Re: Opinions on the success of the revival of the Olympic Games in 1859, 1870, 1875
Opinions about the success or a failure of any revival have no place in an encyclopaedia. Besides how can anybody consider the Olympic Games that were held in Athens in 1859, and 1870 as a failure.
Firstly, the 1859 Olympic Games was the first modern international Olympic Games. It had Greek athletes. It had athletes from the Ottoman Empire. It had athletic events comparable to those held in ancient times. It had medals. It had Olympians. It was a success.
Secondly, the 1870 Olympic Games was the first modern international Olympic Games to be held in a stadium. The only country in the world to have an athletics stadium in the 19th Century was Greece. I'll say that again for the hard of hearing. The only country in the world to have a bonafide, refurbished ancient Olympic Games stadium in the 19th Century was Greece. Greece was the first country in the world to host a bonafide Olympic Games in a stadium in the 19th Century. And guess what? Greece was also the second and the third country in the world to host a bonafide Olympic Games in a stadium.
What is even more interesting is that there was no stadium at the Paris 1900 side-show that was called an Olympic Games. To be be perfectly honest, if the International Olympic Committee did not recognise them as Olympic Games they would not be worthy of the name by anybody elses standards.
Then ofcourse they build a temporary stadium for St Louis in 1904.
And guess what? The first Olympic Games to have a proper bonafide Olympic stadium in the 20th Century once again was Greece at Athens in 1906.
Is that so hard to accept. Does it hurt the pride of the rest of the world to accept that. That small country called Greece had the first modern international Olympic Games and it had the first bonafide purpose-built Olympic stadium.
Please elaborate what success or failure means when you use those words. When David C. Young uses them he is referring to the fact that the Olympiad was not maintained. He is not saying that the Games themselves were not a success. Don't take quotations out of context. Don't quote opinions. Surely, that is common sense.
Also, take a closer look at this: 1859, 1870, 1875, 1896, 1906, 2004
Years in which the Olympic Games were hosted in Athens. Does that make every other city that has hosted the Olympic Games a failure?
Evangelos Zappas firmly planted the foundations, the roots, of the modern Olympic Games and those that say otherwise are in denial. That's not an opinion. That is a fact. Nipsonanomhmata 20:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's an opinion. One might even say a point of view. In fact, it represents a significant point of view that has been published in *numerous* reliable source. Which is exactly what we want to include in our articles. Go read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view again. Your own personal views on what it means to have fully revived the Olympics don't dictate how the rest of the world understands it.
And, yes, with this edit, you did screw up the grammar. You deleted part of a sentence, leaving the fragment "White City Stadium, (originally know as The Great Stadium) built in White City, London, England, for the 1908 Summer Olympics." -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Numerous reliable sources" repeating significantly incorrect points of view. Yes, that's par for the course. That's exactly what has been happening. Nipsonanomhmata19:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm trying hard to work with Nipsonanomhmata. He does have some good points about Zappas not getting much credit for his Olympic revival efforts, but his preferred method of working (that is to say, blasting everyone who isn't Zappas with belittlements and ridicule) isn't much fun. Trying to keep things to the generally-accepted consensus (which even Young, Nipsonanomhmata's favorite author, agrees with) is tough. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 22:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally-accepted consensus on opinions means nothing. Only facts count. History is not made by the people who talk about it. History is made by the people who do it. Zappas spent a fortune making the revival of the Olympic Games happen. Brookes sent a trophy to the 1859 Games in Athens and listed one of the international participants on the honor roll of the Wenlock Olympian Society. What did Baron Pierre de Coubertin pay for? Some vacations to England and to Greece. Some stationery and some postage stamps. Zappas paid for the refurbishment of the Panathenian stadium. He bought all the land that the stadium stood on and all the surrounding land. Zappas paid for the building of the first purpose-built indoor Olympic arena. Give credit to Brookes as a Founder of the Modern Olympic Movement for 1866. But let's not pussy-foot. Zappas made the first modern international Olympic Games happen. Zappas made it happen in 1859, 1870, and 1875 with a solid foundation for the future and with a stadium that would last for thousands of years. Dr Brookes made things happen in 1866. But there is no legacy stadium from Brookes' efforts. Coubertin never paid for a stadium and the stadiums that the IOC has had built for them, by others, will never last as long as the Panathenian stadium.
We aim to present a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view here. Generally-accepted consensus on the importance of historical details does matter. You continually push the point of view that Zappas was the be-all and end-all of reviving the Olympic Games, and that Brookes and De Coubertin are unimportant. Your view is out of step with basically every Olympic historian who has ever published anything, including Young, whom you are so fond of. Zappas should be recognized, yes, and we do recognize his efforts. But you constantly try to unbalance every article you touch, and include snide attacks (which do, yes, represent your point of view, rather than "facts") on everyone who isn't Zappas. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. Brookes was important (even though the IOC formally doesn't say so). He was the founder of the modern Olympic Movement and preceded Coubertin in this role since Coubertin used many of Brookes ideas without giving him credit. Coubertin was important because he was the founder of the International Olympic Committee. But Coubertin is not as important as the IOC makes him out to be (they stretch the truth at the IOC). The IOC claims that Coubertin was the founder of the modern Olympic Games, they also claim he was the founder of the modern Olympic Movement. Meanwhile, the Wenlock Olympian Society (WOS) claims that Brookes was the founder of the modern Olympic Games. The WOS used to claim that he was the founder of the Olympic Games (isn't that ludicrous?).
No. I am not out of step with David C. Young. I agree with all the facts that he has published and to be perfectly honest absolutely nobody else has done the indepth research that he has done and I respect him deeply for that. But I don't have to agree with all of his opinions because opinions are not facts. History should be based on facts and not opinions. Except by those who try to manipulate history. For example, to take Young's opinions and quote them out of context is a manipulation of history.
My view is purely based on the facts. Opinions are worth nothing unless there are no facts [opinion]. What actually happened is what counts. Events make history. Opinions are usually there to misrepresent history. Also there are too many people who quote opinions that are not based on facts. Too many people repeat what they hear and do not research the source or even consider why that was said in the first place.
You reinstated a secondary source that I deleted today. There is no original information on that page. The person that wrote that page has slightly adapted the information and the information is not accurate. i.e. the source is based on hearsay. Someone else did the original research and published it ... and this source has not even adapted what was in the original article ... they are likely to have adapted from another secondary article ... The source that was quoted is corrupt. It is not a useful source to quote or to recommend. All the other sources have original information.
You didn't like my "eat your heart out Baron Pierre" joke! He was born 1863, 1st Jan. Meanwhile, building works for the Olympic Games, including the refurbishment of the stadium, were planned back in the 1850s and the Greek government made them law in the 1860s. How the IOC has the arrogance to claim that the Baron founded the Olympic Games is beyond belief. Also, the Baron had his heart buried under a statue in Olympia. Ofcourse, everybody conveniently forgets that Zappas asked for his head to be buried at the Zappeion well before the Baron died. Nobody mentions that fact. Why? Is Zappas less important than the Baron? Zappas refurbished a stadium that was used for five Olympic Games: 1870, 1875, 1896, 1906, 2004. The IOC conveniently doesn't recognise three of those Games.
So what did Baron Pierre de Coubertin pay for when he founded the International Olympic Committee? He didn't pay for the building of any stadiums. Not even at Paris in 1900. Nipsonanomhmata00:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely did not mean to do that. Must've somehow edited DGG's version by mistake--I really did just want to take out the empty section header. Thanks for taking it back out, and sorry for the confusion! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have n o regard to the assume good faith guideline linked from the talk page of sylvia browne. I am trying tol report on what EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD says - that she is a quack. Vandalism? More like fact checking.
Changing a person's biography so that the first sentence calls them a fraud and a quack is, yes, vandalism. Don't do it again. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that I have little faith in sourcing, but rather little faith in pseudo-sourcing. I could source the statement of analogy I made (Noam Chomsky, “Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism in the Real World,” South End Press, Cambridge Mass. rev.edition 2002 p.99 footnote 8) but I don't think it necessary, because an analogy of this kind does not need sourcing since the given, uncontrovertible facts speak for themselves. I.e. you do not need to, but may of course, source the obvious, put a link under 'is' and refer us to Parmenides, or 'fact' and refer us to the dictionary, as any academic knows. The Reeve quote was sourced, but was a misleading item in that page in so far as it was one of any number of subjective opinions immaterial to the article in question. Wiki cruisers should have spotted that before my intervention. In erasing both Reeve's exaggerated and strategically placed 'quote' I have also eliminated my counter-example. And I think the article's first paragraph gains in lucidity.
I've been trying to work with User:piledoggie for a while (who has had one of his/her anonymous usernames blocked for vandalizing my talk page), but that user really doesn't seem to understand WP:BLP. I've discussed this on the talk page of Church of Christ (Temple Lot), as well as on some of his/her various talk pages (that user has edited the Temple Lot article under 4 separate usernames, which complicates things), but I can't seem to get this user to understand what WP:BLP is about, evidenced by the fact that said user feels that they are following WP:BLP guidelines in removing my comments (which contain little or no biographical material at all, and certainly no names or references to names) from a talk page. I would have commented over at the Noticeboard, but the requests have already been archived. The Jade Knight09:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first are commonly known as parentheses. "Brackets" alone tends to refer to the second in many parts of the world. I've never seen anyone anywhere refer to the third as "parentheses" before; they're curly brackets or braces. "Parentheses" is, to almost everyone in the world, unambiguous and refers to round brackets. "Brackets", on the other hand, is an ambiguous term which could mean any of the above or even <>. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In English English which I use the word parentheses is not used at all except to describe {} I see that the cultural divide between the variations of english has struck again. FInally <> these are greater than and less than signs and I have personally never heard them referred to as brackets. I guess we shall just have to live with the difference.--Lucy-marie19:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You closed the entry, saying it was inactive after no one commented on it for a month. [1]
Yet the blog info still get readded all the time. Couldn't you just wait until a neutral person looked at it or have done it yourself? --Theblog05:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I closed the entry on 5 August; there had been no edits to either the article or the noticeboard entry since 21 July. That's a pretty good indication that the noticeboard entry isn't doing much good at that point. The best thing for you to do in such a case if problems continue with the article is to file a fresh noticeboard entry--it's more likely to bring fresh eyes to the article than an entry that has sat for a few weeks and has scrolled away from the part of the noticeboard where most of the attention is going. Please do file a new entry if there are still problems. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Lizel Moore, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Denis Murray (athlete), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of Craig Mason
I have nominated Craig Mason, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Mason. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Blueboy9614:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The general idea from the Olympics WikiProject is that each event have its own page; reasons include a hope that eventually the event pages will get more information, avoidance of excessive detail on the more general page, and consistency of navigation. That being said, I'm not particularly attached to any method of display for the information. So if you want to be bold and merge them onto Rowing at the 1920 Summer Olympics, or ask at the WikiProject for more opinions, please do! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine, just wondering why its a separate page for each event. Your explanation is quite sufficent. Nice work, by the way. I like colorful tables and statistics with country flags in it! I use it a lot in some of my articles too.EA210269 (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've gotta say, monkeying around with templates is so much more fun than studying for exams. I'm glad you like the results, though I didn't do much original work—I grabbed most of the coding from {{3RoundBracket-Byes}}, with smatterings from other tournament brackets. I'd like to eventually be able to replace most of Category:Tournament bracket templates with a much smaller number of templates. I've got the byes down pretty well, and third-place matches for the brackets big enough to display them nicely (the 8-team bracket is probably going to have to be non-compact to do that). My next goal is probably to make the brackets capable of displaying seeds if desired, while seemlessly hiding them if not. Doing something with byes in rounds after the first might be useful for some of the early Olympic brackets too. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the code I added to Template:4TeamBracket over a year ago to make the seeds optional, if that helps. My approach was to allow the template user to write RD1-seed1= (or omit the parameter altogether) to remove the little box, or write RD1-seed1= to insert a blank box, allowing for combinations of seeded and unseeded entries. I have long thought that that category of templates was in dire need of a simplification overhaul, so I would support you in that endeavour! — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 16:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful. Thanks for the pointer to that existing template; I was afraid I was going to have to reinvent the wheel there. Ok, so now the 4TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds-Byes is capable of showing seeds or not, and showing byes. It's too small for a third place option underneath the final; maybe I'll try one off to the right... -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of Carol Cassady
I have nominated Carol Cassady, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Cassady. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Blueboy9601:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no problem with that article being deleted. It was one of a bunch I created quite a while ago, with a different conception of Wikipedia's inclusiveness on political candidates. My guess is that Carl Cassady isn't the only one left that suffers from the same problems. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 03:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you canceled my contributions !
I prefer write Panamerican !
I have said " Panamerican Games " , and you have canceled for Pan American Games !
I think , this is more just to write " 2007 Panamerican Games " !
I do not disagree with you , please , could you give an explanation !
You can write me a message Eremia (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Eremia[reply]
You have already been told the problem with your edits, and have been asked to discuss changes at Talk:Pan American Games. The correct name of the Pan American Games uses two words for Pan American. Our preferences don't really matter much in the issue. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Monica/Eremia/etc
Monica/Eremia/etc. is now blocked indef. Sorry my attempt at reforming them prolonged the agony. Report any more of these obvious vandals to AIV, and in your report, link to: User:Barneca/watch/bvr, and hopefully whoever is dealing with AIV will deal with them quickly. --barneca --barneca (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't beat yourself up over it. Some people can be convinced to be helpful, some can't. This one couldn't; oh well. You still get points in my book for trying. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1896 Summer Olympics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Giants2008 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried fiddling with modifying them, but I'm having trouble getting them to come out right. What you've got on that page looks good, though, so for now I'd recommend using that. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jonel, I address you because in the past you contributed to the article of a Russian Olympic archer Balzhinima Tsyrempilov. Recently, I started 2 new articles about Russian Olympic archers, Natalia Erdyniyeva and Bair Badënov. I have but a minor experience with the English edition of Wikipedia, I am not a native speaker of English and totally lack sports terminology. Would you please review and correct these articles when/if you find it possible (taking in account their current participation in the Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics events). Thanks in advance, --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your corrections! And, also as I cannot follow most Olympic events, your contribution on their progress is much appreciated also! --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Tony, but I agree with Parutakupiu on this one. Using the IOC codes makes it completely bewildering to the casual reader, and translating those codes into actual names is typically more inconvenient than going to the end of a page (pressing end or dragging the scroll bar to the end). That need for conversion is really what makes it less useful than the box on Barack Obama, rather than any redundancy. I'm not going to join the call for deletion, but I really don't think that this extra template is helpful enough to readers to justify putting it on even the long articles. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Let me know if you find anything else that could use some work. Oddly enough, the official results site doesn't give a full listing for Botswana's team. I think SI has a full list; I'm going to start double-checking between that list and event pages. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work; I'm doing my best to spread my requests between active WP:OLY members, since it seems like all of you must be going crazy right now with requests and cleanup and everything else. We members of the Ohio and Photography projects just don't have the workload that you're coping with right now! Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've got Botswana to where they should be now. I'm kind of afraid of how many such omissions are present on the 2008 pages; they're going to need a pretty complete vetting after the Games are over. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:WashingtonThirdCongressDistrict.jpg listed for deletion
"No. We don't resort from the NOC codes the IOC uses. Use talk: if you want to change that."
The article speaks precisely that we use IOC country codes (for NOC's) and that we do not list each and every change of the IOC NOC code. HOL -> NED and simmilar cases.
What did you mean with your undoing of my editing.
You know perfectly well what I mean. Andrwsc has already explained it to you. We follow the codes as currently used in the IOC medal database. That database reflects changes such as HOL and NED being the same. We do not do the rearranging for them. Also, you probably could wait more than an entire 8 minutes before declaring "no response"; I do have other things I am working on as well. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Olympic Games (again)
Thank you for the heads up regarding the Olympic Games and Evangelos Zappas. I really want to bring the Olympic Games up to FA status and we all know that we need balanced and fair editors. I'll monitor them very closely. I also appreciate your comments. H1nkles (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me from a look at the edit history of the Olympic Games page, that there is a debate going on with our friend, Nipsonanomhmata squarely in the middle, regarding how to term the predecessors to the first "official" Olympics. I've created a talking point on the discussion page for debate and asked editors to debate there rather than via edits. I'll keep a close eye on it and the Zappas page. Hopefully with the diligence of a couple of neutral editors we can maintain balance in these pages. H1nkles (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your Hard Work is Noticed
The Barnstar of Diligence
I wanted to tell you thank you, not only for your help with editing the Olympic Games page, but for all of your diligence and hard work on the plethora of pages (Olympics–related and otherwise) that you are involved in. Keep up the good work! H1nkles (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of Larry Sheahan
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Larry Sheahan, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Hi! For the seventh (!) time you have reverted my edit here: Russia at the 1912 Summer Olympics, so maybe it is time to explain why I have added the spaces. :) The first extra space was for a reason - don't crowd navboxes into references and the second space was also for a reason - according to WP:Stub "It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it." Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jonel, I see it was you who created this template 3 years ago. Please can you consider deleting or changing it as unfortunately it currently renders badly in articles using template:CGBY. here's an example of bad rendering with the 'see also box' overlapping with the section line: List_of_colonial_governors_in_1695, thanks Tom B (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!!!
The Invisible Barnstar
For making a special trip to the library to find one page number, not finding it and then taking the extra step of finding a substitute citation. Thank you for going above and beyond in the background in order to help make the Olympic Games article pass FAC. H1nkles (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My source was the Athens2004 website, now with the results archived at LA84. This PDF has the participants list for flatwater canoeing. Correa is at the 10th page of the PDF, with the date of birth given as 1977. I seem to have simply made an error in the category; I'll go fix that. Sorry for any confusion. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Jonel. I saw you update the announcements template with a new featured list, removing older announcements as a consequence. You probably haven't noticed but this template has an archive for older items. This way, we can remove them from the main template to save space but we never lose them. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed the archive. I've added the February items to the archive, and have gone through the announcements template history to pick up the older stuff as well. Thanks for letting me know about that. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may be a glutton for punishment but I wanted to let you know that I've renominated the Olympic Games article for FA candidacy. Since you contributed so much to the previous effort I thought you might like to know that I'm making another go of it. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. H1nkles (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to say thank you for your work on the Olympic Games article recently in response to critiques during the FAC. I've been besieged by real life and haven't been able to do much these last few days. If the article passes it will be because of your help and I thank you. H1nkles (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly welcome; I'm glad to be of assistance (though I think you give me too much credit—I really haven't done that much). You've done great work with that article. It deserves to be a Featured Article, and I hope that it'll finally get there this time! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 20:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it's nice as an editor to have someone else to carry the load and take on some of the work, just to feel supported I guess. I feel like most of the suggestions are opinions on how to make the article better, which is fine but it would be nice to see them support the article once their suggestions have been implemented. Thanks again. H1nkles (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In trying to think of an appropriate way to say thanks not only for your help on the Olympic Games article but in various other places I was hitting a brick wall. Until I found this, and felt it would be supremely appropriate for me to share with you my absolute favorite beverage. Thanks again and Cheers! H1nkles (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, I didn't get a chance to weigh in on that article. I hope Tone doesn't throw in the towel, it's tempting. Guinness is one of those watershed events that people either hate or love, glad to see you fall on the correct side. :) H1nkles (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ice hockey at the Olympics
Hello, as I'm sure you're aware of by now, I am working on the article and am aiming to get it as a TFA during the Vancouver Olympics. It still needs some prose work, and I was wondering if you could take a look at it. Thanks, Scorpion042221:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for copyediting it. One final question, I wanted to have a bolded title, but could not think of any that didn't sound extremely forced. Do you have any suggestions? -- Scorpion042200:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer the original bracket styles, I'll put the 1924 ones back as they were. I thought this way looked better, but I'm not set on it. I do hope you continue editing the Olympic boxing pages—there's a lot of work left to do on all things Olympics! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I know that you have done a lot of work for all the Olympics pages and that you have been engaged with wiki for a long time. But sorry no I will not continue editing the Olympic boxing pages nor any other Olympic pages. The main reasons are the "infobox" and the wrong historical country codes. The "infobox" in the top right corner destroys the style of all Olympic pages! It is nonsens to create a template for exactly the same place were we have already a template! For the top right corner we have the "SportsAtXXXXSummerOlympics"! The easiest way would be to create an "infobox" for the place were we had the "medalists" uptonow? The WP:Olympics defacto do not exist, so there is no way to work together... Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I copied some of the formatting from earlier years, didn't even think about the date links. I'll try to keep a closer eye on that. Thanks for the heads-up. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys (Geraldk and Jonel) are interested in making a push on the 2008 Summer Olympics to FA then I'm up for it. I'll lay out the various sections on the article's talk page and then you can claim the ones you'd like to edit. I've seen these collaborative efforts move articles pretty fast. I'd recommend using the GA process first as a peer review and then moving up to FAC after is passes GA. I'm open to thoughts on that if you have any concerns. Since the GA review process takes so long due to the backlog I may just nominate the article as it currently stands and we can work on it while it waits for a reviewer. I'll propose this on the article's talk page and solicit any thoughts there. Let's get crackin'. H1nkles (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of Conrad Lee
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Conrad Lee, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
I don't understand why you want to have 5000 cells to each page? Nearly every single link will be blank unless someone undertakes the
task of naming every single Olympian for all Olympics. And even then, it would be better to place this information in the pre-existing (Nation, Olympics) pages. 128.122.91.47 (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jonel! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 170 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondarysources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 15 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Hello Jonel, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Ling Yun-ting, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Tavatar. This has been done because the page seems to be about a person, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Tavatar. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Tavatar (talk·contribs) 00:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. After a rather unpleasant, grueling experience with I B Wright (and what currently seems to be his alter ego, 86.182.66.217) on my talk page and elsewhere, I decided to take a look at the history of histalk page and and wasn't too surprised to find that he clashed with many other users in the past, you among them.
And while I think it was wrong of some of you to threaten him with being blocked (for tendentious editing, personal attacks, harassment or whatever), he's really damaging Wikipedia, putting falsehoods in article after article (I'm still not sure as to why he does what he does: Is he really serious, or is this all some kind of a very bad joke? Or maybe he's got some, um, "other issues" to deal with?). Isn't there anything that can be done short of revoking his editing rights (which already had been tried once before)? Couldn't it be arranged that his changes must be approved by someone higher up before they are applied? Oh, well, that's probably not feasible, still, it's comforting to see that I'm not the only one who's had a close encounter of the third kind with this unnerving guy... Thanks!
By the way, did you ever read the self-description on his user page?
"[...]he has a wide ranging knowledge on some often surprising subjects.
Note: I B Wright is not his real name, but an apposite if modest description."
It doesn't get much more disconnected from reality than that.
Question about brackets,
Jonel:
Can you tell me if there is a way to add an additional game to a bracket? The West Coast Conference and the MAC will have a different format for their basketball tournaments for the 2011-12 college basketball season. With the addition of a ninth school, the WCC has changed its tournament format to a five-day tournament with an opening round between the #8 and #9 seed, here's a sample 2012 bracket: 2012 bracket after that everything else is the same. Here's the 2011 bracket. I'm asking, since you created the bracket template the WCC used. Thanks,
Bearcats fan (talk) 20:30, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:AGPrentiss.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Johannes Eriksen (DEN)
Jan Sint (NED)
Edil Rosenqvist (FIN)
Barack Obama, which has a sidebar template that includes only redundant links).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Nine CIA attribution templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 22:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
: 13 April 2009
Hello Jonel! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 170 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 15 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
