User talk:Dolovis: Difference between revisions

The article Eric Gryba has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable hockey player. Less than 100 AHL games, no major awards, not a first round draft pick, no press coverage beyond routine mentions that he was in the lineup.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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.

The article Matthiew Nieto has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable college athlete

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matti Koistinen 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. —AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 02:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ville Laine 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. —AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 04:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move the titles of sportsmen with diacritics in their name or surname. The standard usage of their names is with diacritics. See here: Category:Finnish ice hockey players, Category:Czech footballers or also Category:Polish footballers and Category:Spanish footballers. Enwiki adopted the usage of diacritics, as you can see for Spanish or Portuguese accents, German, Finnish, Czech or Polish diacritics and more. This is not an opinion of mine but a general adopted rule. See for example the title of famous people as Lech Wałęsa or Alexander Dubček. Thanks for attention and best of regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 04:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken to claim that your POV is the "general adopted rule". The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. This has been discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), with no consensus being reached to change the existing policy. I trust that explains the current Wikipedia policy as it relates to this issue. Dolovis (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All this thousands of examples, all this thousands of articles with diacritics created years before my registration are not my POV... Reguarding the issue of WP:AT, as wroten by Fram: As long as such disagreement is not resolved, it is not up to you to impose your preferred version over other ones by making it impossible for non-admins to move the pages. I'm not interested into follow my personal POV or gaming the system... No comment. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is underway regarding your editing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Help request: Diacritics in surnames. Prolog (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

• This refers to your moving of article from title with diacritics in the to titles without diacritics. I strongly suggest that you do not move any more articles unless consensus is first gained, otherwise you 'may be blocked indefinitely. Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mjroots (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am, in fact, making page moves in accordance with policy (see WP:COMMONNAME). There has been an-ongoing RfC for well over a month at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, which is discussing this matter at length and, at only 50% support, it does not look like it will get a consensus. Again, I am acting in accordance with the policy as it is currently written. Also, the warning makes it sound as if I am currently moving article en masse, when in fact I have only made four moves in the last two weeks. Dolovis (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention the redirect edits that you've made, intentionally gaming the system. You are (deliberately?) misunderstanding what the ANI is about. It is not about diacritics or not - it is about your behaviour. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged redirects in accordance with WP:REDCAT. Dolovis (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you do it in one edit? You can't be forgetting it all the time. You are deliberately making "mistakes", so that non-admins will not be able move the articles back. Remember that there are logs on wikipedia, and it's easy to see a user's pattern of behavior (as well as earlier ANIs). HandsomeFella (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the controversial movement of articles, without discussion, to article titles that do not conform to the policy of WP:AT which is disruptive. The only reason a non-admin editor would be concerned is if he/she intended to make such a disruptive move. If you wish to suggest a move, then please follow procedure of Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dolovis (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not about diacritics, it's about user behavior. When will you understand? HandsomeFella (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not me, but you, who is constantly bringing up the issue of diacritics. Dolovis (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bringing up the issue of diacritics, I'm bringing up the issue of your behaviour. Do I have to spell it out? (As if I haven't already.) HandsomeFella (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the above page move restriction would be lifted, you need to stop creating redirects and then editing those again. This was mentioned in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive709#Gaming the system, but you have continued doing this over and over again on every diacritics move you made since then. If you create a redirect, do it in one edit, or don't do it at all. Continuation of this gaming of the system (as it was aptly described) will also get you indefinitely blocked. Fram (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am under no move restriction. Second, I have tagged redirects in accordance with WP:REDCAT. Please point me to the policy or consensus which supports your unilateral block warning. Dolovis (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a form of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, making it deliberatley impossible for other people to undo your moves and/or moving articles you created to the version with diacritics. There is no reason to add the category in a second edit, when you could just as well do it in one edit. Doing this over and over again, coupled with the previous different versions of edits with the same result (as shown in the previous ANI discussion) make it very clear that you have only one aim with these edits. This is your version of WP:OWN and WP:FAITACCOMPLI. Please stop it. Fram (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the controversial movement of articles, without discussion, to article titles that do not conform to the policy of WP:AT which is disruptive. The only reason a non-admin editor would be concerned is if he/she intended to make such a disruptive move. Dolovis (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is serious disagreement about whether your preferred (non-diacritics) names is the policy-conform one or not. As long as such disagreement is not resolved, it is not up to you to impose your preferred version over other ones by making it impossible for non-admins to move the pages. You are both moving pages to non-diacritic versions, and restricting other users from doing the opposite by using two edits when creating a redirect. You are trying to exploit a technical feature of the Wiki software to win a content or style dispute. This is disruptive. Further instances of this will be blocked. Even if you are right in how the pages should be titled (which is far from certain), you are not entitled to impose this in such a way. Fram (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. It appears you have not been notified yet, but you are being talked about on ANI.--Rockfang (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then what exactly was this edit for?--Atlan (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I missed it. No harm done.--Rockfang (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On our local OHL team there is a player named Alex Galchenyuk. He was one of the members of the first all-rookie team for the 2010-2011 OHL season. Knowing this, there is a very good possibility he could be selected in the first round of a future OHL draft, making him notable enough for an article. While I am not trying to create an article now (indeed someone did once, it was deleted), and while I am not invoking WP:CRYSTAL, there is a good possibility that I or someone else will be taking over the redirect as this player's name is simply Alex, not Alexander. He'd be in good company; his teammate and CHL Rookie of the Year Nail Yakupov was my submission to the hockey section of Wikipedia.

Just a future heads-up on this. CycloneGU (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If and when Alex Galchenyuk (born 1994) achieves notability, you might want to become familiar with [[WP:Disambiguation] as it may give you the information you are looking for. Dolovis (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will be addressed when the time comes; I've been around here for years. I already have the intention to include an Alexander Galchenyuk link at the top of the page. But again, I'm not looking for an article restoration now, so it's not an issue at present. CycloneGU (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very confused as to why you are bringing this to my talk page. Dolovis (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Ritchie 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. Mtking (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus of the community, you are hereby banned from moving any pages. Should you require a page to be moved, you are to propose it at WP:RM, and if consensus can be established for the move, it will be moved by another editor. Please note that further attempts to frustrate reversal of moves by editing redirect pages will be considered as disruptive, and sanctions will be applied, up to an indefinite block. This restriction will be logged at WP:RESTRICT, so you will not be able to claim you haven't been notified of the restriction. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]