Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:54, 3 June 2011

Re: G. Craige Lewis

I added citations to article. How many links does an article need before it is no longer considered an orphan? I honestly need your help with that question. Thanks.Aliveangles (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It needs links to articles, not editors' talk pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I got ya. Thanks!Aliveangles (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. It needs to be linked-to from other articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

PlantUML add

Hello,

I've just create the PlantUML article. Is it possible to restore your change from List_of_Unified_Modeling_Language_tools ? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantuml (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The product doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets talk Whitecaps

Walter, if you'll humor me, I'd like to discuss Whitecaps history with you. Ultimately I hope what we chat about can resolve the issue of when exactly the Vancouver team playing in MLS was founded (because I consider that important)...but also along the way I'd like to learn more about general history of the Whitecaps that has become so controversial here. First off I was wondering if you'd be willing share your views on this with me. I was never really apart of the original discussion to merge or keep separate the D2 and MLS Whitecaps articles and some of your stronger points can get lost amongst the extensive discussion that took place. You'd liked to see the D2 and MLS Caps to be referred to as the same club because you see it as a league change and nothing more, correct? Do you feel the NASL Whitecaps are the very same club as the D2 Whitecaps or two different entities that share a name? Just wanted to get some obvious points out of the way before we hopefully talk about this some more. Thanks! --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Should I assume you're just not interested in discussing this? --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. Regardless of my opinion, there is a editor of North American football articles who will impose his will on the articles. European leagues have many precedents where the clubs have changed ownership after financial ruin and they retain the club name and history, but the precedent for MLS leagues are that they are new legal entities and that seems to be more important. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty because I'm sure it's a tiring issue. I really do hope these lineages and founding dates are resolved one day because I find their accuracy pretty important. I've done what research I can on the topic but I'm no Vancouverite and I'm certainly not a life-long Whitecaps fan who might be in a better position to know such things. I've come to the conclusion that there are at least two indisputably separate incarnations of the Whitecaps: the NASL Whitecaps and the modern day MLS Whitecaps via the 86ers. Studying archived websites and newspaper reports, I really cannot see a clear connection between NASL Caps and 86ers/Caps other than a shared name and - initally - a few players (which is really just circumstantial). But starting with the 86ers to present day, there is a real year-to-year linage and ownership succession. According to early USL Whitecaps websites, they note the symbolic history shared with the NASL but claimed their current club started as the 86ers. They even get into listing previous owners by name. Now if there is a greater connection between the NASL and D2 Whitecaps, I would love some greater incite. Is there something more connecting the two? I'm sure there is a lot from that era that simply cannot be found on the web.

As for connecting the MLS Whitecaps to their D2 incarnation, I generally agree with your position. If ownership, club structure, management, etc. are essentially all carried over (as the Whitecaps claim it to be), I do not see why the MLS team is suddenly seen as a new entity. It's an established club becoming a new franchise in a different league, no? For me the single entity nature of MLS is irrelevant. Because MLS investors own a share of every team, does that mean a preexisting club can't be brought into the fold and become jointly owned as well? Where do those that claim every new team is a new legal entity draw their rule from? I feel like if we cite our sources, ask those who hold differing opinions to as well, and engage in a civil conversation, some sort of real progress can be drawn from all this. --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There are more connections between the NASL Whitecaps and the 86ers. Most of the back-room staff stayed with the new club. The owner, and some of the coaching staff all departed. The current owner had to buy the name back from the NASL owner, which I'm sure you've read. Very much like the story of European clubs. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Early archived Whitecaps websites do refer to the 86ers (and therefore themselves) as a new "club" so I do find that gap in history pretty confusing. Is just similar back-room staff years later enough to constitute them being the same? I'm just coming into this with an open mind and going by what I read so I definitely do not mean to incite an argument. Are there sources from that time period that you draw from? These are definitely points worth citing. And separate from all this, I'll assume you don't dispute much with what I said concerning MLS connections. --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the break between the NASL and 86ers years is clear. The 86ers had the spirit of the former club, they were more of the remnants of the Whitecaps going in a new direction. The crowds were much smaller as was the payroll. I don't agree with a break between the USL and MLS Whitecaps though. However, I'm not planning on starting that debate again since I seem to be in the minority. As soon as someone mentions that they're the same Sounders and Timbers editors show up and start to tell us we're wrong. What they really mean to say is that their teams are not the same and so it's not fair for Vancouver to call themselves the same club even though there's much more evidence that they are. The only things that indicates that they're a different club is the MLS single entity legal structure. I am convinced that if the MLS experiment ends the Whitecaps will continue in one way or another. They are also at the fore in breaking down some of the rules such as the MLS holding the player contracts rather than the clubs. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that the Whitecaps have 1974 on the back of their jerseys. It's on the top of the collar. Can't find a picture on-line. This is a Canadian championship match, so I'll have to watch in the next MLS match. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that 1974 has always been on the back - not just for the NCC. Unfortunately I think it will be easy to argue the current club is simply "adopting" the history of the older one (like how the new Cosmos aren't really the new Cosmos). We'd probably need something more to really verify this if it was true. Even if they claim the history for themselves now, at one point in time they didn't so it still remains debatable for some. Convincing others of a NASL-86ers connection will be tough. I think it will be easier to argue USL-MLS connection. Points like MLS' single entity are moot. There is precedent for independent clubs joining a single entity league in other sports (like the modern day Arena Football League). That point - along with the very clear ownership and front office succession - should make for a more convincing argument for the time being. The original discussion on the USL Whitecaps page mostly took place before they had their full-fledge website and played their first game. I think revisiting this issue could be worthwhile. --Blackbox77 (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Back of jersey pic --Blackbox77 (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Bayern Munich

What are your thoughts on requesting semi-protection until July 1? Erikeltic 14:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the request can be made, but I suspect that response may be that it's being handled by existing editors. I can make the application if you would like. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I just made it. Hopefully this will curb some of these anonymous edits. Erikeltic 14:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

2022 FIFA World Cup

I don't want to be revert warring, but the reference doesn't actually support the allegiation made (it just mentions "odd vote patterns"), and it seems to be a blog entry (judging from the e-mail address at the end). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Boundary-value analysis, Merger proposal

Please can you close the stale merge proposal at Talk:Boundary-value analysis#Merger proposal. These proposals should be dealt with in a month or so, not left lying around for more than two years: apart from anything else the proposal will tend to inhibit further editing. Clearly the result will be "no merge". Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to close it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will do it "soon", when convenient. --Mirokado (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Morfaw

Walter, what the hell are you talking about? The guy added some info to the page. I deleted it saying "broke the link/relevance" - meaning that it broke the link citation context, and I didn't think it was relevant. There are recentism issues, it wasn't his pro debut, so I was WP:BOLD and took it out because I din't think there was an improvement to the article. If that's "page ownership" then by your standards no-one would ever edit a page again. If you want it back, go ahead and put it back, but quit accusing me of shit I didn't do. You've done it far too many times already and I'm getting sick of it. JonBroxton (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. He inserted it between the citation and the material it cited. That broke the link and the new information was not relevant to citation. Then you come back and remove the information because it's not important. Just remove it the first time with the second reason. It just avoids confusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of Twinkle rollback (again)

Walter, Fences&Windows mentioned this in passing at WT:WikiProject Football, I just wanted to give you a proper warning here. If you continue to use Twinkle to revert edits which are vandalism, it will be removed. This kind of thing is entirely inappropriate and needlessly bitey (regardless of context), especially when you don't appear to have a policy to back up your edit, despite your insistence on the user's talkpage (using WP:VAND as a backup policy to deal with edits you don't like is poor form). Last time I removed your Twinkle access, everybody agreed you'd misused it, you only got it back because you seemed to understand that. Every further abuse, such as the one linked to, is just proving that wrong, I'd much prefer if you'd prove it right. This is just a warning, but please take note, and try to improve your communication, especially with newer users. Calling them vandals and edit warring as if you own the article is not helping in that regard. Thanks, - Kingpin (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I responded to this but Misplaced Pages went down afterwards. You are assuming that I was not acting in good faith. There is a policy that matches should not be updated. The editor in question has been warned several times not to break that policy. The editor refuses to discuss the issue and so I politely warn the user and then apply harsher measures. Is there a problem with this?

The fact that a few other editors have taken offence to this informal policy of the football group has essentially stopped this process until a new consensus has been reached. This is correct procedure isn't it?

Once the discussion ends on the football page, we will take it to the next level.

If you continue to hound me, I will be forced to take action. It is particularly disturbing that you don't assume good faith on my part when you accuse me of doing the same to others.

Are you hounding me or is this a good faith discussion you're entering into? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't own any articles. You should know that's not possible. I don't even act like it. My actions on that article were a reflection of the informal policy of the football group who are overseers of all football-related articles. If they have a problem with my actions, they should address me directly. If you have a problem with me acting in that capacity, I believe that you should take that up with the rest of the group. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about when I point you to OWN. The WikiProject are not "overseers" of football articles, and they certainly are not free to make up policy as they see fit, the wider community needs to be involved as well. In any case, maybe you should take some responsibility for your own actions rather than hiding behind the rest of the WikiProject. There is no "capacity" to act within, the project is not some kind of authoritarian regime, in future stick to actual policy and consensus, not what a small subset of users with similar biases thinks. I bring that up with you because it is again not the project's responsibility to make sure that you follow real consensus rather than them - it is yours.

No of course I'm not hounding you, I came across this through a completely different channel than following you around, I have absolutely no desire to follow you around. In fact, when I first came across this issue of adding scores to the articles at half time (about a week ago), I didn't even recognise your name at first. The claim that I am hounding you is ludicrous and completely off topic. Please consider that maybe the problem is yourself, and address that rather than throwing out wild attacks at those who bring up the problem.

I don't see how I'm not assuming good faith. Do you still think that the user's edits were vandalism, as is clearly defined at WP:VAND? (After all, this is what you called them). And what is this other policy you talk about, which I haven't yet seen you explicitly link to? Yes there is a problem applying "harser" measures, if they involve lying (even accidentally) about what the user's edits constitute. - Kingpin (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. So if Wikipedians are not overseers that guide projects then I can safely ignore you. Thanks for the enlightening conversation. I did nothing wrong. I acted in good faith and did not abuse my privileges with Twinkle. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)