ban entails. Stating that the ban is to be “widely construed” is to make me an open target to be blocked immediately upon my resumption of editing; and the suggestion that I am banned from editing the bodies of articles as I see fit, or that I have been banned from taking part in discussions, or to ban me from the RM process is unambiguous censorship, and is well beyond the scope of the ban. Dolovis (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've provided you with such a list in the form of answers to the questions you asked above, but it appears that you don't like the answers. However, I can start a discussion on WP:AN requesting community input on the scope of your ban if you like. 28bytes (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not like your answers because your definition of the ban goes well beyond what was actually imposed upon me in the discussion. Dolovis (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, let me know if you'd like me to open an AN review. I always welcome the feedback of the community, and if they judge the restrictions to be unnecessarily broad, I will adjust them accordingly. 28bytes (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, open the AN review so we can get some clarity on this issue. Dolovis (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. 28bytes (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding double-edit redirects or conflicts on diacritics
The technical issue which has caused the most concern was double-editing of redirects, even for mistakes. So, I suggest if you create a redirect without the proper tag "{&#123;R from other name}" then rather than edit it for tag, instead request admin-deletion by editing to insert {&#123;db|1=Improper redirect}}, and recreate the redirect with proper tag in only 1 edit. Note this is a Catch-22 situation: you are to avoid double-editing for category, but you must double-edit to request {&#123;db|1=Improper redirect}} for admin-delete before recreation. Either way, you must double-edit the redirect, but at least in the end, it can be recreated with only 1 perfect edit. That means you must wait hours or days for an admin to delete the unfinished redirect. Meanwhile, in general, the goal is to avoid conflicts with other users about diacritics in titles. If those people get upset again, they might get you edit-blocked for a longer period. So it is important to take time, now, to think what actions to avoid around those people. For example, if you enter a diacritics discussion with the upset users, please please avoid any name-calling or they might call that another "gaming the system" (whatever). Try to respectfully disagree without being disagreeable, even if they are viciously insulting you again (which is likely), it does not matter, because you are being held to a higher standard than them, so rise to that level of expection. However, you are not alone: several of us other editors have been held to much higher standards than most editors. In fact, any long-term editor is held to a somewhat higher standard than newcomers with less than 500 edits or such. I hope that advice will help you focus. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikid77, do not advocate Dolovis take an action that will get him immediately blocked for violating his ban. The ban bars him from creating or editing redirects with diacritics or redirects pointing to articles with diacritics.
 * If the only advise you can give will either get an editor in trouble or create disruption, do not give advise.
 * It's also worth noting the amount of attention this has gotten and it's likely anyone editing redirects related to diacritics to impede or prevent bold moves is likely to get a warning about disruptive editing. Especially vocal advocates of removing or promoting diacritics from Wikipedia article titles who are aware of the issue having participated in the discussions here or at the recent ANI threads.
 * - J Greb (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikid, I advised you on my talkpage to avoid inadvertantly confusing Dolovis further. He is banned from creating redirects that have anything to do with diacritics, so will be blocked the minute he does so, whether or not he double edits it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your request for unblock makes no mention of your past move restrictions. In a discussion at ANI last July, an editor stated "deliberately creating edit histories at the accented titles is an act of bad faith". I have reviewed the following AN thread from October: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227. Please comment on whether you have been following the October update of your move restriction. I notice that you are still busy fighting against diacritics here. Your continued active struggle against diacritics certainly makes a charge of disruptive editing plausible. Any claim that you needed a warning before blocking seems ironic given you have been in so much trouble for such a long time, and you give no evidence of having learned any lessons. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have never had any editing ban on the creation of redirects. Any redirects which I have made follows all relevant instructions, guidelines, and polices. The only editing restriction placed upon my account is a ban on moving pages concerning diacritics (a restriction which no other editor has been asked to follow). Such moves are controversial and should be discussed at RM, and I have absolutely adhered to my editing restriction without exception. Dolovis (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like you found an ingenious way to avoid the letter of your October ban, while still achieving the same goal. You are defending the result of your original move, back in May 2011, by reverting another editor's change on 1 January. It does not seem that you have ever opened a move request about Tomas Jurco at WP:Requested moves. The October ANI discussion indicates that you had agreed to use RM in the future though I have not yet found the diff where you say that. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The editor on the Tomas Jurco article made an improper cut-and-paste, and I was absolutely correct to undo his edit. Please check the talk page and you will see that Tomas Jurco has already been through RM to settle the article's name. Dolovis (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dolovis' is correct, concerning the Jurco article. There was no consensus to move to the diacritics article & so the editor who switched the article & re-direct to the diacritics form, was definitely in the wrong. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm reviewing this as well. The gaming of the system seems quite obvious, as Elen explained at ANI, and you pretty well admitted as much in October 2011: "...I was banned for making double-edits to redirect pages (which I did in an a naive attempt to slow down the controversial moves)..." Are you not now doing something very similar? Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I am not now doing something very similar. The purpose of my edits is to create redirects which follow the instruction of Template:R from diacritics and WP:REDCAT, and that is what I have done. The stated reason for this block is Incorrectly redirecting, then editing redirects so cannot be reverted without admin intervention, however there is absolutely nothing incorrect about the redirects that I have made. No warning was given that I was making "incorrect redirects", and no "incorrect redirects" have been made. Dolovis (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 single question: Since you are aware that R from diacritics must be included with the redirect to a non-diacretic article, why did you not include that template when you created the redirects?
 * These are not moves where you would have to add it after the fact, but brand new pages where the redirect and any and all templates/categories can be added at one time.
 * - J Greb (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not aware that there is a requirement to add R from diacritics at the time of creating the redirect. I just went back to the redirect article to add the required template. Dolovis (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The purpose of my edits is to create redirects which follow the instruction of Template:R from diacritics and WP:REDCAT, and that is what I have done."
 * Your words. Your observation that the redirects need this template. Your defense of your actions.
 * If you know this and you intend to follow through on it, why take an additional edit to meet this?
 * - J Greb (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] The problem is the "editing redirects so cannot be reverted without admin intervention". Given what you clearly know about the system (and your comment I linked to above), why would you think that creating these new redirects in two edits, rather than a single edit, would not look the way it looks? Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't give any thought to how it would look. I was just creating the appropriate redirect according to the written instructions. Dolovis (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, right. You knew full well what you were doing. There were no such redirects created in a single edit during that period. All were created in two edits. You took a chance, probably to see if people were still looking. It didn't work. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I repeat. There was no warning that my edits on redirects was incorrect, and there is no editing ban on me creating or editing redirects. So no, I am unaware that I made any incorrect edit on a redirect. Dolovis (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dolovis, right now you're experiencing the typical Wiki block experience of being swamped by admins and editors trying to impress their ideals on you, in a rather hypocritical manner, whilst editors get accused of attacking caged animals, admins are the ring-leaders with the whips. I suggest you don't fight it. They tend to get bored quickly if you don't fight them; they only work when their "collective unity" serves them in these cases, and I'm not afraid to say that they will attempt to bully you and will keep coming in greater numbers to defend each other if you persist in defending yourself. It is the admin culture here, which belittles us all. I expect nothing more than protests against my views, but I care not, it is not the issue here and I am on no ones side. There is simply the matter of your edits, and that is all you need to worry about right now. There is a wrong way and a right way, and the general opinion is that you have edited the wrong way. Your goal is not unreasonable: diacritics are like a foreign language to most native-English speakers, because few English words use them, and Anglicisation means more foreign words are written in standard English letters. Moreso due to technological limitations, keyboard layouts, texting (SMS), etc. Wiki can offer both because of redirections and because its search function will attempt to offer alternative suggestions whether a word uses diacritics or not (entering "dángéróús" in search, will still recommend "dangerous"). Your edits are being seen as controversial because you appear to be only defending one form of wording, and moving articles all over the place to make your point. I haven't looked into your history, can't be arsed.. simply put, the only way you're going to get on and stay on the good of those complaining at ANI and above it to adhere to a neutral POV. Think of it in the same way as the British vs American English debate, which ENGVAR settles. National ties come first, or common name. In many instances what was written first remains the primary article, all others redirect. In the end the result is the same page of content. Only in this case where Americans and Brits are generally aware of alternative spellings, we don't all know diacritics.. there must be dozens, and knowing them doesn't mean we also know how to use them. But we have to accept that if a Czech or Slovak, or whatever nationality, is given a name with such accented letters that we can't ignore them. Even Napoleon is spelled Napoléon by many authors, and he's far greater than any of these people you're getting into bother over. So consider really how trivial the whole discussion is.. a few wiggles and lines over some letters.. and you get a topic ban. Then a weeks block. Believe me, someone will be after your head next. Ain't worth it. You've been on Wiki for nearly 2 years, lots of edits, and your blocklog is too old to be of interest.. so chill. This isn't a one-way street solution, and there's no reason to get yourself banned or indef blocked.. it's not like you changed any ones religion or nationality, right? Could be worse.. so work with the people wanting to represent national ties, and don't create or move anything else that is going to be considered unfaithful to your original topic ban/restriction. Besides, some of my opening comments will ease the flak a bit now! Cheers,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 21:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Remark
Dolovis is labelling his opponents "diacritic-lovers". If someone was constantly removing f:s, and another person reinstated them, would the latter person then be an "f-lover"? Dolovis's opponents do not "love" diacritics more than other letters, but they are of the opinion that they should not be removed. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pure BS, just like this block. I don't think I have ever called anyone a "diacritic lover". Show me the diff. Dolovis (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How can anyone be a "diacritic lover"? That's like saying someone who uses capitals properly, instead of small case all the time, like some people do, are "caps lovers". It's just the way it is. Another form of written language. Period.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 21:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's what I'm saying. There is no such thing. So he shouldn't label people as such. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * He simply needs to rethink his POV, because it's just silly and irrelevant to Wiki-practices. Consider how many forms of Chinese there are.. do one lot of Chinese suggest that another type is stupid because they have different symbols? Are French 1s and 7s stupid because they have an extra tail or mid-line, which British schools don't teach us to do? SHM..  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 21:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, and to express my outrage for this totally inappropriate block, I am not the one who is moving articles - it is the pro-diacritics group who are doing that. The moves I made, which lead to my move ban, were done in accordance with WP:BRD and WP:RETAIN, but those facts are either misrepresented (or conveniently over-looked) by those who want to continue to push their FAIT ACCOMPLI agenda. Dolovis (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If there's anyone using the strategy of WP:FAITACCOMPLI, it's you, Dolovis, jumping at every chance of adding stubs for new Czech and Slovak players, just to be able to establish a "first version" without diacritics, which you then claim should decide whether or not there should be diacritics. Since you're neither Czech nor Slovak, why else would you do it? Part of the strategy is also accusing others for doing exactly that which you yourself are doing, but denying (such as WP:FAITACCOMPLI), as well as deliberately misunderstanding what you're being blocked for: "I have never had any editing ban on the creation of redirects". Of course not. That is obviously not what you are blocked for – and you know it. You're blocked for a second occurrence of gaming the system by editing the redirects in order to make moves over them impossible without the intervention of an admin. Your strategy seems to have backfired, since you are the only one who is getting blocked. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, MarcusBritish's comment was added before you closed the discussion, see:. Your edit to close the discussion was the next edit, see:, and removed the comment, whether intentionally or not (possible edit conflict). However, according to talkpage guidelines, you are allowed to remove comments from your talkpage – including this one. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was an edit conflict, and MB'sccomment was actually made after I tried to close the discussion, and as you have correctly pointed out, it is my talk page and I may end discussions on it as I see fit. Dolovis (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You're trying to wikilawyer your way around the diffs by adding two little words: "tried to". Even so, what you're saying isn't true. Evidently, Marcus British hit the save-page-button before you did, or you wouldn't have had an edit conflict when you "tried to" close the discussion. Had you been first, he would've had the edit conflict. You're not fooling anyone. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the top of this talk page. Your comments are not constructive, and I will not be taking your bait. This is my talk page, and I now request that you post no further comments here. If you continue to post on my talk page, your comments may be deleted without further discussion. Dolovis (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on 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 00:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Lying Cow - i.e. the Vincent van Gogh painting and not a flame :)
Hi Dolovis,

I see you started Lying Cow, which I've just been editing. I'm planning to provide article stubs for the entire Auvers period (of course this was early Hague, I came to it from his 1890 study). Right now I'm just working through the existing list of works before starting articles. Probably I shall be working back through the catalogue. All welcome to join! I suggest we take Farms near Auvers as a model. LornaDooneBlackmore (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

copyedit
Hi, can you be more specific about the portions of the Antero Niittymäki article that need copyediting? Hazelorb (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally, I think the entire article could be written better. Dolovis (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh - "In Church"
Hi Dolovis.

You started an article In Church which you said was an 1882 watercolor by Vincent van Gogh but I can't find that work. Only an 1882 watercolor called "Church Pew with Worshippers" (F967, JH225)? Is this what you mean? RobvanderWaal (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was, again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was, thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were, , and. February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from. At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on 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 would 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 (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect for Michael Guerra
Hello,

You created a redirect from Michael Guerra to Texas Tornados. Could you let me know why, as the former doesn't appear in the latter. I just wanted to check if there was something I was missing before I took it to RfD. Thanks! Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 14:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Hey hows it going? White Thug (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Pukalovic


The article Robert Pukalovic has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability not established

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

AN/I
An issue involving you is being discussed at AN/I. Prolog (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! , of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's, thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's, who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to, whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to, who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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 (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of six months for socking - see Sockpuppet investigations/Dolovis. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll not decline or endorse the unblock request due to our history, but I will say that I find it decidedly unlikely that these were apparent novice editors who just so happened to be interested in diacritic usage of Eastern European hockey players. And that they performed the same two-edit redirects you were banned from making:, .  Or that they just happened to perform the second edit on articles you redirected under the Dolovis account: , , , nearly every March 27 edit by .  And is anyone supposed to believe that Daer55 and Bloodpoint just so happened to arrive to Wikipedia at the same time, with an interest in diacritical redirects of the same articles, articles which were overwhelmingly created by you? I don't know about conspiracy, but that is one hell of a coincidence. A not insignificant number of articles Cerrot moved were either created by you, but moved by someone else, or created by Kajman87, whose articles you moved at the start of this year improperly which led to your current topic bans.  This is all far too specific to be a believable coincidence. Resolute 00:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me first say that I only reported Cerrot. I did not suggest that you, Dolovis, were socking as Cerrot, nor did I perform any research other than checking Cerrot's contribs. The reason I noticed the moves was that I recently moved the article on Maxime Sauvé from its diacriticless version, and thus it was on my watchlist. (I thought my move was logical, since his father, uncle and cousin all have diacritics in their respective article names.)

I don't know what tools the admins have, but I think this issue was acted on a bit quick. We may not have the same views on diacritics, and I certainly dislike some of your methods, but that does not mean that I want to close my eyes for a possible miscarriage of justice. I'll see if the case can be re-opened. (I admit I should have aired my concerns earlier.)

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether you've socked or not, just wanted to say 'thumbs up' :) GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidence
I've responded to HandsomeFella at ANI, but I'll copy over what I said so another admin can review it if they want.

Checkuser not being a magic spy ray, I obviously can't say that it's the identical laptop, but it is exactly the same build as the four other editors at Sockpuppet investigations/Dolovis, same updates etc. You're very thorough at keeping your kit up to date. Incidentally, I can see that you're not 'back home' yet - if 'home' is where the fixed line IP addresses to. You're as of this morning's edits around 2000 miles from there, on wifi, and using the same laptop. I don't think anyone is questioning that these four are socks of each other - the way they went over each others edits etc. So if these four - who are in three locations - are socks of each other, it is certainly technically possible that you are the sockmaster. The distances/timings are not impossible.

I also believe there is more than enough behavioural evidence to link you to the four stooges. However, another admin is welcome to review the block, and other checkusers can look at the technical evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 1946–47 WIHL season


A tag has been placed on 1946–47 WIHL season requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Johnathlon (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not. Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)