User talk:Andrwsc/Archive 10

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you for making the sortable table on this page. It was on my to do list after making links for statelets of the 20 most populous nations. You made the page more logical, accessible, and aesthetic. :)--Thecurran (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrwsc, thanks for making the edits you made to pages referencing 1960 Olympics events or individuals where I included references to David Maraniss' book Rome 1960. Your changes put the book in better places on the pages in question, and I think their relevance is reflected more accurately now. Thanks for teaching me how these references should be listed.

Rob Robinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.59.112.138 (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, you did not response for the last message. Mussav (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My previous reply is still valid. Every single reference I can find to the current football team, uses "Kurdistan" as the team name. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

this is the source and the prove from the KRG (Kurdistan Regional Govermnet).

"After making several attempts, attending a meeting of the New Federation Board in June 2006 and again in 2008, we formed a team representing Iraqi Kurdistan and became a competing team at the 2008 VIVA World Cup," Hussen said. [1].

so now you have a source from the KRG it self. The Iraqi Kurdistan region represnt the Iraq Kurdistan. again there should be 2 icons, the Kurdistan and the Iraqi Kurdistan, please fix the flag problem. thanks in advance. Mussav (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your changes to the Olympics page: firstly, I didn't think there was any harm in having the daily medal totals, given that there is one on China at the 2008 Summer Olympics and it serves a different purpose than the overall medal tables: a way of daily tracking of medal counts in concert with the Olympic schedule. Secondly, before I placed the clarification "extraneous text string", changing the medal count back to reflect rank by Gold was a problem every few minutes. Unless you plan to change the rank every time someone changes it, I recommend placing some form of clarification, changing the infobox template itself if need be. Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the daily medal totals is a very poor idea, and there is a discussion at Talk:China at the 2008 Summer Olympics about removing it there too. In WP:WikiProject Olympics, we have never created daily totals for the ~3000 articles we have for past Games. As for the long string added to the rank parameter for the infobox, I guess this is a consequence we have to endure where Olympics articles attract the attention of "newbie" editors once every 2/4 years, and they don't follow the conventions we try to hard to maintain in the WikiProject. There is a very old consensus for using the IOC method of medal table sorting, and yes, I guess it is hard for new editors who don't know that to keep changing things. Add it back if you think it will help, and the WP:OLY folks can clean it up in a month or two when the masses have moved on to other articles. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. You are full of accusations and I am deeply worried about your logic - with regards to the issue.

You cannot simply add apples and oranges. FR Yugoslavia is not the successor of SFRY. FR YUG changed its name to SCG thus the code changed also. It is a simple change in names but the supstance remains the same.

If we are to use your logic we could end up with a "reality" in which BIH, CRO, MKD and SLO competed in the same time for "mythical Yugoslavia" in the same time they competed for their own "colours".

Please stop your campain that IOC is the Holy Bible, have you read their disclaimer?

Stop your campain because I see what you are trying do do, to paint a preety picture Servie1912-->YUG-->SCG-->SRB

There are no artists who could paint this picture and survive the criticism.

Imbris (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. I am trying to maintain the opposite picture. That is, when "Yugoslavia" competed under that name, regardless of what the underlying nation was (Kingdom, SFR, FR, etc.), I strongly believe we should group those results together under Yugoslavia/YUG and not try to combine them with any predecessor or successor. I am offended when I see Serbs or Croats claim the results of the YUG water polo, basketball, etc. teams for their respective nations. That is nationalistic POV which cannot be tolerated. "Yugoslavia" was what it was, and should be presented as such. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Where can you find a single official Croatian document where CRO insisted on dividing medals and simmilar stuff. SER/SRB is the one where you can point your finger. The entire OKS site is a testimony to that. They are the one who claim results, memberships, members of the IOC, they claim it all. And you speak about an equall blame for this. There is nor shall ever be equall blame (regarding to this issue). Also have you noticed the logic you create. Especially in those lists of participation at Summer and Winter Olympics. In your logic there is an enormous flaw - BIH, CRO, MKD and SLO (or is it SVN) competing in the same time for "see Yugoslavia" and their own nations. This must be avoided.

Also Yugoslavia existed as a union of all of its nation up to 1992W. After that there were no Yugoslavia, but a mascherading as Yugoslavia (done by MNE and SRB). Luckally they formed SCG to which all FR Yugoslavia scores should go. -- Imbris (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree — no official Croatian document would do that. But that doesn't stop individual editors from doing that on Wikipedia. I'm not sure I understand your point about the flaw in my logic - can you please restate? And to your last point, you claim that the FRY results "should" be attributed to SCG, but that is your opinion, and doesn't match the official reports from multiple organizing committees. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the lists of participating nations both in W and S games. They you would know what I am talking about. FRY is SCG, no other point needed. -- Imbris (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You will need to explain better than that. Other points are most certainly needed. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your deliberate attempts to make me explain will not work. In the articles about participating at the games - List of participating nations at Winter Olympic Games and the same for the Summer Olympic Games your logic about YUG (1920-2000games) is illogical. In all the successor states you wrote the text see Yugoslavia, but what we have here - a row in which Yugoslavia participated (1920-2000). So all the successor states (other than Serbia and Montenegro) have competed along side the country in which they are members (YUG with the red star) and the YUG without the red star also.

Not to mention that SCG was an addendum to YUG. This is completely wrong.

Stop changing my edits and stop advocating adding all YUG in the same basket. This is not true and is misleading. We need an article Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympic Games which would include FR YUG (without the star).

Imbris (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You will need WP:Reliable sources that state that "Serbia and Montenegro" competed at the 1996–2002 Olympics, and since all the official reports from the respective organizing committees, all the IOC references, and indeed, the Olympic Committee of Serbia's website itself, all show "Yugoslavia" (YUG) as the name of that team, your POV will not be welcome in this encyclopedia. What are you trying to accomplish? I'm having difficulty understanding your motive. Is it that you want to decouple the SFRY years for "YUG" from the FRY years? Why? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There are tons of evidence that Serbia and Montenegro was the team YUG (1996-2000 Olympic Games). Stop this scharade (if this is correct spelling for you). I do not have a POV but a sense of the looking at the entire picture. The picture is that BIH, CRO, MKD and SLO couldn't participate if they are in that YUG (1920-1992W) which you combine with YUG (1996-2000). The YUG (1996-2000) team represented Serbia and Montenegro. Only tricky point are the IOP (1992S) which maybe represented MKD or even BIH if they haven't participated on their own. You know all this yet you make me (one individual) suffer for somebodies elses mistakes. The sittuation is so easy to solve. -- Imbris (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) I'm not trying to "make you suffer". I would like you to understand that this encyclopedia must report on what external reliable sources say, without commentary on how "truthful" it is or not. Every reliable source says:

• "Yugoslavia" (YUG) competed from 1996–2002. "Serbia and Montenegro" (SCG) competed from 2004–2006.
• The state union of Serbia and Montenegro and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are for all intents and purposes, the same thing.

I don't dispute this. But you must admit that the name used for this nation was not changed to "Serbia and Montenegro" until 2003.
Therefore, the task for us, as writers of the encyclopedia, is to present these two undisputed (hopefully) positions as neutrally as possible. Obviously, I assert that "YUG" must refer to all teams from the "three Yugoslavias" from 1920–2002, as that clearly matches what all the reliable sources state. This is what we show in the infobox, and it what is summarized in the Yugoslavia at the Olympics article.

Now, I think your idea of turning Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics into a real article has merit. I shall see what I can do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are still going to demand that YUG (1920S-1988S/1992W) should be in the same row with YUG (1996S-2002W) then we have a great problem. I see that you have found out that FRY had been composed of only two states: (the) Republic of Montenegro (now just Montenegro without the "republic") and (the) Republic of Serbia. You said that FRY and SCG should be considered the same thing for all intents and purposes. This is also fine. But then you continued to comment that we should have again the same appearances showed in two rows. The appearances of YUG (1996S-2002W) are showed in both SCG at Winter Olypic row and the YUG olympic row. This cannot stand because this is what is biased and not true.

If I have accused you of trying to equalize YUG (1920S-1992W) with YUG (1996S-2002W) - but I am sorry you are still trying to do just that. Your accusations that I love OKS as a source is null and void. I have used that source just for the purpose of verifying that OKS had been founded and recognized before 1919/1920 so that the Yugoslav Olympic Committee could be free from any claim of succession by anyone (any NOC) but also claimed by all NOC's of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This way I have "beaten" the theory of succession of YOC by OKS. And still you have name called me for making a political point and using ethnic hatred speach (+tactics). I resent that kind of conversation which you pointed over to me.

By the grace of the other successors of the SFRY (BIH, CRO, MKD, SLO) and their quest for reconciliation and peace FRY has been accepted for a member of the United Nations at the end of the year 2000 (Security Council recomended this acceptance at the end of October 2000). The successors had every right to insist on the previous resolutions where the term Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) had been used.

Just look at the Security Council Resolution No. 777 (please click at the link for SC resolution 777 from the year 1992).

Upper Volta changed its name to Burkina Faso and what if Upper Volta was a part of a "Western Africa's Union of Upper Volta" which consisted of several other states beside Upper Volta. Then by your account Upper Volta would claim the entire heritage of the Union just because it has a part of its name which coincides with the Upper Volta (latter Burkina Faso) on its own.

This is wrong and you know it. So please stop uncovering the wounded harts of all the Yugoslav Nations and Nationalities which suffered greatly because one of those nations claims on entire SFRY. This was Serbia (and some of the Montenegrins) who wanted to rule the entire SFRY by themselves, leaving others minute part in running the country.¸

Leave the joint heritage of the SFRY which belongs to all of the nations unscared by joining this heritage with futile attempts of some Serbs and Montenegrins to hijack the SFRY for them selves (when they could not force them selves onto others by arms - they cowardly attempted to steal the name).

There were no three Yugoslavian states, not for that period in time you mentioned. There were:

• the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (1918-1929)
• the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1929-1943)
• the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (1943-1946)
• the Federal Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia (1946-1974)
• the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1974-1991/1992)

Imbris (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, I understand your passion about this situation, and I really am trying to accomodate this position. I'm actually in the middle of writing a comprehensive update to Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics, that I hope you feel is fair. (Yes, I am including the full history from 1992 to 2006!) I have no firsthand knowledge of the politics involved here, so I probably can't truly understand any "wounded hearts". However, please understand that my motivation here is to help write a quality encyclopedia, with reliable sources and neutral POV. I do not have any bias towards or against any of the ex-Yugoslav nations. And for the record, my knowledge about FRY and SCG was not something that I just found out, as you infer.

So here's why I chose the solution I did for List of participating nations at the Winter Olympic Games: it is a verifiable fact that every source calls the team "Yugoslavia" (YUG) for 1998 and 2002. Any reader who remembers that would look at the Yugoslavia row in the table. The original version had two bullets with no explanation. Your version has the dark shading, indicating they did not exist. This is misleading. My proposed solution is to take advantage of the same footnote scheme that we use to explain other "interesting" situations. The end result is that the FRY years do not look the same as the 1920–1988 appearances. There are no more simple bullets, which would equate SFRY and FRY. Instead, there is something different—a wikilink to a clear explanatory footnote. Doesn't this achieve your goal? A clear distinction between FRY and SFRY? My solution should be satisfactory to both of us–you get your pro-Serbia perspective that FRY is distinctly different from SFRY and essentially the same as SCG, and I get to align with the reliable sources that show a team from "YUG" appearing in those Games.

As for the infobox template, you fail to understand how these are used. Each of those "Nations at the year Olympics" articles is wikilinked directly from the appropriate results page, using the country code. Check out the 2008 results to see how this is done, or consider the following example. If we had a Shooting at the 1992 Summer Olympics - Women's 10 metre air pistol article, it would contain  Jasna Šekarić (IOP). If you click on the "IOP", you see a page with an infobox that has IOP in large bold text, and a complete explanation of the team. Similarly, Shooting at the 1992 Summer Olympics - Women's 10 metre air pistol (once the WP:WikiProject Olympics editors get around to writing it) would have  Jasna Šekarić (YUG), and finally, Shooting at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Women's 10 metre air pistol has  Jasna Šekarić (SCG). With your infobox edits, clicking on "YUG" for her 1996 results would lead to a page with SCG in the infobox. That makes no sense whatsoever! You simply cannot disregard the fact that the team was called "Yugoslavia" with the country code "YUG" from 1996–2002. I don't know how to make that any clearer. If you want to add explanatory prose text to the introduction of articles like Yugoslavia at the 1996 Summer Olympics that says something like:

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, consisting of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro, competed as Yugoslavia at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia.

...then please do so!! That is the most appropriate place to inform readers about the status of the nation, not by your edits to the infoboxes. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 08:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is all very nice but doesn't solve anything. You think that just because some team was called Yugoslavia that it should continue the tradition of Yugoslavia at the Olympics. I think that this is a very narow point of view. Why?

The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (existed from 1918 to 1929) participated at both Summer and Winter Games. By using your logic of adding just by codes and team names doesn't work in those cases but still the appearances of that Kingdom has been added to those of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

So you would say. They changed their name and we should link them up. Ok. But why cannot we do the same with appearances by Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro.

I beg of you to stop with this persistant claims that because of the same code and (and only maybe) the same team name of Yugoslavia (1920S-1992W) with those of Yugoslavia (1996S-2002W). This can't work because that "third" Yugoslavia which some like to call that way was Serbia and Montenegro - consisting of the Republic of Montenegro and the Republic of Serbia only.

Your logic that there are users who would remember Yugoslavia at the 1996S-2002W appearing as YUG is a good point but we cannot accomodate those users - not if we do not want to do orriginal research and solve that problem by creating new ones. What about users who would look at that reference No. D mark but not read that reference. They would think, "oh, look Yugoslavia appeared so many times, last in 2002". This cannot work. Why that reference D could not be placed in the first column (by the flagicons).

This references could be used like I have previously described and most certainly not in the columns of those two Olympic Games.

I am very well aware of your personal achievements in contributing this Wiki, you are probably the author with a larger share of edits concerning the totality of the Olympic portal. I do not confer your merits in this issue. But also you should understand that my position is not pro-any(Nation). The position of Olympic Committee of Serbia is biased but I used even their information because that was the only way to stop their claims to 1919/1920 foundation of the Yugoslav Olympic Committee as the foundation of the Olympic Committee of Serbia. If this is the only reason you would say that I am a pro-Serb editor or you have something else to say about my edits feel free to do so. I would very much like to see if I have violated my neutrality in any way.

On the other hand I think that it is very much not neutral to add up Yugoslavia before 1992W with Yugoslavia after 1996S. Why. You are very well aware that Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) was re-constituted as Serbia and Montenegro (SCG) and that the Olympic Committee of Serbia and Montenegro has simply "changed" its name to Olympic Committee of Serbia. By advocating the joining of Yugoslavia before 1992W and Yugoslavia since 1996S the non-biased position is failed and that editor can be called a pro-nationalist (not the pro-nationalist).

There are dozen of ways to solve this issue and I do not see any reson for you to insist on leaving things untouched (with those slight changes you propose, like referencing the years in questions with some superscript references like you propose for the infobox Olympic Yugoslavia and that references in the year of participations at the list of participating at the Winter Olympics).

Why do you oppose a clean cut at the 1988 S and 1992 W for the Yugoslavia team.

Isn't it biased to say that just because of the equal team-name and code we should add appearances and medals of Serbian and Montenegrin athletes to YUG as a totality (YUG in its entirety). YUG and the team "Yugoslavia" was hijacked by the Serbia and Montenegro

Why we couldnot list that FR Yugoslavia (YUG) consising of the Republic of Montenegro and the Republic of Serbia changed its name and the IOC code to Serbia and Montenegro (SCG) because it borowed the name and the code from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for the sole purpose of claiming the solemnly heritage and international position of the SFRY till the October 2000.

Please try to work out some better way of making this work, infobox Serbia and Montenegro cannot have the same appearances as Yugoslavia and vica versa.

Imbris (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughful reply. I am encouraged that we are engaging in detailed discussion instead of mindless edit-warring (which is where we started). I request of you to leave things alone right now while we work out a solution that is acceptable to all—this is especially important for the two participating nations lists, which are WP:Featured lists. It is one thing to WP:Be bold and jump in with editing, but I think that articles that have already gone through peer reviews and FL inspection should have talk page discussions before making the changes. For example, when you moved the footnote from the table cells to the first column, that contradicted the legend key, making the article inconsistent. If you want an extra footnote attached to "Yugoslavia" in the first column, then we can do that, but it should use a different note scheme as the other set. That's perhaps why I may seem so cranky with many of your edits—you don't always seem to notice the "big picture" and don't see the full effect of your changes. That's why you re-inserted some old vandalism that I had corrected when you reverted me, to cite another example. Let's keep talking, but please hold off on making changes to the featured lists without discussing first. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I will leave things alone if you would grant me the same curtoasy. Parutakupiu re-written the template in question (Infobox Olympic Yugoslavia) in a brilliant manner, he also agrees about "clean-cut" policy whereby Yugoslavia (with the red star - SFRY) cannot continue after 1988S/1992W. I hope that you would understand that this entire problem has not been created by yours truly but the IOC database and some failures in the communication channel. Nevertheless of the featured list Yugoslavia at the Olympics article contains the revised number of medals and so should the All-times list of medals. As I have pointed out to Russia (e. g. Russian Empire - in reality) / Russian Federation issue and the Vatican City State listing this database has serious problems. So in the case YUG (1920-1992W) / YUG (1996S-2002W) please do not add the FR Yugoslavia in the count or rows where Yugoslavia (SFRY) lies. If you have the need for footnotes please do not add them in the columns of particular games - there exist a better way to clarify things (and IMHO, they are very well clarified right now). Also where you find the need for listing that FR Yugoslavia used the same team name and IOC code as the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, you know my position, this should not be done in a way where Serbia and Montenegro are mentioned exclusively in such footnotes about the same code without mentioning the nations that comprised SFRY and now compete separately.

Is there any chance that when listing that Czechoslovakia was succeeded by the Slovakia and Czech Republic (which would be more neutral phrase instead of succeeded by Czech Republic and Slovakia) to list that SFRY has been succeeded by BIH, CRO, MKD, MNE, SLO and SRB and that SCG has been separated on MNE and SRB (which is more neutral than saying that SCG had been separated on SRB and MNE). Also listing the succession of USSR would be great.

Imbris (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you insisting that it was not a simple name change in this particular case. It is just wrong. -- Imbris (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on claims of special treatment of the YUG (FR) - it is not like it is the USSR, Czechoslovakia or even ROC and Chinese Taipei. It is smaller in significance and you can't justify the appearance of it when the article Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics contain the results of YUG (FR). Also the results of YUG (FR) should be dropped from the Yugoslavia at the Olympics leaving just the brief explanation that FR Yug used the same designation as the previous YUG and that its results should be found at SCG at the Olympics. -- Imbris (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, YOU are the one who has been insisting on special treatment for FR, claiming over and over that it is a different country from SFR. That's why I thought the current presentation would be acceptable to you. Well, I can't figure out what the hell you want, so can you just stop butchering the article for a few minutes and use the article talk page to figure out a solution? Can you? Or do you always have to jump in with the revert button and make a mess of things? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert any edits made by me to cricket material in compliance with WP:FLAG. Numerous cricket articles are being handicapped by the excessive use of these icons which add absolutely no value whatsoever. The two Cr templates should be discouraged in particular which is why I have placed them in the deprecated category. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please learn how to edit templates properly. If you put newlines outside a noinclude section, they show up in the rendered output. As for your "deprecation", was there a consensus discussion on WP:CRICKET that I missed? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of "how to edit templates properly": I made a mistake on this occasion. A minor mistake compared with the littering of articles with useless flag icons that cause download problems, especially for people without broadband. And the matter has been discussed on WT:CRIC (somewhere in the archives now): we agreed that WP:FLAG must be implemented. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You made two mistakes, I guess, since you were awfully quick with the undo button without looking at the consequences of my edit. As for WP:FLAG "compliance", I think you are being far too aggressive with your interpretation of the guideline, as there is standing consensus for the use of flags for match results (with the left/right flag template pairs) for many different sports. "Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables, infoboxes or lists". Many users find it easy to browse long lists of tournament results by using flag icons to find instances of a particular team. I looked through the archives to find the discussion about this—how far back was it? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's from [2]. Just copy and paste text into Babelfish and select "Chinese-traditional to English." The translation comes out pretty well. I'm sure there are other pages as well. Does this help? Badagnani (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's great! Thanks for your help—googling in English only gets me so far... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's like the Rosetta Stone--the first step was your having found the Chinese characters and Min Nan transliteration. Those were important and had we not had those, it would have been difficult. Badagnani (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd gotten that from zh:WP. Maybe it's not true. It seemed strange that an athlete would have been invited to participate in an upper-level Communist meeting such as that. Maybe ask at zh:WP? Badagnani (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have just done so. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As a creator and/or regular contributor to the various XXXX records in swimming articles, I invite you to discuss with other contributors to these pages about creating a standard format and page layout for such articles. Information: User:Yboy83/Records in swimming project; Discussion: User:Yboy83/Records in swimming project/Discussion.

Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Yboy83 (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your reverted move of the above article, do you suggesting that all articles in 'Category:Swimming records' are changed to List of XXXX records in swimming?? Yboy83 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do, per the MOS as these are all list articles. If any of them are to be WP:Featured lists, they should be named as such. I have placed a comment on your project page, and thanks again for taking this initiative! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I came across Template:flagIOCathlete after finding Category:FlagIOCathlete usage wrong on an article. I have since fixed the other categories and was wondering if you've included any self-checks in any similar templates. These are the kind of template error fixes I like to sink my teeth into. :) JPG-GR (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I had forgotten about that one! Usually I wait until the job queue settles down and fix all the errors myself shortly afterwards, but I guess I had forgotten to clean this template up. In an older incarnation, the template accepted additional parameters to specify the flag, but it does it automatically now. I added that self-check to correct any leftover usage of the "old" version. I guess there are lots of editors not usually working for WP:WikiProject Olympics but spending time editing Olympic articles these days, and they may not have seen this template before now, so maybe we should keep the check for another couple of weeks. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I admittedly don't spend any time in WP:OLY, but watch them religiously when they come around and love template work. Will keep an eye on that category. Take care, JPG-GR (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For all your hard work and great contributions to articles on the Olympic Games (and related topics). Aridd (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

On your "beloved" :-) IOC database Russia (the Russian Empire) is separated from the Russian Federation but you combined the two. Russia as the database refer to it, won medals at London 1908 and Stockholm 1912 (17 medals in total). This database search result clearly represents Russian Empire which comprised a very greater territory and population than Russian Federation (in the database also called Russian Federation) has.

And to inform you that user Parutakupiu has created a brilliant new template (Infobox Olympic Yugoslavia) that I agree fully. We have just the minute issue of IOP to solve.

That IOC result(s) page also lists the Vatican City State even that state has no NOC.

So please do not regard the IOC database as the Holy Bible.

Imbris (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Russian Federation is not listed as Russian Federation but is listed as Russia? I see that you also deal with flags, so - another question - Why doesn't the Russian Empire time period have the appropriate flag for that period. -- Imbris (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your first question, that is consensus at WP:WikiProject Olympics. To answer your second question, it already does, so I have no idea what you are disputing. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Namely it cannot be linked from the FR Yugoslavia text to Yugoslavia at the Olympics. -- Imbris (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you know if BMX at the Summer Olympics is real? It appears that the Olympics project isn't aware of it, and the article was only created two weeks ago. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a new discipline in Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics, but I don't think it warrants a distinct top-level article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of third opinion is to get an opinion of users who do not deal with Yugoslavia nor Eurosong. You are just promoting your own wiev on the sittuation here, thus making the discussion over there difficult. Please stop giving third opinions on topics where you have a certain POV already. If you want you can delete the third opinion you just gave and list yourself as a voter in the process. -- Imbris (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not work on Eurosong articles — in fact, I think singing competitions are terribly lame and laughable. I only commented there because you brought the Olympic articles into that discussion, claiming there is some consensus. If there was consensus, you wouldn't be slapping {{totallydisputed}} tags onto articles, would you? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You very well know that third opinion wants users who do not have any bias towards the question and the discussion is not about the ESC but about Yugoslavia on ESC. You edited Yugoslavia topics so should upstain from third opinion on Yugoslavian issues. -- Imbris (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks "absolutely awful"??? The logo of the specific olympic games is considered absolutely awful? The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, a photographic image against a coloured background designed for monochrome logo images is why it looks awful. User:Tone instantly agreed with me also. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. But I still think an infobox to somehow include the official logo is not all that bad The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but the "real" ones are non-free images (e.g. Image:Beijing 2008 Olympics logo.svg and Image:Athletics 2008.png and can't be used on more than a very small number of pages (ideally just one), and using a photograph of the logo on the side of a building as a means to skirt the fair-use restrictions doesn't seem like a good idea to me, both aesthetically and policy-wise. We already have the main logo in the infobox of the main page, and we have the per-sport logos on each of the top-level sport pages (e.g. Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics), but I agree with you that they would look better in infoboxes. On the WikiProject, we've started work on Template:Infobox Olympic event, and that might be adaptable to the top-level pages also. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep I know otherwise I would have tried the non free logo rather than the photo. I've been adding a lot of weightlifter bios to fill in some red links anyway I'll probably ocntinue tomorrow with that. Regards The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is very well justified and you know very well why! This references have nothing to do with the content of the articles but are placed there to make a false impression. The other references are from the reliable sources olympic databases and we have no need for a third reference.

The OKS is, and you know it, claiming the joint heritage of former Yugoslavia through all means - even the Internet. They are even writing that Yugoslavia competed in Barcelona 1992 as Yugoslavia and not as IOP (Independent Olympic Participants).

The user who listed those links as reliable reference has tryed to mislead the users of encyclopaedia of the false need for those links - as if they are the official web-site for the Yugoslavia (1920 S - 1992 W).

Please stop protecting false claims of the Olympic Committee of Serbia by demanding those links as references (with no apparent need).

Imbris (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop looking for POV conspiracies where they don't exist. Remember, I have no political interest whatsoever in those countries. You keep claiming I "know very well why", but surely I don't. Those references are very useful because they contain specific details for the Yugoslavia teams for those years. Just because your Serbian NOC has documented the history of Yugoslavia at the Olympic on its website and none of the other five NOCs appeared to have done so doesn't mean that there is any claim of succession as you think. If there was a statement that actually said that Serbia claimed succession, then of course, it should be removed. But don't remove useful references just because of your personal theories that the source has ulterior motives. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What more proof of claim do you need. The content of those pages tell you everything. They claimed succession by insisting on 1919/1920 at the IOC even if the 1911/1912 was earlier than Yugoslav Olympic Committee foundation. Also at the page where the history of the OKS is discussed they insist that Serbian Olympic Committee was the predecessor of Yugoslav Olympic Committee and that the Yugoslav Olympic Committee is the predecessor of the Olympic Committee of Serbia and Montenegro and that the Olympic Committee of Serbia and Montenegro is the predecessor of the Olympic Committee of Serbia. The interest of those users who reference without any clear need for that particular reference are just trying to portray a picture by which Olympic Committee of Serbia is the only predecessor of the Yugoslav Olympic Committee.

Also at all of those pages where particular games are discussed they write Yugoslav Olympic Committee (Olympic Committee of Serbia and Montenegro).

Imbris (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless of the good standings of Darius Dhlomo. We are not discussing editors but the source. The source is biased and it should not be mentioned because everything on that source is already mentioned in the two international sources. Also that user did not put the Serbian Olympic Committee source under its more common name of the Olympic Committee of Serbia. There is a big difference. Also I would revert back to a state in which those articles have been when I edited them. We cannot mount sources to a big pile just because someone wants them there. We all know why would anyone want those source listed there. To provocate with a source that is biased and source that lists in the title of all of their history pages (of participation, medals and such) the title Yugoslav Olympic Committee (Olympic Committee of Serbia and Montenegro). It's biased. -- Imbris (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources ARE useful. For example this gives the full names of all members of the 1924 Winter Games team, while the official report (written in French) only gives the first initial and last name. Please do not remove useful sources because of your politicial views. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Olympic database gives that info both the name and the surname. And if that source is useful then it should be listed but not in each and every article about yugoslavian participation at the Olympics. And I do not have a political view but an honest approach. If this link should be listed it should be listed most accurately and precisely and in a way that do not overemphasise that the source for those few information is the Olympic Committee of Serbia. -- Imbris (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the IOC database only provides names for medal winners, not for every competing athlete. Yes, those stubs all need significant work, and improving the references (e.g. make them inline citations instead of a list of web links at the end), but removing them in the meantime isn't the answer. You could help improve these stubs instead of deleting content, you know. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I started to write Montenegro and Serbia where those republics are mentioned as a sequence. It should be alphabetical. When the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) is mentioned I use what you infact found at that report on the 1992 sittuation. This was the designation used in that report, and in the United Nations. But Federal Republic of Yugoslavia consisted of the Republic of Montenegro and the Republic of Serbia.

Its just alphabet which prevents from immediate clicks in the mind of the user - FR YUG = SCG it is equall but it should be alphabetical. Just in the case of real usage of the designation Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) that should be used.

Imbris (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense now. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

On 21 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article China at the 1952 Summer Olympics, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Having seen all three lined up together like that, I'd definitely say the first option looks best. Tbh, I was just trying it out with the images to see what it would look like, which is why I said in the original edit summary that I didn't mind if anyone reverted. Looks great as-is. – PeeJay 17:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I just wanted to confirm that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And other related RHO appearances should mention not only Zimbabwe but Zambia and Malawi (in 1960 case) as well. -- Imbris (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And a Wikipedian simply must speak three languages minimum. I do not know where that came from. I do not speak es and barely "use" de. Even if the Chinese language has the majority of World speakers - English still prevail. -- Imbris (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And a Wikipedian simply must speak three languages minimum.—did you read that somewhere?

I am really only comfortable editing on en.wiki, but I am still amazed at the awful POV on some of the other wikis. And then we have editors coming here and using the other wikis as a good example of what should be done here. Wow. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I did not realy understood what you meant when mentioning those languages. We are not omnipotent and can do our best where we feel up for it. -- Imbris (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I was just trying to point out that for all the debating that we have had here on en.wiki with respect to nations at the Olympics, that the other wikis are in far worse shape (in my opinion) with respect to accuracy and neutrality! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Syria row at the List of participation in the Summer Olympics. Seems like the entire row shifted one to the left. This way the 1960 appearance (reference O) shifted to 1956 column. Also the year in the middle of the World War I is missing. Can you help so that I do not cock it up. -- Imbris (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

You are administrator. Would you allow to make a fifth column where the medals of West Germany (FRG), United Team of Germany (EUA) and Germany (GER) are added up ?

I checked the discussion page completely. There are many people (including you) who want to keep the medals of DDR separate from the other German medals. But I found no one who is against adding up the other German medals. Even you wrote that this combination is possible when consensus is found. So I think that this consensus is found now.

I would like to make this change, if you allow it.

Equol (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

My role as an administrator is irrelevant with respect to consensus on article content. And I think you'll find that there is no consensus for the changes you suggest. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is consensus. I checked the discussion page a second time.

1) I found people who want to merge all German medals together.

2) I found people who want to keep the DDR medals separate from the other German medals.

3) I found people who want to merge all German medals but keep the DDR medals separate. Here's the list (does not include people who want to also add the DDR medals):

62.245.143.34 12:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

80.132.223.189 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 31 July 2007

Imbris (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

212.183.32.146 (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

134.155.99.41 (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ohnder (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

71.112.145.102 (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

91.53.104.211 (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

88.169.119.181 (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

4) But I didn't find any people (maybe exept you) who are against adding up the medals of West Germany (FRG), United Team of Germany (EUA) and Germany (GER).

What is your opinion ? Are you strictly against the formation of a fifth column ?

Equol (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Debating me on my talk page is pointless. Discussion to obtain consensus is better kept on the article talk page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Writer,

You listed medal counts for the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and the current nation of Russia. This time span covered the 3 diferent government in the 20th century.

However you listed different goverments over Germany during this same time span but you failed to display the medal count for the govermment of Nazi Germany. WHY?

Sincerely, Fred —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.141.78 (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the IOC medal database uses the same country code (GER) for those different German teams, but uses RU1 for the 1900–1912 Russian teams and RUS for the 1994– Russian teams. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

It's not original research at all because that method of ranking was used in most western Europe countries before those Summer Olympics. It's a whole lot less absurd than the chinese ranking method that makes silver and bronze medals worthless. Anyway if you want to abide stubbornly by chinese standards, do.

Sincerely yours,

Goupil libertin (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC) NGUYEN Pierre

It turns out that there are quite a few non-Olympics project users who support such a list as can be seen here. I was wondering if you could take a look at that discussion and voice your opinion. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andrwsc, hopefully I haven't caused any bad feelings, given my discussions with you during the creation of the article Olympic medal table. I felt a bit overwhelmed with the resistance towards the need for the article. With the latest edits, it has generated some interest and a means to explaining the term rank as used in the many articles and the controversy the term rank has sparked. Thanks and keep up the good work on the Olympic articles. --HJKeats (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries at all! I never doubted that your work was made in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, as I hope you realize mine is. I was initially concerned that the topic was notable enough to warrant a standalone article, but now that more independent references are available, those concerns are disappearing. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the above user is relatively new to wikipedia and was slightly upset at WP:OLYs decision to remove background colours, he'd worked quite hard on the Spain article (200+ edits)and now feels that his hard work has been undone and that he doesn't want to be involved anymore. I've already left a personal message on his talk page saying how much we appreciated his efforts but maybe if someone else recognised his help (barnstar?)he might be more inclined to stay involved. Cheers Basement12 (T.C) 01:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I retract all of the above. This user has since been blocked for edit wars elsewhere and is the all of the Anon who posted at User talk:Basement12/Format for Nations at the Summer Olympics Articles#bad changes (the IPs were blocked from editing as well). Basement12 (T.C) 02:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

When you've got a moment could you have a look at the medalists sections at USA and Argentina and see if you can work out why the final row of athletes for the football medals is being cut off. Does the template limit it to 8 rows? Cheers Basement12 (T.C) 21:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I designed it for a maximum of 32 entries in the "grid", 8 rows of 4 columns. RTFM ;) I guess you need a ninth row...? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A 9th row would be good please, i don't trust abilities enough to edit the template myself. A 3rd column would mean the need to remove the results by sport table on the US page and i think that is useful enough to warrant its place on the page. Basement12 (T.C) 21:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the post above, User talk:Andrwsc#Iraqi Kurdistan football team 2. thanks in adavance. Mussav (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I did. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The link you provided actually makes my point! The second paragraph after the lede says The Kurdistan Football Team is one of the nations represented there. The paragraph after that says In its first match on Monday, Kurdistan drew 2-all with Samiland. Two paragraphs later: Salam Hussen ... spoke to the Kurdish Globe about the Kurdistan national team is participating in the VIVA World Cup. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This website for Kurd and when he says Kurdistan, the Kurds understand that he means the Iraqi Kurdistan. The Kurd always say Kurdistan for the Iraqi Kurdistan region but in official matter they say Iraqi Kurdistan, and that's why he said this team will represent the Iraqi Kurdistan region, and that's what is matter. I think we need a third person's opinion. Mussav (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Or you could just change it yourself and leave me alone. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why making a pre-contition on [3] when we reached an agreement on that issue. All issues will never be solved, not if IOC remains inactive in all this. Why waiting for all of the pieces of the puzzle to come together in the precisely same time. We need to make a first step by putting one piece at the time onto its correct place. Baby steps, etc. -- Imbris (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your changes on that article, as you could tell from the extensive talk page discussions. Just because you and I may agree on a different article doesn't mean we can claim consensus on another. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This makes little sense to me, why would we need to go through the same debate once more. If someone would object this and that someone would make changes then we would need to discuss this with that someone. It is a false practice that we need to agree on each and every talk page where Yugoslavia is discussed in order to make changes to that particular page. I see that you divided Russan Empire from the Russian Federation but still call that federation simply Russia. Why did you divide that article if there was concensus about that issue. And why do you again insist on joining data from the Yugoslavia (Kingdom and socialist era) with the Serbia and Montenegro era of usage of the term Yugoslavia. I think that is in close connection with the issue of Germany - whereby you defend the position on Germany by insisting on Yugoslavia (Kingdom, Socialist, Federal) and even Russian Empire divided from the Russian Federation. -- Imbris (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus for that article is clear—country codes are used to distinguish different NOCs in an effort to reduce the possibility of original research and non-neutral POV. In Germany's case, there are GER, FRG, GDR, and EUA, each representing a different NOC. Pre-WWII and post-WWII Yugoslavia had the same NOC (similar to Romania, Hungary, etc.) so there is no need to split them. This has been discussed exhaustively on the talk page. For Russia, the IOC database actually uses a different code (RU1) for the pre-USSR years, to distinguish it from RUS since 1994. This was not caught before but has since been fixed. In any case, debating me on my talk page is useless. You need to gain consensus on Talk:All-time Olympic Games medal table to make any changes. This is not something that only you and I are looking at. Check the edit history of that article—many editors are opposed to redistributing medals contrary to published totals. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are the one who undid my edit. So obviously the problem is to convince you. As I see the other editors argue about Germany and Russia - not Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia pre and post WWII is the same NOC that did not always appear under YUG (JUG, YUS). The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes simply changed its name to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia which was succedded by the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia and ultimately the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Those all were simple name changes. As was the name change from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (code also changed YUG 1996-2002 to SCG 2004-2006). This is all agreed upon. So to finish I would like that my change to the article is left alone, to see if anybody else have a problem with that change. You do not have the problem with that change or maybe you do? -- Imbris (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I do. You cannot make changes to one country and leave others alone. Get consensus from the article talk page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you really have a problem with a simple name change between YUG (1996-2002) and SCG (2004-2006)?

Also I would like to note that no editor (IMHO ever) had started a discussion about ones own edits. The responsability for starting a discussion bears on all parties and the constant change of Wikipedia is the far more better way of editing. Where is written that I am allowed to make a change then and only when I start such discussion and where is written that all issues must be solved in order to solve one issue. This is not correct, and I hope that you would leave my edit for somebody else to remove. This is the best way to start a discussion, if needed. Please answer the first question above this paragraph. -- Imbris (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's really quite simple—if you want to make a potentially controversial edit to an article, you need to get consensus. Where is it written? How about Wikipedia:Consensus. Just start a new discussion thread on the talk page, make sure your proposal does not look to other editors as an advancement of a non-neutral POV (it would help if you also included similar instances of other countries), and see what happens. You might be surprised to find that I would actually support some changes to that list, including YUG 1996 and YUG 2000! But I will cannot support changes made without discussion, not to that article. It has been too contentious for too long. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In this edit you made it clear that you think no such Olympic records exist for the marathon races. Can you point me to something which cites that please as I'm attempting to push this list to FL and during its FLC the comment has been raised as to why marathons aren't included. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I have a specific reference that explicitely says they aren't maintained. I guess it's by reason of omission—I have never seen any list of records for open water distances. And this is a sport I am very familiar with—I was a competitive age-group swimmer in my youth, and a competitive masters swimmer as an adult, including open water events. I also note that Olympic records aren't maintained for rowing and canoeing events, also held in the same "protected" open water basin, and also competed at precise distances (2000m, 1000m, and 500m). I had always thought that was because of the variable nature of the racing conditions (weather impact on waves, etc.) but I haven't seen an explicit statement to back up that assumption. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andrwsc! After some more weeks of thinking about our country codes I decided to write you again. And as it looks like that only we two are interested in the country codes I will write to you on your talk page.

You have spent a lot of time to show all the correct flags for all the participating countries at the Olympics and I really enjoy and love that we can now show all of them. But there are some country codes which I am not happy with... I know that it is not easy to find them out and that for a long time there were no official codes. But since there are official codes I think it would be better to show them?

Here are the codes I am talking about:

ROM/ROU: Romania used the code ROM for a very long time and then they changed it. Now we use only ROU for all articles. But we know when they changed officially their country code, so wouldn't it be better to respect this? In this special case we have the possibility, because ROM and ROU both were offical.

SAF/RSA: I think the reason why the code was changed was the change of the political system? And it looks so wrong to me to see the old flag of the apartheid regime together with the new country code for the Republic of South Africa (RSA)... I think we had to respect this changes which is also manifested in the country code?

IRN/IRI: Also here I think the change of the code had only political reasons. And again it doesn't look good to me to see the country code IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) for the years when Iran had a Shah. I think Shah and Islamic Republic of Iran do not correspond?

P.S.: In the infobox Template:Infobox Olympics Iran the year Iran at the 1900 Summer Olympics is missing.

Many thanks and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Martin, sorry for the long delay in replying! I was on a business trip for about 9 days, and I usually have lots of evening time to work on Wikipedia on my trips, but not this time. As for the codes, I guess I think it is less confusing to show the current code in all cases. I think the ROM→ROU change is very similar to HOL→NED, and nowadays we don't even think to question the use of "NED" for Games in which "HOL" was actually used at the time. ("HOL" was the standard code for about 20 years.) I don't think it makes sense to make special exceptions for RSA and IRI and not do the same for ARS→SAU→KSA, SAL→ESA, MAL→MAS, HOL→NED, NGY→NGU→PNG, ROM→ROU, TON→TGA, or VNM→VIE. Perhaps we should continue this on the project page; there seem to be more editors watching now that the 2008 Games are fresh. Cheers — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your answer. Sorrily I do not see that their are more users interested... I asked a question about the guideline - no answer. I asked a question about the Irish category - no answer. But if you think this question is of more interest, then I will copy it. I would only like to use the official country from the time on when offical codes were in use. And I still think it is not the best idea to change the code on ALL event pages from 1896 to 2008 only because the code changed for the 2012 Games? For me it is still important to show the correct historical flag AND code. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not a big expert on Olympic history, and I think somebody needs to check over what is being added to the Olympic Games page by a user [4]. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Scorpion beat me to the punch. Yeah, Nipsonanomhmata is back. H1nkles has been doing great work on that page, so I'll drop him a line as well, but it would be great if you could help keep an eye on that article. Nipsonanomhmata's facts are usually correct, the problem is the undue weight he gives certain things. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I must have edited an older version of this article, which replaced the curious individual results. Not intentional. I agree they are weird and needed deletion. Cheers Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was hoping for some assistance with the above page. I thought that Norway boycotted these games, they were in the list of boycotting nations on 1980 Summer Olympics until it was recently changed and are not listed in the medal table...Damn just looked again and you've already sorted it...good work. Basement12 (T.C) 23:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this is a hoax. This is a "new" user (within the last hour) whose only contributions are to add that article and adjust navboxes to make it linked. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I though as well, the change at 1980 Summer Olympics was made by an IP just after the article was created. The users claim of a "video disk" is entirely suspect.Basement12 (T.C) 23:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• As well as the registered user further disruptive edits, that are replacing incorrect info in various 1980 articles, are being made from at least 2 IP accounts, 79.183.135.197 and 79.178.131.117. I don't know what, if anything, can/should be done about them though. Basement12 (T.C) 18:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  When I saw those IPs from Israel, from an (apparently) Russian sounding account, my first thought was that this is a new emergence of User:Roitr. He/she had a history of conflict with the 1980 Games being one topic area. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, particularly, if the IPs are from the same country that the user previously used, i'm not familiar with their history but they clearly had no problem creating sockpuppets in the past. At the moment I can't find any edits by similar looking IPs on Roitr's other old haunts (Russian military etc). Given the evidence presented to them whoever is continuing to make the edits seems like they are just trying to cause trouble, as opposed to generally having an issue with content. Basement12 (T.C) 18:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A third similar IP, 79.178.105.181, has joined in at 1980 Summer Olympics. Could the page be semi-protected? Basement12 (T.C) 20:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As one of the past contributors regarding their usage I'd like to notify you about Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Template:Slovenian elections. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Special:Contributions/Waltloc (unnecessarily adding flags in the infoboxes). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:NOC logo GBR.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at 63.88.65.18 please. They've just vandalised the Leo X article despite being recently blocked. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Gnevin (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is anybody actively trying to ascertain the exact copyright status of French regional flags? Why did you delete all of the ones on the UN decolonization list article but leave Martinique? I doubt that the creators of these flags would object to them being used in such a way in an encyclopedia, but I don't know how to go about finding them and getting their clear approval. I know that they are used at international conferences, so they've been implicitly released internationally but maybe not explicitly. :)--Thecurran (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not why I removed them. You were using contemporary regional flags to refer to territories prior to 1947, which is contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Historical considerations. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I started all the tables and the flag use on that page, aside from the TOC. I was only trying to show symbols that could be identified with each of the territories involved. I opted not to use several independence flags that weren't official but only tied to a few separatist groups, especially in the case of New Caledonia, where I went for a c-o-a as it has no official flag other than France's which defeats the purpose. As long as the flag is consistent with each individual time of changeover (listed in a separate column) either just before or just after (esp. for independence) or at least a current flag (esp. for change of status), I'm happy. I'm not trying to project to before 1947. If a country has become independent, it's old colonial flag would be better shown; if a country is still a subunit, its current subunit flag would be better shown. When independence comes as the union of two former colonies, I don't know what to do yet, so I'm choosing whatever flags I can find. :)--Thecurran (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about recent my misuse of flagicon image. I was just continuing the table enlargement and hadn't noticed your edits yet. :)--Thecurran (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, neither  Nyasaland (flag) nor (flagicon) work so I'm looking at the page for image:Flag of Nyasaland (1919–1925).svg but no flaglike template is listed on Image:Flag of Nyasaland (1919–1925).svg#filelinks, so I'm gonna WP:BB and use Nyasaland (flagicon image) because it has the desired effect and  Malawi shows a different image. I don't see figuring out the right way for you if you only tell that I'm doing it wrong but not how. :)--Thecurran (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any information in this case: Template talk:Swimmingrecord ? // SMARTSKAFT | ¿ 21:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Responded there. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I hadn't realised variable parameters were available for the template. Cheers. --Setanta747 (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries! I went back to add this to the Setanta Sports Cup article so you could see how it works. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 14:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Even better! Spot on - thanks again. :) --Setanta747 (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the current discussion at AE, I completely concur with your summary. I don't intend to comment at AE further (to stop the focus from turning into Vk vs. Rockpocket, when the matter at hand is ensuring that the ongoing terms Vk's probation be respected), but just wanted to let you known I have asked Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) to comment, since it was he that finalized the conditional terms of the latest unblocking. He doesn't appear to be around currently, but when he gets back, we can hopefully hear what his intentions were regarding the expiry of the probation, direct from the horses mouth. Rockpocket 23:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to say "I told you so". Rockpocket 23:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No need for that. It's almost predictable to see the arguments being made there, red herrings and all. I think you have done an admirable job keeping cool and objective, despite the abuse from Vintagekits and Giano II, as they try to turn it into a personality match. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)