User talk:Kosm1fent/Archive 1

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Kosm1fent! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created  is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Chloe Sofia Boleti -

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. -- Gnowor TC 00:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Olubayo Adefemi
Do you have a source on his death? I didn't find anything in google/google news. ScottSteiner ✍  11:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignore the above, I just needed to purge the page. Thanks for updating the article. ScottSteiner  ✍  11:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. :) Unfortunately, all links i could find were in Greek. I'll add an article in English as soon as i find one. Kosm1fent (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: About the JESC 2011 logo
The logo, is not up for speedy deletion, it's just tagged as "missing essential source information", which will get deleted in several days. The logo itself is on Wikimedia Commons which only allows free images, which logos are not.

Have a look at WARN for warning templates to put on his/her talkpage. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 17:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

AEK "fans"
Hi there KOSMAS, VASCO here,

thanks for the input in the discussion i started at WP:FOOTY, yours was the only one in fact, appreciate it. Please have a look there when you can, added new developments, another "user" who...well...have a look and be the judge my friend.

Attentively, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. I was out of town for the weekend and now i'm back, i'll try to put all Superleague-related articles in my usual daily patrol route. Hold on, be strong, and don't let them discourage you. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 07:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As you can see at José Carlos Fernández Vázquez, the persecution continues (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Carlos_Fern%C3%A1ndez_V%C3%A1zquez&diff=440181963&oldid=440181924), let's see who gets tired first! The last two IPs have got to be the same "user" from England, same rubbish written, wrong Sevilla stats even though i told him otherwise (18/1 but he wants 31/5!), etc...

Regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision update
WikiProject Eurovision is currently suffering from inactivity, despite having a large number of active users as project members. It is recommended that you add the project talk page to your watchlist if you have not already done so, since there are a number of proposals on this talk page which will significantly impact on the project that should be of interest to you.

You are receiving this message since you are listed as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision, please remove your username from this page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 22:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC).

WikiProject Eurovision: Recent changes
Hello,

Please note that there have been some changes to operations surrounding Eurovision articles, these being that:


 * Template names have now been standardised, for example Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest and Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest have both been moved in order to be consistent. If you are planning to create a new template, please keep the standardised titles in mind.
 * now accepts importance ratings as well as quality ratings, and the project now has a formal assessment department which gives details on how to assess articles, and provides a place for contributors to request re-assessment. Feel free to add the template to the talk page of any new Eurovision articles you create.
 * The Eurovision Song Contest now has its own stub template at . Please only use this on Eurovision Song Contest stubs, with and  being the appropriate template for other Eruovision contests.

If you have any questions, please ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision.

You are receiving this message since you are listed as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. If you are no longer interested in contributing to Eurovision articles, please remove your username from this page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 15:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Speedy deletion declined: Pol. Gaeta
Hello Kosm1fent. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Pol. Gaeta, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''claim of participation in a top level league constitutes a sufficient claim of importance. .''' Thank you. Danger (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What?!
San Marino left? How so?! Gallazaray (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup: Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 14:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Incivility
May I ask why you have used a comment that is very uncivil, and goes against WP:CIVIL? The change was made in good faith, and sources included to show why such change has been made. Using words against me such as "I see you changed the song titles with no consensus - that's cute." is highly uncivil. One is not amused, and is disgusted by such actions. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I offended you. That wasn't a personal attack though, I was merely refering to your doing something without reaching consensus first. Cheers, Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 18:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. I did find the statement very patronising, especially when an edit was made in good faith, and reliable sources used to back up the edit accordingly.  It should be noted though, as we previously discussed on the project talk page, that if consistency is to be found throughout each Eurovision-related article, then we should be going about things in the same way no matter which article it is.  As there are rules about native languages, then is there any harm in showing the list of song titles in both native and English translation?  This has been the case on previous years, so why come 2011 article must it change, just because the EBU publish what appears to be an English only version.  Afterall, we mustn't be seen as offending the respective countries, by only providing an English list of their songs.  Although looking at the Dutch entry, it does appear as though they have shortened their title to just "teenager", which is spelt the same in Dutch as it is in English (ironic).  Wesley Mouse (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to apologise again, because one fault of mine (among many) is that I can be really impulsive sometimes. Those times i forget that we are all here to improve Wikipedia, and most times (when that impulse is over) I regret some things i said. Moreover, it was not nice of me to jump on you for an issue which I didn't bring up ( edited the song titles in the first place) Anyway, I still strongly believe that it's the five broadcasters who changed their song titles in English, and I will not rest until I prove that the song list published by the EBU is the real one. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 18:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I fully agree that an official list should be used also. But I'm assuming that is using the phrase "I will not rest until I prove that the song list published by the EBU is the real one" is another impulsive one (as you word it).  As working on articles isn't a war to prove who is better than the other.  Editors are a unit, a team; and should try hard to work together, even if it means making compromises that we may or may not agree with.  We must think for the majority of people who don't edit - the biggest part of readers who would rather read what we publish, rather than contribute.  Remaining as neutral as possible is very vital when it comes to publishing any article to a high standard.  Think about the wider audience, and not just the small team of editors on a project.  For it is better to cover all angles, than to skip vital ones all together.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That wasn't really an impulse, but just a comment stating that I strongly support my beliefs. I'm not antagonizing you or anything. Of course we have to bring each and every article to a good standard, by using the best sources we can find by working as a team. Some arguments will be unavoidable, and useful, if they lead towards better articles. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 19:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That my friend, is very true indeed. I'm one who strongly believes in high standards, throughout all walks of life, and in everything I do.  It may explain why at times I sound/look like I'm being argumentative, but that it is not the case of me picking on faults.  I just take a look at something, and if I see that there is a way to improve to make things appear in a high standard.  Apologies if that upsets people, but then that is the way I have always been - high standards = better feedback = happy smiles across the board!  It boils back to that whole consistency thing though.  Is there anywhere on the project page, that show a "list" of guidelines, on what should and shouldn't be done?  As I have noticed many a time, the constant edit wars going on, when surely there are more compromising ways (if not realistic ones) that could be implemented to avoid edit warring and/or vandalism every taking place.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit warring doesn't do any good to the community, it just infuriates and wastes everyone's time. And I'm very grateful that you opted to open a discussion about what you disagreed with, instead of edit-warring. Very noble of you. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 19:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

AWB
Just a quick note, I've approved your request at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 06:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Prods
I've removed some of your recent Prods. In my mind, if the article has been around for almost half-a-decade, had many edits, and exists in other langauges, it should be subject to and AFD, rather than a PROD. Particularly as versions of the page in other languages seem very well referenced, implying notability. Nfitz (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As you wish... Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 17:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Claus M needs a speedy block
I think User:Claus M. needs to have a speedy block placed, before he continues to cause havoc across Wikipedia. He is vandalising on a major scale, and I find it upsetting and highly disruptive. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see now he is blocked. Good thing you reported him to WP:AIV, he was getting pretty annoying. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 14:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle Training
Hi Kosm1fent,

Firstly, may I call you Kosmo for short? Secondly, with regards to training for twinkle. I don't mind doing this at a time that suits you. I too, shall be preoccupied tonight, as I'll be watching the semi-finals for X Factor UK (on the television), as well as watching JESC on the internet. I look forward to your reply in due course, so that we may arrange a suitable time for training. Have a great day with your grandparents; regards - Wesley Mouse (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Wes. Yes, Kosmo is fine. =P Don't worry, Twinkle is easy to learn, and quite a useful tool, may I add.


 * I trust you have already installed Twinkle the way AxG told you to? (My preferences > "Gadgets" tab > check "Twinkle" > click "Save" at the bottom of the page) If yes, and you are using the default skin (Vector, make sure you choose that by going to "My preferences" > "Appearance" tab), you are going to see a new button to the left of the search box, titled "TW". This is a dropdown menu with a few options, which change, depending on what type of page you are viewing:
 * Mainspace articles and their talk pages (for example, Eurovision Song Contest 2012 and Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012). Hoovering your mouse over the TW button while you are viewing a mainspace article page, you will see 7 options:
 * CSD tags the page for speedy deletion per WP:CSD. Clicking on that opens this dialog box, where you choose the suitable criterion for speedy deletion. The program then automatically tags the article and notifies the article creator.
 * PROD tags the page for deletion per WP:PROD. Clicking on that opens this dialog box, where you choose between WP:PROD and WP:BLPPROD (hover on question mark for details), then type the reason why you believe the article should be deleted, and click on "submit". The program then automatically tags the article and notifies the article creator.
 * XFD nominates the page for deletion per WP:AFD. Clicking on that opens a dialog box (no picture), where you just type the reason why you believe the article should be deleted, and click on "submit". The programm them does a series of complicated actions. =P It may take a while to finish tagging (up to 30 seconds in some cases), be patient.
 * RPP requests page protection per WP:RPP. Clicking on that opens this dialog box, where you choose the type of page protection you believe is more suitable, type your reason and click on "submit". (personally I never used it before, so I don't know exactly what actions it takes =P)
 * Tag adds maintainance tags to the article. Clicking on that opens this dialog box, where you choose one or more suitable maintainance tags for the article. There are lots; scroll the list, check the ones you like and click on "submit".
 * Last shows the most recent diff of the page. Practically, you can see how the last edit has affected the page.
 * Unlink, I think, removes red links from the page, but I'm not sure. Never used it. =P


 * Userspace and userspace talk pages (for example, User:Wesley Mouse and User talk:Wesley Mouse) show different options when you hoover your mouse over the TW button:
 * ARV reports the user whose page you are viewing to administrators. Sorry, no picture found, and I have never used it, so you've got to try it yourself.
 * Warn warns the user with an appropriate warning template. Clicking on that opens this dialog box, where you choose the appropriate warning level, the type of warning template, the article you wish to link (for exaple, if you are warning someone for vandalism, you link the vandalized article), an optional personal message, and you click on "submit".
 * Wel welcomes the user with a welcoming template. Clicking on that opens this dialog box, where you choose the appropriate welcoming template. Never used it.
 * TB leaves a talkback template on the user's talk page.


 * These are the basic features of Twinkle. For more information on how to use it, check Twinkle/doc, click on the WP links to read the WP guidelines behind every action and hoover over the question marks in the dialog boxes to see more information on each option. If you have any questions, ask me.


 * This concludes the first lesson on Twinkle. =P Next (and final) lesson, reverting vandalism. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 11:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Kosmo,

Thanks for the first lesson in twinkling. I must have installed the feature correctly, as I have noticed the TW tab at the top, and didn't know what it was. Those abbreviations and guidance are very helpful. If I may, I shall copy the entire text, and store it on my talk page somewhere. Some of the features look daunting, but others look easy enough. I have added a user box on my page for twinkle (not sure if it is the right one, but at least it shows I'm now a twinkler). Ready for lesson two, at your convenience. P.S. Who do you think will win JESC tonight? And you would you like to win? Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I may have just figured out how to revert vandalism edits, and also post warning comment to a user's talk page. An IP address vandalised the JESC2012 article, by adding placings and scores before the vent has even taken place.  I used the "revert vandalism" link, which worked fantastically.  Then I visited the IP talk page, and used TW to post a warning.  Twinkle is so much easy.  Thank you for your lessons.  I'm sure that deserves a barnstar for your hardwork ;-) Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was really nothing. You did a great job with your first revert & warning using Twinkle, so I don't think you need a second lesson. Any questions you have, feel free to ask. One last piece of advice, however; be careful while using the rollback feature. Always make sure to leave the page in its pre-vandalism state. If two or more editors vandalised the same page in succession, you will have to revert their edits manually, because rollback only reverts edits made by one editor. Have fun chasing vandals!!!


 * As for JESC 2011, I have no strong feelings on any song (unlike last year and my extreme HATRED towards Georgia), but I would like to see Georgia, Lithuania or Latvia win (I know the last 2 won't :P), and I certainly would not like Moldova, Armenia or Sweden. Have fun watching the X Factor (not a fan) and the JESC (yaaay :P) tonignt! Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 16:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Thanasis Topouzis, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Greek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing Poland saga on Eurovision Song Contest 2012
Dear Kosmo,

Thank you for acting swiftly with the recent alterations by Monoculo earlier today, in regards to Poland's "alleged" withdrawal from the Eurovision Song Contest 2012. However, Monoculo has since reverted your edit again, and left you a semi-nasty reply. I have reverted everything back, and left the user another message (my second within 24 hours). I did explain on December 18 to the user why Poland wasn't being included as fully-withdrawn at this stage. But he/she hasn't taken notice of the explanation, and is slowly heading down the path of edit warring. In response to his latest edit, and the comment he/she left for you, I have issued the user a warning for vandalism. I shall continue to monitor the actions, and if he/she continues to engage in edit warring by reverting details using unofficial sources; then I shall have no other option but to report matters further as per WP:3RR. Thank you, once again - Wesley Mouse (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was nothing. At first I thought he was using that older Oikotimes article, citing TVP's facebook as a source. I saw his message, and that link he posted actually was a newer article, claiming an "official" announcement by the TVP. Whatever, I assumed good faith and reverted my warning towards the editor, thinking that maybe Oikotimes got it right this time. Then I got busy in real life, and when I came back I saw you reverted his edits. Well done. I checked now, and I couldn't find such an article anywhere else. Must be one of Oikotimes' famous "exclusives"... Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 13:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm being vigilant with sources about Poland's withdrawal at the moment. I'm double-checking any source with a fine tooth-comb.  I think in a case like this, it is best to wait for official confirmation from the EBU themselves.  Otherwise we will be heading towards another Slovakia 2011's "yes we're in - no we're not - yes we are again" scenario.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have found what could be causing the confusion with people regarding Poland's "withdrawal". TVP has many television channels as part of its network - TVP1; TVP2; TVP Sport; TVP Kultura; TVP Historia (to name but a few).  It appears that since Poland's début, the Eurovision Song Contest has always been screened on TVP1.  However, this appears to be changing from 2012, as TVP1 are changing their genre of broadcasting to a more serious one, including films, factual dramas (similar genres to those of the UK channel BBC2).  As a result TVP as a "network" are looking into switching the broadcast of Eurovision to another of their channels (TVP2 or TVP Kultura) - so in reality Poland may not be withdrawing from the contest.  I can see how people are getting confused, when they see statements from TVP1 stating they are "not broadcasting Eurovision 2012" - people assume that it means Poland has withdrawn - but alas this may not be the case.  It is similar to Junior Eurovision in the UK.  At first ITV1 broadcast JESC 2003, then between 2004/2005 the broadcast rights changed to ITV2, still part of the ITV Network, just a switch in channel.  I might include this analysis on the article talk page, in a hope it helps to clear confusion.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ioannis Anastassakis Conflict
Hi Kosm1fent,

First of all I would like to say how are you. I noticed that every time we create the bio of Ioannis Anastassakis, there's a notice of deletion. Why? We are the owner of the article. The one in sutros.com is what we made. We do not intend to copyright infringe that article. WE ARE THE OWNER of the article, we wrote it. Please remove the deletion. Thank you.

Justin Busran Assistant Wild Rose Angel Productions www.wildroseangelproductions.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfbusran (talk • contribs) 02:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I can answer this on Kosmo's behalf. As you, Justin, are the owner of sutros.com, you cannot create a bio article based on that website, as it violates several wikipedia policies such as self-published material and Biographies of living persons - Avoid self-published sources (you may refer to those links for further information.  That would explain why the article keeps being nominated for deletion, and there is nothing that can be done to avoid it.  A neutral person who has no involvement with your website, or with anyone associated with it, may create an article (as per WP:NPOV).  However, we'd have no proof that the creator is neutral, considering the fact that you have attempted to create such an article several times, all of which get deleted - this would raise the alarm of sock puppetry which is a serious violation and results in both the main and sock puppet accounts being permanently blocked from Wikipedia.  Hope this answers your question.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Jfbusran. I'm not the one who deleted the article. Regular users don't have the power to delete articles, only administrators do. You have to ask the administrator who deleted it (Fastily), as noted in the deletion log :20:36, 6 January 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "Ioannis Anastassakis" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.songramp.com/homepage.php?userid=30242)
 * The article was deleted because it looked like a copy-paste of material from a website whose copyright you (probably) don't own. You always have to use your own words when contibuting to Wikipedia, having in mind the three core policies (verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research).
 * All in all, if you believe it was deleted by mistake, consult the above administrator - however, I don't think they'll give you a much different answer than mine and Wesley's. Cheers. – Kosm  1  fent  10:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Kosmo, I have an idea that my work all-round. Seeing as you and I have nothing to do with the above named website, nor have we got connections with the owner (apart from conversation explaining deletion).  How about, we re-create the article; in our own words, based on what we find.  That way the article will exist, and will be within the policies of NPOV, and avoiding the self-publish rule too.  Plus the fact we would know that a neutral person(s) will have done the work, and not the owner himself.  It would also remove the element of wondering if a different user was a sock puppet or not.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure; however, just by reading his bio, I'm unsure if the musician passes the notability guideline for music:
 * Criteria for musicians and ensembles:
 * Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.
 * Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. ❌
 * Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. ❌
 * Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
 * Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels. ❌
 * Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. ❌
 * Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
 * Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. ❌
 * Has won or placed in a major music competition. ❌
 * Has performed music for a work of media that is notable. ❌
 * Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio or music television network. ❌
 * Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. ❌


 * Criteria for composers and lyricists:
 * Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. ❌
 * Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time. ❌
 * Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. ❌
 * Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers. ❌
 * Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria. ❌
 * Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.


 * So, it appeares we have first to find references to justify notability in criteria 1, 4 and 7 of WP:MUSICBIO and 6 of WP:COMPOSER. Otherwise the article will be deleted again. – Kosm  1  fent  09:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch that. I first googled his name in Greek :
 * Found his article in the Greek Wikipedia (completely unreferenced).
 * Found an article in a reliable source about another Giannis Anastasakis (a guitar maker)
 * Found an article in a reliable source about another Giannis Anastasakis (a director, and the article is about one theatrical play he directed)
 * Then I fed up and googled "Giannis Anastasakis Flamencο" in Greek and found:
 * A post about him in a guitar forum:
 * A brief notice) in a reliable source about an upcoming concert of his (2001):
 * His official site, facebook profile, trivial mentions in local web portals I've never heard of, etc.


 * By the looks of it, he's completely non-notable. – Kosm  1  fent  10:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently, I typed his name with one "s" instead of two (his last name is actually Anastassakis. I corrected my mistake, but the quality of the links did not get better... the only stuff I found were links to buy his books, if you type his name in English, and an interview of his in some kind of a music website if you type his name in Greek. He's just as non-notable as before. –  Kosm  1  fent  10:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that lengthy groundwork Kosmo - surely that deserves a pat on the back. I did a bit of checking myself on the website in the very early hours of the morning (insomnia kicked in).  From what I gathered, Ioannis is trying to start his music career - just by what was written in the mini-bio blog.  One can only assume that his management team are trying every way possible to get the "unknown" become more notable in the public eye.  Using Wikipedia isn't the best way to start such a task - in my opinion.  People use Wikipedia to research on things that they already know.  So in that theory, nobody would search for Ioannis to begin with, as nobody knows who he is, nor have they heard his music.  No doubt, in the chance that he does become famous in the future, that someone somewhere will create an article.  When that will be is anyone's guess.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. If he becomes notable, I will welcome his biography. But not now. – Kosm  1  fent  19:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Theaghenis Dhionysatos
Hi there, this guy is notable via WP:NFOOTBALL but other than the fact he played a few matches, we know nothing about him, so fails WP:GNG. Can you possible locate any Greek-language sources for us please? GiantSnowman 15:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings. Thanks for the heads-up, I will check. – Kosm  1  fent  16:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks. GiantSnowman 16:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing 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.


 * Giannis Stergianos-Michailidis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Full back (football)


 * Nathan Burns (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Korean

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Georgios Makris
Georgios Makris comes to cyprus to sing with anorthosis side — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisAnorthosis (talk • contribs) 15:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed he does, but it's still unknown whether he'll sign for Anorthosi on loan or on a full transfer. – Kosm  1  fent  16:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Filip Twardzik (2nd nomination)
Due to recent developments you may want to revisit to deletion discussion. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 15:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have changed my !vote. – Kosm  1  fent  20:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus as "Fully Pro"
Hi there, I don't see how you can justify Cyprus's inclusion on the list on the strength of that source. It basically says that the League is on its uppers because it is run by bumbling amateurs! In general, just because references include the word "professional" somewhere does not mean the League is worthy of inclusion on the WP:FPL list. For example, both Albania and the regionalised Greek lower divisions you mentioned are very poorly sourced in this manner. I don't particularly care either way, but let's see some adequate sources if these Leagues actually are "fully professional." PorridgeGobbler (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, if a source reports a league as being professional, it means that all teams competing in that league have to be professional (thus satisfying the term "fully" - or else the league is not considered professional). In fact, most sources in WP:FPL don't mention "fully" anywhere, even the EPFL list you provided. I don't know if the Cyprus source can be considered reliable, but the sources about Greece (Sports Illustrated and the Hellenic Football Federation website) are way "adequate". – Kosm  1  fent  14:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. It's common for part-time or semi-pro leagues to describe themselves as "professional". Even various women's leagues. E.g. the Australian W League was bombed out of the list despite references about being "professionally run". Digging up a news report or other weak source which bandies about the word "professional" is not enough. Ive just done it for the FA WSL. If you don't know if the Cyprus source is reliable, why did you revert the tag I added to it? Please restore it while we work towards consensus. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are planning to work towards a consensus, then it would be feasible to keep the disputed content omitted from the article in question, until an overall consensus is reached. This would assist the aversion of potential edit warring from editors in general.  Perhaps inviting other editors to partake in a content discussion on the article talk page would be a good idea, then you'd see what other people think in regards to this matter.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  15:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @ PorridgeGobbler: I don't know if what you say is true, but as far as the Greece is concerned, the sources used are considered reliable and the three top Greek divisions are fully professional. About Cyprus, I reverted your tag because it was wrong;  is used when disputing reliability. However, I doupt my talk page is the right place to start a discussion about verifiability, try WT:FPL or WT:FOOTY, where more editors can get involved.
 * @ Wesley: This is not a content dispute, it's about which football leagues are considered fully professional, and whether the sources used are reliable or not (see here). – Kosm  1  fent  17:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Kosmo, I know it doesn't look like a content dispute. However, the line posted by PorridgeGobbler which reads (and I quote) "If you don't know if the Cyprus source is reliable, why did you revert the tag I added to it? Please restore it while we work towards consensus." indicates a dispute in some material that has been included, as PG has asked for it to be re-added while consensus is found.  It would be more cooperative to keep the content that PG has asked to be re-added, omitted if he has requested a consensus exercise.  It would be a little foolish to re-add it now, and then a consensus is built to state to remove it again.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  17:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted the tag because it was wrong, as stated above. If he wants to question the source, he should use '; I certainly won't say no unless I prove it's reliable. However, ' is only used when the cited material is not in the source, which was clearly not the case. – Kosm  1  fent  17:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh right, that's OK then. I'll allow you both to continue with this one then, and I shall crawl back into my tortoise shell, and wait for the next time I need to pop my head out for talk page stalking LOL. P.S. Hope you enjoyed the Wiki-beer! Wesley ☀  Mouse  17:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)