User talk:Bandy boy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bandy boy, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Bandy boy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Russian Government Cup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Kirov and Krasnogorsk
List of Russian bandy champions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Spartak Moscow

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Gothians?[edit]

Re: our little disagreement here, what would you call the inhabitants of Gothia in English? I have lived on Götgatan for some time and have had numerous discussions leading up to a consensus, among people I know here, that it probably was meant to be named Götagatan but was named efter götarna inte efter Götet (Götaland). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Either way, it was not named after the Goths, which are "goter" in Swedish, not "götar". The street name refer either to Götaland/Gothia or perhaps to the inhabitants of that area. Bandy boy (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
And what would you call those inhabitants, in Swedish or English, please? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
My opinion is of no importance. The street is in fact not named for the Goths so it shouldn't be translated to "Goth Street". Bandy boy (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited IFK Uppsala Bandy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athletics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Bandy field[edit]

Any particular reason you felt the need to separate the Bandy field article into an article separate from Bandy#Field (whose content it duplicates)? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

To be able to expand it more than the section in the bandy article. Bandy boy (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
OK. I'll keep an eye out for updates. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Katrineholms SK Bandy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katrineholms SK (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of IFK Kungälv[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on IFK Kungälv requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. --GouramiWatcher (?) 16:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to IFK Arboga IK may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[[[Category:Idrottsföreningen Kamraterna]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Katrineholms SK Bandy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • by fusioning with [[Värmbol-Katrineholm BK]], forming the new club [[Katrineholm Värmbol BS]].<ref>[http://www.kvbs.se/ Official homepage of Värmbol-Katrineholm BK</ref> The name [[Katrineholms SK]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


Speedy deletion nomination of Tornion Palloveikot[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tornion Palloveikot requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Swedish bandy champions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sudden death (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russian Bandy Super League 2013–14, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Krasnogorsk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

IFK Uppsala Bandy[edit]

Pardon me, but did you forgot to finish this page? Bearian (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it seems so. I'll look in to it again. Thanks. Bandy boy (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Katrineholms SK Bandy[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Katrineholms SK Bandy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines, no notability claimed. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources in new bandy articles[edit]

Hi Bandy Boy, I would humbly like to suggest you provide more sources WP:VERIFICATION before creating new articles about bandy teams, clubs, or venues. You have created at least 4 recently with no sources at all.

Many of these articles got nominated for speedy deletion, proposed deletion, or normal deletion. If you feel they are worthy of being on Wikipedia, you can avoid having them deleted by adding sources when you create them. You can always start with drafts in your sandbox. Anyways, this is just a friendly suggestion. Thanks! Beakermeep(talk) 18:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Katrineholms SK Bandy[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Katrineholms SK Bandy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of Encyclopedic Notability. See WP:N. No sources are cited. A Google search failed to yield any WP:RS sources. Article thus fails WP:V. Please expand this article with material supported by reliable and verifiable sources establishing the notability of its subject, or it may be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Bandy field[edit]

Hi Bandy Boy, I left more detailed info on the talk page of Bandy field, per your revert of my tagging. If you would like more help or info, leave a message on my talk. Let's work together rather than edit war. I know a lot of your articles seem to get attacked, but I will try and help you with them if I can and if you feel they are notable. Please feel free to drop me a line before undoing a good-faith tag next time. Cheers. Beakermeep(talk) 02:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2008–09 Elitserien (bandy), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Västerås SK (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alliance club[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Alliance club requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 14:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:Unsourced Category[edit]

They lost their medals in the team event thanks to Hans-Gunnar Liljenwall. -- Scorpion0422 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If you know this, write about it in their articles. You can't just add a category like that without explaining it to the reader. I removed the category from the articles again now. Don't re-add it without explaining what medals they were stripped of in the article text. Bandy boy (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't tell me what I can't do overlord. You also shouldn't cover your laziness by demanding others do the work you want done. -- Scorpion0422 17:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean? You are the one adding unsourced information to the articles. Unsourced information may be removed from Wikipedia anytime. You have had years to add the information in the text, but just adding those categories makes people think the medals they were stripped of were the ones already written about in the articles, which you now say is not the case. I don't know anything about these medals they lost, so I couldn't possibly write anything about it even if I wanted to. Bandy boy (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
One word: Google. When you're writing for an encyclopedia and see something you didn't know, immediately try to find out if it's true. Don't immediately remove it and demand that someone else who is inactive do the work. -- Scorpion0422 17:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, you could have done this from the start. It's not that I surf around at Wikipedia doing nothing, there are loads of articles to add to and I prefer to add to the articles where I know more about the subject. Bandy boy (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gustavsbergs IF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Värmdö (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Abbreviation of Djurgårdens IF[edit]

Hi. We are in a bit of a conflict regarding the abbreviation of Djurgårdens IF. Many fans of the club seem to dislike the abbrevation Dif. However, this is how it's pronounced and how the abbreviation is spelled in neutral mainstream media. Therefore I don't see why this spelling should be removed. Before you edited the section, both the linguistically correct abbreviation (Dif) and the stylized one (DIF) were included. Why couldn't you accept this? Aikclaes (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The linguistically correct abbreviation is DIF, even though it is spelled out as if it was a word, because it is an abbreviation, not a word in itself. You can compare it with IKEA and SAS for instance. Bandy boy (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid the linguistic experts at Språkrådet don't agree with you. They are in fact very clear on the subject: Acronyms that are read as a word, like Ikea and Dif, should be written in small caps. They even use Ikea as an example. Source: http://www.sprakradet.se/2113#item101000 Why can't both ways of spellings be included, as in the original wording? Aikclaes (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Språkrådet does not have a say on English language, as far as I know. This is English language Wikipedia. (I also personally happen to think Språkrådet is wrong when it comes to Swedish in this matter on how to spell abbreviations, but that is beside the point.) Bandy boy (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The issue here is not how a Swedish word is written in English. In that case, the article itself would have the spelling Djurgardens IF, since most non-Swedish journalists replace the letter Å with an A. No, the issue here is how the club's name is correctly abbreviated in Swedish. My argument is supported by the Swedish Language Council, the primary regulatory body for the Swedish language. Your argument is only supported by your own personal taste. I'm asking you for a third time now, and really hope for an answer: Why can't both ways of spelling be included, as in the original wording? Aikclaes (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The issue here is how this is written in English, since this is English Wikipedia. Djurgårdens IF is written Djurgårdens IF in English, since it is a name of a club, names do not get "translated" to words without diacritic markings. DIF is written DIF since it is an abbreviation and this actually follows Wikipedia's spelling guidelines. I have pointed you to examples right here on Wikipedia to show this. "Dif" is wrong. Bandy boy (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I haven't voiced any complaints about the abbreviation being spelled DIF. But you still haven't explained why you won't also accept the linguistically correct abbreviation Dif. You must agree that the first line of the article also should show how the club's name is commonly abbreviated in Swedish media. And Swedish media evidently uses the spelling Dif. I'm going to make a compromize edit now that I hope you can live with. Aikclaes (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
You claim it should be abbreviated "Dif", but that is wrong, lingustically. I have tried to show you this, I don't understand why you can't take it in. Bandy boy (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I have argued that name of the club is abbreviated Dif in Swedish, and sourced it with recommendations from the Swedish Language Council, the primary regulatory body for the Swedish language. The only thing close to an argument for your case that you have presented so far is that the Wiki pages for Ikea and SAS use capital letters. But our issue has nothing to do with how the page Djurgårdens IF Fotboll is to be named. We are concerned with how the club's name is abbreviated in Swedish. Your only reason for removing the abbreviation Dif is because you don't like it. You have presented no source that supports your claim that Dif is linquistically incorrect, therefore I cannot accept your last edit. I have moved this discussion to the talk section for Djurgårdens IF Fotboll, and suggest we continue the discussion there.

Disambiguation link notification for April 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russian Bandy Super League 2012–13, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Krasnogorsk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

I provided some links for you on the Beer Project talkpage: [1], here are some more: Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Starting an article, and Wikipedia:Articles for creation. In essence, when an article is crated, it needs to have independent reliable sources which speak in depth about the topic - enough to establish the topic's notability. When an article is created without such sources, it may be tagged as having notability concerns. When an article is created on a product which has no independent sources, and the article does not make a claim of notability, then it is de facto considered promotional, as it appears that the article has been created with the intention of promoting or publicising the product. A source which is directly related to a product is considered a WP:PRIMARY source. Such sources need to be used with care on Wikipedia, and cannot be used to establish notability, as they are not independent enough. Sources which are either an advert promoting the product, or a listing by a distributor, are not considered appropriate. I did a check before deleting the article, and found no mention of the beer on regular databases such as RateBeer: [ http://www.ratebeer.com/brewers/grebbestad-bryggeri/1767/], so distribution appears to be very limited at this stage. It is quite likely that the beer is this one: [2] under a different name. It is quite common for breweries to rebadge beers for football clubs. I hope this helps. As you are having some problems with notability, I do urge you to go via Wikipedia:Articles for creation with your next article. You will get assistance, and the article will only be released onto mainspace when others have reviewed it and sorted out any notability issues. regards. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Palestine (historic region) topics[edit]

Template:Palestine (historic region) topics has been nominated for merging with Template:Palestine topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 15:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Minneapolis Bandolier[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Minneapolis Bandolier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable local rec bandy team which is no different than any other local sports team. The references on the pages are either not independent or are just stats pages. Could find no independent sources on a search to meet WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

The article was marked for deletion on 16 April 2014‎ at 12:20 (UTC) by Djsasso (talk · contribs). -- Kndimov (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem you are having is that you seem to think that if something is notable in one country it is notable everywhere. You made a comment on one article that you wouldn't delete a Swedish baseball team because you know how big it is in the USA. However, if there are not significant articles written about that specific team to meet WP:GNG and WP:RS then yes it would be deleted as well, no matter how popular the sport in general is in another country. Notability is specific to the exact subject of that article. Notability is not inherited. -DJSasso (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. If something is notable, it is notable everywhere, it has nothing to do with any particular country. Wikipedia should have a global perspective. A lack of sources does not mean a lack of notability, even if it may mean a lack of verifiability. Bandy boy (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
But the team has to be notable. It isn't notable anywhere. The sport is notable and thus it has a page. But every individual article has to have its own notability. Please read the general notability guidelines which explain what is needed to be notable. If no sources can be found on the specific team then the team is not notable. Articles also have to be verifiable. If an article fails either notability or verifiability then it gets deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Since you are campaigning against bandy, I have now reciprocated by nominating all Sweden related baseball articles for deletion. Bandy boy (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not campaigning against bandy, I actually enjoy bandy. That doesn't however mean the teams I nominated meet inclusion criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe you, because if you enjoyed bandy you'd try to find sources instead of doing absurd deletion requests the first thing you do when seeing an article and making strange claims about lacking notability. Bandy boy (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Alberget 4A for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alberget 4A is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alberget 4A until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Bandy boy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minneapolis Bandolier.
Message added 02:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have modified my !vote per your commentary at the discussion. NorthAmerica1000 02:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do not be disruptive[edit]

Hi Bandy boy,

In one of your comments above, you said, Since you are campaigning against bandy, I have now reciprocated by nominating all Sweden related baseball articles for deletion.. While you may certainly nominate any article you wish for deletion, please note the action you have described sounds very close to disruptive, retaliatory, behavior. Please read, for example, WP:POINT. It is perfectly valid to nominate an article for deletion because it has no reliable sources. It is not valid to make the same nomination because somebody else nominated an article you have worked on. Such disruptive behavior can result in you being blocked from further editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Bandy merger[edit]

I propose to merge List of bandy clubs in the United States, American Bandy Association, and American Bandy League into a new article titled, Bandy in the United States. These three articles are all short, with a significant amount of overlap. A single article could include all of the information contained in those three, and present a more robust and better organized view of the topic. Please discuss this proposal at Talk:List of bandy clubs in the United States. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I see you reverted my merge of American Bandy Association. I'm trying to figure out what is so significant about the ABA that it needs to have a distinct article? There's really no information in American Bandy Association that's not already in Bandy in the United States, so how does having a distinct article make the encyclopedia better? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
It does, because, ABA is a national governing body of the sport. There is no consensus for its merger with the other articles. Bandy boy (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I had two people agree with me on the merge, and you disagreed. 3/4 agreement sounds like consensus to me. But, let's put that aside. The real question here is how do we best present information about Bandy to our readers? Right now, there is nothing in American Bandy Association which isn't already in Bandy in the United States. The general idea of having an in-depth article on a specific sub-topic is to explore that topic in greater depth than would make sense in the top-level article. That's not happening here. If somebody starts at Bandy in the United States and finds the link to American Bandy Association, the natural assumption is that if they click on that link, they will learn more about the American Bandy Association. But, all that will happen now is they will get to another article which contains no more information than the first one did. How is that useful to the reader? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
You're the one who want the merge, so you tell me. Bandy boy (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want me to tell you. If you're asking me to answer my own question, the answer is, "It's not useful to the reader at all, and we should go back to having a single article". -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Going "back" to your brand new idea? No, you are the one who want this change, so you have to explain why there should be the same text in a general article as there already is in the article on the organisation. Bandy boy (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding sufficient reliable sources for American Bandy Association to pass WP:GNG. A google search comes up with self-published items (i.e. on www.usabandy.com), wikipedia articles (and mirrors of them), the ABA's facebook page, entries in various directories, and so on. On the third page of search results, I finally found something I would call a reliable independent source, and it's only a passing mention in the 17th paragraph. Do you have any other reliable sources you can provide? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I couldn't find any either. It was going to be in my next round of nominations. So I think he should take your advice and merge it into Bandy in the United States. -DJSasso (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
There are already enogh sources to establish the notability of ABA. you have claimed that you are not campaigning against bandy at Wikipedia, but this post indicates once more that you do. Bandy boy (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ice Hockey Federation of Armenia may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Bandy.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.worldbandy.com/members.asp?pageID=11|title=Members|publisher=[[Federation of International Bandy|accessdate=27 April 2014}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I fixed this now. Bandy boy (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of American Bandy Association for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Bandy Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Bandy Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/891 mm, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Cúchullain t/c 17:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Riksdag. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--Cúchullain t/c 17:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit broke the three revert rule.--Cúchullain t/c 19:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Then stop going against the consensus and put in the word exonym again. Bandy boy (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
There was no consensus for your unilateral change, no matter how many times you revert. Please go back to your one account and stop edit warring, otherwise you'll likely find yourself banned as well as blocked.--Cúchullain t/c 20:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you read the talk page? It clearly says "Riksdag" is the English exonym for the Swedish parliament. Taking the word away from the article is going against the move discussions. I agree the move to "Riksdag" was wrong, but you shouldn't personally decide to go aganst the consensus around it. Bandy boy (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Riksdag. These edits are against consensus and are counterproductive. You have been warned multiple times by multiple users, as well as a notice on the Administrators' noticeboard. Do not make any further reverts or controversial edits without discussing them first on the talk page. Jsharpminor (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Bandy boy. You have new messages at Jsharpminor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Elitserien (bandy) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • TillbergaspelariElitserien201415/|title=Tillberga spelar i Elitserien 2014/15|publisher=[[Swedish Bandy Association|date=12 May 2014|accessdate=12 May 2014}}</ref>}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


Riksdag redirect[edit]

If you want this to be moved, you could gather more supporters if you made the same proposal for Folketing, Althing, Bundestag, Knesset and the Oireachtas However, they would all be defeated because they are all universally known by these names.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback[edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Bandy boy. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by Anastasia (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for May 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yenisey Krasnoyarsk Bandy Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dmitry Makarov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bandy boy (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I have tried to cooperate and I have come clean and I have waited for response from administators so I could say my meaning, but no checkuser asked me for my opinion on the subject. I have no idea why I should be blocked for being that user 891mm, which I am not. I have used more than one account, but I have not abused them and I have promised not to use any other accounts again, but this doesn't help. The person who blocked me obviously only choose to listen to the other side, and the other side was against me for personal reasons which I don't even understand. The person who asked for this block said I could evade a block if I came clean – he was obviously lying? Bandy boy (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your behavior on Wikipedia shows a lot of partisanship and promotional editing. Besides just being a superfan, you've also violated policy by pretending to be multiple people in WP:Articles for deletion/American Bandy Association. The dialog about your unblock shows you persisting in illogical views. If you sincerely want to be unblocked, I suggest revealing all the accounts you've used yourself as well as those other people you know personally who have also edited Wikipedia bandy articles. You admit to using multiple accounts so I don't know what you mean by 'admit to any accusation against me.' You've given us no reason to be optimistic about the neutrality of your future editing on the topic of bandy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

@Darkwind, you write: "Okay. Let's put it this way. Someone filed a report about you. One would assume that someone, somewhere, gets that report and investigates it, right? Well, I'm one of those people. I got the report, I read it, and determined that there was a situation we refer to in America as a "hot mess". The only way to clear it up is further investigation, which I requested. At any rate, anything further can be said on the investigation page. —Darkwind (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)"

– Yes, someone filed a report about me. That was done out of spite, because this person did not like the fact that I had another view on a certain subject, which should be clear to anyone. I still don't know who 891mm or Knot at All are. I did no abuse anything in that case. As for Sprucetwig and Bandy guy, they are not me, which I have already explained. As for the others, I think Andrew S. Knight might be one of them, but is still not me. I don't know who all the others are, but some are mine, which I have already pledged not to use. I don't know what a "hot mess" is. I don't argue against an investigation, but I don't understand why the investigator don't ask me about what I want to say and I don't understand why all the accounts should be made public to anyone before I am allowed to say something to the investigator and in spite of the fact that I have promised not to use them anymore. I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy but I think this whole mess have been handled worse than any civilised court proceeding I have ever heard of. Bandy boy (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Funny thing...you say "...because this person did not like the fact that I had another view on a certain subject." I'm getting feeling of deja vu here.... OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Bandy boy, no one buys that 891 mm, Bandy guy, and the others are someone other than you. I suggested multiple times[3][4] that you own up to your sockpuppetry and promise not to do it again as a way of avoiding the block, and you refused. You're still refusing in your comments. This is not the attitude of someone here to work collaboratively with others to build the encyclopedia, and until your attitude shifts it's unlikely anyone will ever unblock you.--Cúchullain t/c 19:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I have not refused. I have been wanting to collaborate. I have admitted to having used other accounts and to have had "meat puppets" (I honestly did not know this was forbidden). I have promised to not use any other accounts again, just as you said I should do to avoid being blocked. i was waiting for the neutral administrator to come along and judge the matter so I could admit to everything, but I was checked and blocked without first being given this opportunity. So why did you tell me this was an option I had so I could avoid a block? . Bandy boy (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I just want to continue working on the bandy articles. I won't engage in any other discussions again. I still don't understand why I should be blocked for ever like this. Should I just admit to any accusation against me regardless of if it's true or not? All right then, I'll do that if that's what it takes. Bandy boy (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, all the accounts I have used have already been revealed by the checkuser, so what more is it you want me to reveal? I have already said which of these are not my accounts: that's Bandy guy and Sprucetwig, who I know personally, and Andrew S. Knight and Pågen Grop who I have no idea who it is but Knight could perhaps be Bandy guy. Still, if I admit to being everyone of these (regardless of if it's true), would that make me unblocked or is Cuchullain just making things up? The others have been mine, used for editing other areas of Wikipedia. I still can't see I have made any abuse of some sort of Wikipedia rules there. In what way have I not been neutral in my editing of bandy articles (besides the fact that I have had views on what subjects should have their own articles)? I try to have good sources for everything I write. BTW, what is "promotional editing"? Paid editing? I have done nothing of the sort. Bandy boy (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

After all of the explanations here, and prior to your block on my talk page, you still state "I still can't see I have made any abuse of some sort of Wikipedia rules"? That is why your unblock requests are being decline, you are approaching your block as some form of injustice imposed upon you as opposed to the block being a result of your own inappropriate and policy-violating actions.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Ponyo, thanks for revisiting. I did not say "I still can't see I have made any abuse of some sort of Wikipedia rules"; what I did say in my previous post was that I had used more than one account but for different purposes on Wikipedia and that particular practice I couldn't see was an abuse of rules. I didn't know it was forbidden to use more than one account even if you are not using them as sockpuppets in discussions; now I know that this is an abuse of rules.
You have pointed out meat puppet use, not sock puppet use, and as I said I had no idea this was not allowed; now I know.
It seems people think I have done a lot of stuff just because other people have been using the same IP number and have been supporting my opinion in some discussions. I also don't understand why you did not ask for my opinion before outing all of my accounts; I had asked for the opportunity to do so, isn't it fair to let the accused party have his say? I have pledged never to use any other accounts again and I did that even before your check, but it seems you were not interested in hearing my story? I do know I have not followed all rules but I still think I have been treated unjustly: Why is it fair to judge before the accused party has been able to make an explanation and an appology? Bandy boy (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I asked you repeatedly to come clean about your socks as a way of avoiding a block,[5][6] and explained that they would be found out in the investigation regardless,[7] and you chose not to cooperate. After the investigation, Darkwind even offered you the opportunity to keep one account unblocked,[8] and again you chose not to cooperate. And even after the block, your response is still to get angry about the things other people did to deal with your disruption, rather than taking responsibility for what you did. If you're serious about wanting to be unblocked, you're going to need a serious change in attitude.--Cúchullain t/c 20:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Cuchullain, yes you asked me to come clean, and I was going to come clean when the administrator/checkuser who was going to judge in the matter showed up. Who else should I have come clean to? However, when checkuser Ponyo eventually did show up, he just went ahead and checked without hearing my view first, and presented everything to the world immediately. Then Darkwind offered to let me have one account unblocked as you say, but I did not see that message before all of my accounts had already been blocked (because I happened to be out from Wikipedia for two-three days or something).
I did not "choose not to cooperate". I think I was not given the opportunity to cooperate, in spite of the fact that I think I had been saying all along that I wanted to. Bandy boy (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
You were given every possible opportunity to address your behavior and you did not. Even now you're not addressing it, you're just pointing fingers and making excuses. You're unlikely to be unblocked unless things serious change.--Cúchullain t/c 18:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how you read what I write, Cuchullain. How can you interprete it the way you do? I can't see how you can't see that I am addressing my behaviour. I am not trying to point fingers or make excuses, but I don't understand this whole process. I don't know what it is you mean I should have done. Could you explain?
Do you mean I should have explained everything to you before a checkuser came along, or what? That doesn't seem logical. You were the one accusing me of doing wrong, and you did that based on a difference in opinion more than anything else. I did not use any sock puppets in the page where you and I had a disagreement. I thought it was logical to wait for the third party, neutral administrator or checkuser to come along before I should explain things and I expected this person to take in my view before doing any technical investigation. That seemed natural to me and I had asked for the opportunity to do so. I did not understand the process was totally different.
Also, while I admit of having used multiple accounts, I don't understand why they are all being blocked as sock puppets even if some of them have never been used as sock puppets, i.e. for manipulating discussions or votes, how ever you look at things. I understand that you may think my meat puppets were sock puppets, but some accounts were neither. I can live with the fact that they are blocked anyway. Bandy boy (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bandy boy (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Everything here is revealed and I have admitted to all accounts I have used and I have pledged not to use them again. Bandy guy will not edit anymore in Wikipedia, nor will Sprucetwig (I have talked to them) and I will never use meat puppets again. I have done no edits to articles which I find un-neutral (if you think otherwise, please explain), but I admit I have used meat puppets in some discusdions on talk pages but will never do that again. The "partisanship and promotional editing" which EdJohnston says I have done in some articles about bandy, is something I had not heard about before I was blocked, I would appreciate to at least have an explanation what it refers to. Bandy boy (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You had an account, and it was blocked, so you created a new account, and it was blocked. While blocked this time, you then edited anonymously. Here's the simple thing: a block applies to YOU THE PERSON, and not to the account. This means that you the person may never edit Wikipedia while nay account is blocked. We expected honesty - and we were getting what appeared to be honesty. You knew about WP:SOCK and you knew about WP:EVADE - yet you continued to break those rules, originally claiming it was NOT you, then finally fessing up. That is by far not the behaviour we expect on Wikipedia. I will extend good faith and present you with WP:OFFER: during the next 6 months:
  • you must not edit Wikipedia whatsoever (using an account, OR anonymously)
  • you are recommended to produce constructive, drama-free edits on another project such as Simple Wikipedia
  • no earlier than December 24, you may make a new unblock request that is WP:GAB-compliant
  • if you break any of the above, the clock will immediately be reset for a fresh 6 months
This should give you the opportunity to decide if you actually wish to be a valued and valuable member of this private website community the panda ₯’ 21:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Likely evading block as 90.236.120.178. -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Why do you tell me that? What makes you think that? Do you think I'm the only person interested in bandy? Bandy boy (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Because the IP matches the range you used before. And because they made the same basic comment you keep making. And the odds of someone coming to an ice hockey page and ranting about bandy right after you get blocked for it when we rarely hear from anyone about bandy are all too hard to ignore. See WP:DUCK. -DJSasso (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Started a new sockpuppet investigation here.--Cúchullain t/c 15:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
No need to, this was me. But what is this idea about "evading" block? I can't edit inlogged, so I have to write things uninlogged. Aren't you the ones who want me to edit like this instead of using a username? Bandy boy (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
No, you're not allowed to continue sockpuppeting while you're blocked for sockpuppetry. And it's really not a good idea to do the exact thing you were blocked for while you're appealing the block.--Cúchullain t/c 13:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean "continue sockpuppeting"? I am not sockpuppeting, I am writing uninlogged because I am blocked from using my account. I also had no idea I was blocked for writing suggestions about developments of Wikipedia, I thought the block was because I had used meat puppets in some discussions. Sorry. Bandy boy (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
You have used multiple accounts, confirmed by checkuser and which you denied at the SPI ("I happen to agree with what some other people have already said on that talk page, which should not seem strange as it is what you learn in school in Sweden"), and are now logging out to evade your block, which you also denied when the accustion was first made ("Why do you tell me that? What makes you think that? Do you think I'm the only person interested in bandy?"). I don't believe a word you say, the technical evidence doesn't bear it out and behaviourally you just keep spitting out the same hollow denials. I think that Bandy and related articles will be just fine without your participation there.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I have used multiple accounts, yes, and I have admitted to everything which I have actually done. Some were not me but other people – so called meat puppets, I have told you everything about that too. Why should I admit to things which I have not done? If it would help me get unblocked, I would, but it is obvious (from above) that it doesn't. Coming clean does not help, because you don't want to believe me. I suppose I can't help it if you don't believe me. I did not deny this last accusation, I just asked why Djasso thought it was me and why he found the need to tell me about it, since I of course already knew. I did not log out to "evade" a block but to suggest that others could use some information I had found which I thought interesting. I did that to try to help develop Wikipedia anyway. I don't know about the bandy articles – many was not updated for years before I started taking care of them, many others are still in need of updates (I did not have time to do it before I was blocked). Bandy boy (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda, thanks for the offer. Waiting until Christmas is pretty long, I'll see if I'm still interested by then. You haven't got all the facts right, I have e.g. not been blocked twice. I'll look in to the simple Wikipedia and see if there is something I can do there; I don't know, because I think you should be trained in that certain simple prose if you should write there. Kind regards/ Bandy boy (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)