User talk:Matej1234

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


Hello, Matej1234, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Eleassar my talk 10:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi! I see you've been editing articles related to Slovenian football. You're welcome to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/Slovenia. --Eleassar my talk 08:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Slovenian[edit]

You are invited to join WikiProject Intertranswiki and join Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Slovenian. It is intended to be a joint group between Intertranswiki and WikiProject Slovenia of which you are already a part of The aim is to draw up a directory of missing articles from Slovenian wikipedia, extract what is notable or suitable, and build a team of translators to work at bridging the gaps in knowledge between other wikipedias. Even if you can't contribute much in starting content, your help is much needed to help draw up detailed lists of missing articles for Slovenia in the new project space and help other editors work through lists to build content more fully. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

NK Maribor stuff[edit]

Hey, I saw on many occasions that you are contributing to NK Maribor related articles. I was wondering if you would continue with something. With the start of next week I wont have internet access (or very limited) for couple of weeks and I was wondering if you might be interested in updating this article; 2011–12 NK Maribor season? I saw once that you have updated one round so I guess you know that its not really hard and for every match the club plays it takes maybe ten minutes for all stats to be updated. You can respond bellow this section as I will be watching it:). Also, this article; NK Maribor in Europe will also be needing updating, but this is only minor 1min stuff for every match. Lep pozdrav, Ratipok (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I will update everything in 2011–12 NK Maribor season after sunday match against Triglav + update each player caps and goals on their wikipedia articles Matej1234 (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have made some adjustments so it will be easier for you to put in the stats at the "player appearances stats" after every game (you will see what I am talking about when you will try to update the section:). You can update each player if you wish, however, its not that much important as website is keeping track for everyone and that can be updated at anytime. While regular updating in the 2011-12 NK Maribor season article is neccesary to avoid confusion. Thx, Ratipok (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:NK Drava Ptuj squad and Template:NK Primorje squad[edit]

Hi Matej, I saw that you marked Template:NK Drava Ptuj squad and Template:NK Primorje squad for deletion. When I wanted give my support for that, I did not find any discussion. I am not entirely sure how the process goes, but it might be that it remains unnoticed without a reference on that page. Kq-hit (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi Matej1234. Something has gone wrong with your signature: it doesn't show your username. Could you please fix this? — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ljudski Vrt[edit]

Hi, I've left you a message at Talk:Ljudski Vrt. --Eleassar my talk 13:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Translating names[edit]

Please dont translate names from Slovene to English if its not neccesary. I am refering to your actions for City Stadium Ob jezeru. That is the official name of the stadium and it cannot be changed to "City Stadium Beside the lake" (seriously?!?). How would you feel if someone shows up and changes Ljudski vrt article to "People's garden". Anyway, I have left a msg at the Talk:City Stadium ob Jezeru before I knew you where the one who has changed everyhing.Ratipok (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I see that Eleassar was the one who started with moving pages,Ratipok (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

pcupdate parameter[edit]

Hi, please do not enter a false date and time in for the pcupdate parameter in football players infoboxes, like you did with this edit in Neven Subotić. It's not yet 17:11 UTC on 27 October 2012. If Subotić scores a goal, then this entry is just plain wrong. To get the current date, you can use ~~~~~ as value for the pcupdate parameter. --Jaellee (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

HK Olimpija Ljubljana[edit]

Preusmeritev si spremenil v članek. Res je, da se je HD HS Olimpija preimenovala v HK Olimpija, toda na to preusmeritev se je povezovalo veliko strani (npr. IIHF European Cup 1973), ker je pod tem imenom pred letom 2000 nastopala današnja HDD Olimpija Ljubljana. Po moje je bolje, da bi ta preusmeritev ostala, ker gre za precej bolj uveljavljen klub, to pa bi se prestavilo na HK Olimpija Ljubljana (2004) ali kaj podobnega. Poleg tega si stran prestavil ročno (ne s funkcijo prestavi), zato se je uničila zgodovina strani HS Olimpija Ljubljana in sem zaenkrat vrnil. --Sporti (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Zgoraj imaš za take primere funkcijo prestavi (med zgodovina strani in opazuj), tako se prestavi tudi zgodovina strani in pogovorna stran. Zdaj, ko si ustvaril ciljno stran tega ni več mogoče naredit, razen če HK Olimpija Ljubljana (2004) daš za hitro brisanje in potem prestaviš. --Sporti (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Pa še: imena klubov naj bi bila zapisana s takim imenom, pod katerim so v tistem času tekmovali. --Sporti (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Tako nekako gredo imena. --Sporti (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

V sezoni 91/92 sta tako Jesenice kot Olimpija nastopala v DP tudi z B ekipo. --Sporti (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Hi there MATEJ, AL from Portugal here,

As you did in Jan Oblak, please leave the external links as you find them. For example, no need for the ENGLISH language template in ENGLISH links OK?

Thank you, happy editing - --AL (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  • And the categories also please. If you see Oblak example again, that's the correct order PLEASE. Thanks. --AL (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox datestamp and maintenance tags[edit]

Hello. Thank you for remembering to update the pcupdate (club-update) date when you update footballer infobox stats. But please use a real date/time after the last match included in the stats. The easy way to do this is to type ~~~~~ instead of the old date, and the system will replace that with the current date and time.

Also, please don't remove maintenance tags like you did with this edit to Kieran Richardson. They're supposed to be there. The first two are for information: to show that the article is written in British English and uses dmy date format; and the third puts the article into a cleanup category, so that editors looking for pages to fix up can find them easily. Thank you. Struway2 (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Koroška Vrata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faculty (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) 10:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Faculty (division). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SchreyP (messages) 15:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Pavel Pogrebnyak, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing.

Please STOP removing things that look like this:

{{Use dmy dates}} and {{lead too short}}

They belong in Wikipedia articles, to categorise pages into (in this example) articles that use that day-first date format, and articles with a lead section that needs expanding.

Please leave them alone.

Struway2 (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from updating players' statistics until a game is finished. There's no prize for being first. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

January 2013[edit]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bradford City A.F.C., without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. GiantSnowman 10:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Location of "use dmy dates" templates[edit]

Why do you put the {{use dmy dates}} templates at the top of articles? They do not display a banner, so they might as well go at the bottom where they are out of the way and do not confuse editors. Cheers. – PeeJay 13:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

Pozdravljen. Decembra si (brez poizkusa predhodnega dogovora oz. debate na Talk:2012–13 EHF European Cup) spremenil naslov članka "2012–13 EHF Cup" v "2012–13 EHF European Cup". Sedaj so na plan prišle informacije, da je pravilno ime tekmovanja dejanko EHF Cup in bi te prosil, da naslov članka spremeniš nazaj (vir: "Correct name of the new competition: The competition is to be called "EHF Cup"" - link: [1]). Potrebno bo tudi ugotoviti ali je članek, ki si ga ustvaril; EHF European Cup potrebno izbrisati ali ne oz. ali je trenutni EHF Cup popolnoma nov pokal ali pa le nadaljevanje starega, le v novem formatu (v najslabšem primeru se bo to ugotovilo maja 2013, ko bo okronan nov ali prvi prvak tega tekmovanja:). Lep pozdrav, Ratipok (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Bom spremenil nazaj, morem prekopirat vsebino na "2012–13 EHF Cup", obstoječo stran pa naredit redirect, ker negre več premaknit na "2012–13 EHF Cup", EHF European Cup nisem jaz ustvaril, sem pa naredil template z sezonami, ga bom dal na listo za začetku je pisalo da je to novo tekmovanje, zato so tudi naredili nov artikel za tekmovanje Matej1234 17:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, hvala. V bodoče, ko ne gre spreminjat imen člankov uporabi Wikipedia:Requested moves, saj je kopiranje nezaželjeno (verjetno boš tudi dobil kakšno sporočilo na to temo od katerega izmed administratorjev:). Za kaj več o tem tekmovanju pa bo res očitno potrebno počakat do konca sezone, ko bo EHF sama oznanila ali je bo prvak 2012/13 sezone prvi prvak tega tekmovanja ali bo le nasledil Goppingen.Ratipok (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Aja mimogrede, sem vido da si dal list of MB players za FL, pa sploh ni nobenga reviewa, isto je blo ko se je dalo NK Maribor na FA review, pa Ljudski vrt na GA, zakaj to, ostale artikle pa takoj v 1 dnevu ocenijo Matej1234 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
List of NK Maribor players trenutno ni nominiran za FL ampak le čaka na svoj Peer review. Čas v katerem ocenijo članke je odvisen od dobre volje ostalih userjev in pri tem ni nobenih pravil (lahko traja tudi dalj časa). Spisek igralcev Maribora bo verjetno ocenjen. Članek NK Maribor (GA) pa pri drugem Peer review-vu pomoje ni bil ocenjen, ker ga je en user samovoljno (pre)hitro umaknil češ, da očitno ni volje pri ostalih za oceno članka. V primeru, da članek "List of NK Maribor players" pridobi oceno FL in se pri tem pridruži članku List of NK Maribor seasons potem najverjetneje lahko nadaljujemo z NK Maribor in Europe člankom in ga uredimo kot še en list ter ga nominiramo za FL (to bi pomenilo skrajšanje in urejanje članka, ker bi bilo po mojem mnenju boljše, hitrejše in lažje kot pa imeti celotni članek - itak je lahko zgodovina teh nastopov napisana v članku History of NK Maribor:). Ob treh Featured listih bi potem lahko dvignili NK Maribor članek in ga nominirali za FA ter bi tako že izpolnjevali pogoje za Featured topic. Čeprav bi v hitrem času tudi bilo mogoče ustvariti List of Purple Warrior trophy winners in pa tudi List of NK Maribor managers (čeprav nikjer ne najdem kvalitetnih virov, ki bi bili potrebni), Ljudski vrt pa je verjetno že sedaj blizu GA vendar bi ga bilo potrebno dokončat.Ratipok (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! C679 22:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Neil Taylor (footballer), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance tags[edit]

Please stop, once and for all, messing about with maintenance and similar tags if you don't understand how to use them correctly.

At Griffin Park, you removed a refimprove tag. There's only one sentence in the whole article with a source. Why do you think the references are OK?

At Urška Hrovat, you added a use dmy dates tag, although the article had been stable in mdy format since it was created SIX years ago. Please read the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. It says "editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style". What that means is, we can't impose a particular date format just because we happen to like it.

Also at Urška Hrovat, you removed two stub tags. Most editors would think an article with only 19 words of prose, including the date-of-birth bracket, was a stub.

It says on your user page that you can communicate at a near-native level of English. If that's the case, please read what the maintenance and stub tags are for, and only add or remove them when it's genuinely appropriate to do so. And please use an edit summary each time you edit, to say what you've done and why, like "removing refimprove tag: article is well-enough referenced" or whatever the case is. If you have to summarise your edit as "removing refimprove tag despite article only having one sentence with a citation", you might think twice about making the edit at all...

I'm sorry about the tone of this message. But several different people on your talk page have warned you about improper maintenance tag edits, and you show no sign of taking any notice. Much of your editing is constructive and useful. Please don't spoil it. Struway2 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to echo Struway2's comments, I have seen three inappropriate removals of maintenance templates at Primož Peterka, Peter Žonta and Jernej Damjan from your edits today. Particularly with the first one, use dmy is descriptive and not prescriptive, changing it is not within the bounds of project guidelines. Also removing the "no footnotes tag", when none continue to exist, is counter-productive to the project. I feel you really make a great contribution, but due to these bizarre edits, which you continue to make without edit summaries or any kind of discussion, any further behaviour of this kind will have to go to WP:ANI. Thanks, C679 21:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. C679 11:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please consider this a final warning - if you continue to remove maintenance tags, you will be blocked from editing. GiantSnowman 14:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013 (continued)[edit]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dejan Perić, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. I can only assume you're doing this with the intention of being disruptive, or to see if anyone's still watching. A single-sentence article with only external links should have a stub tag and should have a no-footnotes tag. Struway2 (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Rok Tičar, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Please stop doing this. The {{use dmy dates}} tag is for use on articles that ALREADY USE dmy-format dates. Where an article has been stable since its creation in the month-first format, it is disruptive to change the dates to day-first and then add the use-dmy tag. Please read the second paragraph of WP:MOSNUM, the section of the Manual of Style that deals with dates, and the section WP:DATERET. Struway2 (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Urška Žganec[edit]

Hi Matej1234, this message to let you know that Urška Žganec left ŽNK Rudar Škale sold to Chiasiellis in Italy playing the Serie A femminile championship 2012/13.--Nipas (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Slovenian football clubs founding years[edit]

Hello, i noticed many new articles for defunct slovenian football clubs in the last time and most of them seems correct. But I think there is a problem about some clubs and that there shouldn't be two articles about the same club. There I have in mind specially Factor and Triglav. I don't know where and how the assocciation got those dates, but i think they are somehow not correct. The problem is that those clubs have a competition continuation and are different cases as Olimpija or Ljubljana. Interblock was supposely formed in 2007, so please explain how is it possible for a new formed club to start competing in a first league. The same thing for Triglav, how is it possible for a new formed club Triglav Kranj to compete (and win) in second league 1997, when the club was just formed that year.Linhart (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The case of NK Factor Ljubljana is wrong. NK Interblock is the same club as Factor and is treated as such by the Football Association of Slovenia. When Pečečnik took ownership of Factor he simply changed the name (and colours+logo) of the club after his company. We might say that Interblock is a sponsorship name. In my opinion NK Factor article should be deleted and all edits within the Interblock article reverted to its previous state as they were obviously conducted without references. The case about NK Triglav Kranj is somewhat puzzled. The Football Association of Slovenia in fact treats this club as founded in 1997. I am not sure if the club has a competition continuation of some club before, but I do believe that Triglav is a product of a merger between two clubs. Though in this case, Linhart, I believe you are only referring to a foundation year within the article as I do not see another article regarding Triglav?Ratipok (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I have just saw that Football Association of Slovenia now treats Interblock as a club founded in 2007 (link: [2]). I am not sure when that occured, but I am farily confident that this is a recent change by them. Little confused about his one now.Ratipok (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that if BOTH the official website of Interblock and NZS consider Interblock as the new club, there should be two different articles...there was the same situation with Red Bull in the Austrian Bundesliga, it is considered as the new club by their own website Matej1234 (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually its a bit different with RB Salzburg. When Red Bull took over they declared they are a new club, but then the Austrian FA declared that if they are a new club they have to start the competition in the lowest rank/league and RB changed their mind. That is why I am almost certain that in all official papers they use the old foudnation years, because they must. Anyway, the Interblock foundation year on the official website of Slovenian FA is a recent change. I am not sure why (what was the reason?) did they changed it though.Ratipok (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
About Interblock. Where did you find that their web site states 2007 as a founding year? Also again, chech this. NZS is (at least) in this case wrong.

About Triglav. In january 1997 Triglav (3.league) merged with Naklo (2.league). The merged club (if it continues to play in the same level) must be always considered as a contiuation of one club, or both. Linhart (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If Naklo merged into Triglav, then NK Naklo (defunct) should have 1997 as their dissolvement date at the first place, but they continued to play competitive games until 2010? NZS states that Trigalv was formed in 1997, thats mean that there were obviously some problems (finances?) with either Naklo or Triglav, they didnt merge just for fun. Well about Interblock, I noticed that their really had mentioned Factor in "History" section, but so does Naklo, Kovinar Maribor, Šmartno, Olimpija etc., all dissolved/newly founded clubs kept their own history, but NZS officialy didnt, then NK Šmartno 1928 should be deleted and merged with NK Šmartno ob Paki, they consider themself as the same club, same with Kovinar, Izola etc. Matej1234 11:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Šmartno, Kovinar, Olimpija started again from lowest league, Factor not. Šmartno, Kovinar, Olimpija were new legal subjects, Factor not. It is definetly not the same case! Linhart (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Because Factor did not have any problems with finances, breaking the rules etc. so there were no reason to throw them into 5th league...especially not after some rich guy invest money into PrvaLiga with Interblock...I dont know why is it that big deal with two articles, everyone knows Factor as the old club from Šiška, while Interblock is known as the cup winners and rich club...they literally changed EVERYTHING, not only the name...
What "everyone knows" is here not important, but what actually is. Thi s "everyone"'s knowligde is also false, because Factor was never a club from Šiška, but from Ježica. Factor always played their home matches in Ježica for almost 30 years, but when the NZS brought in stricter regulations they started using ŽŠD in Šiška for their senior team matches only (team has still trained and younger selection played in Ježica). The nickname Šiškarji is also evidently fail. Everyone in Ježica knows that. The only club from Šiška was always Železničar Ljubljana. If Joc changed everything when he came to the club it does not mean it is a new club, it means just that it is a club, which has changed everything. You simply cannot create a new club and start competing in first league. Explain that, how a completely new formed club Interblock started competeing in first league.Linhart (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no written rule anywhere in Football Association of Slovenia that could prevent a new club to start in the First division if competition officials allow it, Mura 05 started in the 3rd league and not 5th (Yes there were lower leagues in Murska Sobota at that point) was about money in Interblock case, if I create a new club instead of Aluminij for example and invest a few millions in the club, it would be the same. Factor was NOT dissolved because of money problems, as far as I know only clubs that lost competition licence because of finances (they are usually dissolved soon) are thrown into lower leagues (Nafta, Drava), Factor did not lose anything, and I think the First League was already in progress at that point, they could not just throw Interblock to the 5th league in the middle of the season, finishing with 9 only clubs means no European competitions according to UEFA rules. Matej1234 (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
FACTOR WAS NOT DISSOLVED. For the third time: Explain this.
This is registered as company and has nothing to do with football, NZS cant dissolve nobody from that register, they can be registered as company but not as registered football club in Football Association's own register...for example, on that site Celje was registered in 2002, while Maribor and Olimpija are not registered at all...
You must be regstered as a company to compete in leagues under NZS. Celje made a by-pass. Maribor and Olimpija are there: and Linhart (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Fine, lets do it like Salzburg then, 1975 founding year, 2007 refounded as Interblock...but Triglav is registered in 2000 according to, so its a new club, no doubts here. Matej1234 (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I agree. Lets do that for Factor and lets leave triglav for now. As far as I understand Živila Triglav were legal succesor of Naklo and then the club also made a by-pass in 2000 registering as ND Triglav 2000. Linhart (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

re:NK Maribor players[edit]

S pomočjo administratorja strani so bile tvoje ugotovitve napak sedaj popravljane. V kolikor najdeš nove mi javi in se bodo spremenile. Lep pozdrav, Ratipok (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hvala, nevem sicer če bojo upoštevali tole, ampak Velikonja ima en gol v prvenstvu preveč, ker v uradnem zapisniku prvelige in vseposod drugje (rtvslo, sportal, večer itd.) so na tekmi Maribor-Gorica julija 2011 registrirali kot avtogol goriškega igralca, na pa je zapisano da je zadel Velikonja, tudi stran prvelige ima podatke 48 tekem in 20 golov, na pa 21 golov
Igralec Štefan Tolič ima tudi mislim da dva vnosa (enkrat Tolič Štefan, drugič Štefan Tolič), ampak samo pri zadetkih, kar ni takšen problem kot pri nastopih Matej1234 (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Bo urejeno;) LPRatipok (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Spasoje Bulajič in Spasoje Bulajić pri zadetkih Matej1234 (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, hvala:) Ratipok (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Ma to sploh ni panike. Sem pač dal, da se posodablja enkrat (ali dvakrat) letno, ker je potem lažje vse skupaj spreminjat. Tako se je pri individualnih spremembah dogajalo, da so zadeve bile posodobljene v tabeli niso pa bile v prvem delu. Ratipok (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Bom počasi znova dal nominirat NK Maribor players. Verjetno je res boljše, da se updejta samo enkrat letno med poletjem, saj so nekateri igralci že blizu 100 uradnih nastopov in je potem potrebno med sezono vsakič spreminjat uvod in tabelo. Lp, Ratipok (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Nimam pojma za Fridla. Bom tudi sam spisal še kakšen članek, ampak komaj jutri, ker ta vikend nisem imel časa. 18 rdečih linkov še je. Če bi to spravila na deset bi bilo super (vsaj za tiste igralce, ki so igrali slovensko ligo, ker je več kot dovolj referenc na netu). Lep pozdrav, Ratipok (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Torej kaj praviš.. Naj za prejšnjo sezono uporabljamo "the double" ali "the treble"? Ratipok (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Popravljanje wiki linkov[edit]

Pozdravljen. Opažam, da večkrat popravljaš wiki linke (primer: [RTV Slovenija] -> [Radiotelevizija Slovenija|RTV Slovenija] ali [SFR Yugoslavia] -> [Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia|SFR Yugoslavia] itd.). To dejanko ni potrebno saj skrajšana imena v vsakem primeru vodijo do glavnih člankov in so zato tudi bila ustvarjena. Tako si npr. danes spremenil en wiki link v članku NK Maribor players, ki je v statusu kandidature za Featured list in je že bil pregledan in kljub temu ni bilo omenjeno, da bi link bilo potrebno spremenit kar le kaže, da je uporaba skrajšanih imen tudi pravilna in ni nezaželjena. Lp, Ratipok (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Kaj zdaj, ko je List of Maribor players v pregledu za FL, se lahko updata nastope/gole ? Matej1234 15:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Se lahko (napiši samo kaj si delal za boljši pregled - npr. "Stats update - correct as of 16 March.."). Trenutno so nezaželjene le večje vsebinske spremembe (itak pa te niso potrebne, ker je članek bolj ali manj končan:). LpRatipok (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Pozdravljen. Še enkrat, popravljanje linkov NI potrebno. V linku je lahko prazen "language" ali "author" saj na nič ne vpliva. "Publisher" se skoraj izključno uporablja pri internetnih straneh medtem, ko se "work" uporablja pri citiranju knjig. Obenem je potrebno vedet, da "cite web" in "cite news" ni ista zadeva. Tvoj edit v članku NK Maribor players je bil povrnjen v prvotno stanje. Lep pozdrav, Ratipok (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Pozdravljen. Razumem koncept "cite web" in "cite news" in sem opazil, da sem pri vstavljanju profilov igralcev napačno copy/pastal in uporabljal "cite news", vendar sem to sedaj popravil. Lep pozdrav, Ratipok (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Saj se verjetno zavedaš, da tisti presledki ne pomenijo praktično nič pri velikosti članka, ki je še vedno skoraj 50,000? Ker svoj edit si obrazložil s tem, da je drugače članek prevelik, čeprav je izbris presledkov le malenkost zmanjšal celotno zadevo in celotna stran se nalaga z enako hitrostjo kot prej. Meni sicer ni problem, ker mi je vseeno, v kolikor pa moti tebe... Lp, Ratipok (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Pri 36 ligaških, 5 pokalnih, 10+ evropskih in okrog 10 prijateljskih se pozna, po sezoni se še komentarji pobrišejo (pri igralcih), in se skupaj pridobi najmanj 15,000 bajtov kar je ogromno. Artikel naj bi skupno imel manj kot ~95,000 zaradi ljudi, ki so na počasnih povezavah ali mobilnih napravahMatej1234 (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


Hi there MATEJ, AL from Portugal here,

i'd like to propose a compromise in the categories of footballers, as i see you constantly undoing me in several Slovenian footballers: first we should add PERSONAL stuff (year of birth, living people, X people of Y descent, etc), then his player position, then the leagues and clubs in which he played (by order), then his international stuff (example "Slovenian international footballers" followed by the competitions he appeared in), and finally the expatriate things.

Can we PLEASE reach a compromise? Thank you for your attention, happy weekend - --AL (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  • No reply? Sorry to bother you. --AL (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did to Bright Addae, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 16:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

NK Branik[edit]

Od kod črpaš informacije pri spremembah članka? Obstajajo kakšni kredibilni viri, ki nimajo povezave s samim Branikom? Vse spremembe sem spremenil nazaj, dokler the virov ni. Lp, Ratipok (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Knjiga ob 100 letnici društva Branik, nisem prepričan kako se citirajo knjige ker še nisem delal s tem na wikipediji, bom probal kasneje citirat Matej1234 (talk)
Obstaja še kakšen kredibilen vir okrog tega? Ker lastne publikacije niso vredne nič. Tudi Ljubljana je včasih objavljala publikacije o nasledstvu Hermesa, propadla Olimpija o nasledstvu Ilirije, nova Olimpija dandanes trdi, da je še vedno isti klub kot propadla itd. Vemo, da ni tako. Dokler ne bo kredibilnega vira, ki bi potrjeval nove domneve in informacije do takrat pač ne moremo spreminjati članka. Dejansko še je najbolj kredibilen vir v samem članku tisti od Večera, ki jasno in glasno omenja kdaj je klub propadel. Lp, Ratipok (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Saj pa piše, da je bil klub refounded 1961 tako da je 2x bil razpuščen, poglej si Slovenian Republic Football League sezone in boš videl, da branik igra še najmanj 6 sezon v prvi ligi med 1960-1978, Branik je bil izključen iz lig za nekaj časa + vsi igralci so zapustili klub in odšli v železničar ali nk maribor, ni pa klub bil dejansko razpuščen, oz. tudi če je bil so ga oživeli manj kot leto dni po kazni. Potem je treba tudi olimpiji iz 1911 spremeniti tam nekje na ~1950, ko je nastal nk enotnost oz. odred

Tukaj piše (, da se je klub med 1975 in 1981 združil z NK Mariborom Matej1234 (talk)

Kako lahko neko združevanje traja 6 let? V istem linku tudi piše "Najuspešnejši mariborski nogometni kolektiv NK Maribor se je leta 1988 pridružil našim klubom in uradno prevzel ime NK Maribor-Branik.", iz česa gre razbrati, da se NK Maribor ni združil z nobenim nogometnim klubom (kar je tudi res, kolikor je meni znano), ampak je le postal član MŠD Branik ("se je pridružil našim klubom"), ki tedaj ni imela športnega kluba v nogometu. Ne razumem, zakaj je potrebno hitet in editirat na silo, če pa ni nobenega konsenza. Lp, Ratipok (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Zato, ker se za 1961–1978 branik ne splača delati novega artikla, in klub ni bil prisiljeno ukinjen, npr. zaradi financ (olimpija, mura), ampak so bili samo izključeni iz lige in ostali brez vsega Matej1234 (talk)
Imaš vire, ki bi to podprli in ki so nevtralni? Edini takšen vir je tisti od Večera, ki govori "zaradi zloglasne afere "driska", ko so se zastrupili nogometaši Karlovca, s katerim so tekmovali za uvrstitev v drugo ligo, pa so morali 11. avgusta 1960 klub razpustiti." [3] In ta link dejansko govori, da je klub bil prisilno ukinjen. Lp, Ratipok (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Tale link od Večera je itak skregan z logiko, ker pišejo, da so 1.SSK Maribor, FD Maribor in NK Branik isti klubi, potem takem če se upošteva ta vir, mora biti "founded" 1919 in ne 1949 Matej1234 (talk)

Ta članek nikjer ne govori, da sta SSK Maribor in FD Maribor isti klub (tudi link na strani MŠD Branika, na katere se zanašaš, govori o ustanovitvi FD Maribora šele po vojni - [4]. Sicer pa govoriš, da je Večerov članek skregan z logiko in ne omenjaš istega za še Branikov članek, na katerega se zanašaš (in sicer [5]). Ta govori o tem, da

  • "V obdobju 1975 do 1981 je funkcijo predsednika MŠD Branik opravljal Miro Posega, funkcijo podpredsednikov pa Mirko Fajdiga in Bojan Kovačič, MŠD Branik je v tem obdobju neposredno združeval 12 klubov, posredno pa še tri: kolesarski, smučarski in teniški klub, ki so delovali kot samostojne pravne osebe. TO obdobje je bilo začetno obdobje po sprejetju portoroških sklepov. Nogometni klub Branik se je združil z NK Maribor.'"

..letnica torej ni omenjena nikjer (sicer se bi naj to zgodilo med leti 1975 in 1981 - ti trdiš 1978) in ob koncu istega članka še..

  • "Najuspešnejši mariborski nogometni kolektiv NK Maribor se je leta 1988 pridružil našim klubom in uradno prevzel ime NK Maribor-Branik."

Torej članek prvo govori o združitvi NK Branika in NK Maribora, ki ni obeležena v nobenem viru razen v publikacijah MŠD Branika, potem pa vse skupaj konča z izjavo, da se je NK Maribor (bojda deset let po združitvi NK Branika in NK Maribora) pridružil MŠD Braniku. Ta takrat očitno ni imela nogometnega kolektiva v svoji športni organizaciji in je to bilo mogoče. Kaj se je torej zgodilo z klubom, ki bi naj nastal (omenjaš letnico 1978) ob združitvi NK Branika in NK Maribora?? NK Maribor ima priznano kontinuacijo vse od 12. decembra 1960. NZS uporablja letnice združitev klubov kot ustanovitvene v takih primerih. Zakaj ni niti enega kredibilnega vira, ki bi govoril o združitvi NK Branika in NK Maribora (razen publikacij MŠD Branika)?

  • Še en Večerov vir [6] govori, da so Branik razpustili po aferi leta 1960 in kasneje ustanovili NOV klub, ki bi naj deloval petnajst let in je znova propadel.
  • Članek v Dnevniku govori o razpustitvi Branika leta 1960 [7]..
  • Članek Ekipa govori o razpustitvi Branika leta 1960 in ustanovitvi NOVEGA kluba leto dni kasneje, ki pa je potem tudi vmes propadel.. [8]

Dejansko vsi članki govorijo, da je NK Branik bil leta 1960 razpuščen in je članek torej pravilno zapisan. Vsi novi Braniki, ki bi naj nastali po tem letu pa pravno-formalno niso imeli povezave z Branikom, ki je razpadel leta 1960. Zaradi mene lahko ustvariš nov članek in ga preimenuješ NK Branik (1961-197x..ali kakorkoli že), ampak kredibilnih virov, ki potrjujejo, da je datum o propadu NK Branika, 11. avgust 1960, točen in sam članek pravilno zapisan je dovolj. Kredibilnih virov, ki bi potrjevali združitev NK Branika (sicer ne tistega, ki je obstajal do razpustitve leta 1960) in NK Maribora pa ni. Ob vseh dodatnih virih bom članek sedaj tudi spremenil nazaj na prvotno stanje (sem pa dodal nekaj dodatnih informacij). Lp, Ratipok (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (1999–2000 Slovenian Third League) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating 1999–2000 Slovenian Third League, Matej1234!

Wikipedia editor Narvekar ameya just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This page is reviewed

To reply, leave a comment on Narvekar ameya's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Slovenian help needed[edit]

Hello Matej, I'm contacting you because we need some Slovenian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on sl.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Slovenian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

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. Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Marko Vukčević (footballer). Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Individual Maribor seasons - Infoboxes[edit]

You have removed the old version infoboxes for NK Maribor seasons articles, stating "Infobox instead of table as requested". Who requested the change and where did the request itself took place (a link to the, presumably, a talk page please). Thanks, Ratipok (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Eden izmed administratorjev je artikel označil za clean-up (Link), v Football Club season manual of style (Wiki ProjectFootball) je navedeno, da morajo artikli uporabiti Infobox da ustrezajo wikipedia standardom (Link2)Matej1234 (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Jan Oblak[edit]

Hi there MATEJ, AL from Portugal,

you don't want to talk to me OK, have not done anything to you but that's fine. You can, however, ask anyone in WP and they will tell you that the city of birth does not come in intro, but in early storyline. Please don't insert it again if you please; also, player has not played in ANY official games with Benfica A, he is playing with S.L. Benfica B in Segunda Liga, so don't re-add that "1" to his Benfica field in box.

Thank you --AL (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Mattythewhite (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

2013–14 NK Zavrč season[edit]

Hi Matej, I understand from your edit summaries why you feel that this season should be redirected and there are potentially grounds for this per WP:NSEASONS. However, this is a bold move relating to a current season which falls within the guidelines set by NSEASONS for potentially a separate article. I think it is better to have a full discussion on the talk page and establish consensus and / or allow time for the the article to be improved. Fenix down (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Livescores and live updates[edit]

Hi. Based on Wikipedia policies and guidlines we should not provide livescores and live updates. This based on WP:LIVESCORES and WT:FOOTY consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#Live scoring and it has also been discussed many more times. This also applies to tables and list such as top goalscorers and other match info, which you can also read about at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#Live updates (again). Please wait until matches are finished before adding the statistics. Wikipedia is not for livescoring and should wait for update until sources are updated. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Cristiano Ronaldo, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. I have told you about live updating QED237 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Oscar edit[edit]

Sorry about that - I meant to copy/paste just the image but ended up grabbing other stuff in the article. Mosmof (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

ND Gorica[edit]

As you and others were so strict about editing founding years of slovenian clubs (Triglav, Olimpija etc), I expect you or someone else to edit ND Gorica article with a year 2003 and to erase all the titles won before that. Linhart (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • This has to be a mistake by NZS, Gorica was not dissolved/excluded in 2002/2003 like ALL other clubs which have seperated articles, here Link it says 1992 and not 2003. Also, the official website of the Slovenian PrvaLiga (which is run by NZS) has statistics from 1991/92 onwards for Gorica, while Olimpija's statistics are from 2009–. Matej1234 (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • They made a by-pass in 2003. This is the correct one:
      • But they didnt start in the 5th league like other clubs, same as Factor/Interblock situation, they were even champions in their first season after by-pass. Actually I have no problem merging ALL dissolved/current clubs together, but only if ALL clubs would have been merged, so good luck proposing to merge NK Olimpija Ljubljana (defunct) and NK Olimpija Ljubljana (2005)...I dont know much about Rangers F.C. situation for example, but it looks like it is treated as the same club on Wiki Matej1234 (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I know that they didn't start in fifth league, but that is not so important, becouse the main reasoning was that there is new legal entity and that the new year is written on the officiall NZS site and both goes also for Gorica. And for the league continuation, it will be so much harder for NZS to explain how the new formad club could win the first league the same season, bt this is, afterall, ther own statement. For Rangers, Fiorentina and many serbian clubs I know of, there is only one article, because wikipedia articles are about subjects and the subject in football is a club, not a legal entity. And I know very well that the main point in this debate is Olimpija, that is also why I'm giving those (sarcastic) proposal in the first place. If those, who want to have to articles about Olimpija, want to be strict and principled, then they should make the second Gorica article, otherwise it's only showing their personal frustration about one club. If there were no "Olimpija case", I bet that there wouldn't be two articles about Izola, Drava, Ljubljana, Mengeš etc. either. Linhart (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Well you simply cant add "1911" to the Club's foundation year if the club went bankrupt in 2004...then, you should change NK Maribor foundation to 1949, it really doesnt matter if they were forcefully disbanded in 1960, its the same club. And no, other non-Slovene clubs also has seperated articles, for example MK Dons and Wimbledon F.C. and many more. Matej1234 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Wimbledon is a bad example, the club was relocated, it wasn't bankrupt. I don't know all the situations about all clubs, but show me an example where the club went bankrupt and started again the same year and that there are two articles. I think in most cases there aren't. And for Maribor, I don't care about heir foundation date, but the CLUB ITSELF put 1960, so there is no dispute. Linhart (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
            • You can propose merging Olimpija 2005 and defunct Olimpija at WikiProject Football, but there is 99% that it wont get merged, this was discussed for many times on talk pages, two clubs are simply different subjects and need to have 2 articles, you cant merge defunct subject with the current active one, this is like I dont know, merging Slovenia with SFR Yugoslavia or something. Matej1234 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
              • No, I won't propose that, i know how are the odds. Therefore I, once more, propose dividing ND Gorica in to two separate articles.Linhart (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
              • The situation here is different than Olimpija, its just a bypass and not disband, if I create a new article for 2003 Gorica then NK Factor/NK Interblock would need two articles as well Matej1234 (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
                • Well... probably yes, unfortunately. But when there will be two articles about Gorica and Factor, maybe someone will realize that we don't need so many articles afterall. (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
                  • Actually there should be at least three Gorica articles in that case, ND Gorica (1947–1992), ND Gorica (1992–2003) and ND Gorica (2003), this wont happen, BUT I support merging clubs which only had a bypass (Triglav) and were NOT disbanded/pushed into 5th league, the problem is that I dont know which clubs had a bypass and which were legally dissolved. Matej1234 (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
                    • But bypass means exactly that, the old club was legaly dissolved. That if some club was pushed into fifth league (or third like Mura, what there?) has no meaning, that only depends on the good will of the league organization. Some clubs (Zavrč, Svoboda etc) were pushed into fifth league, but were not legally dissolved at all. Leagues are not the factor here.Linhart (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
                      • Zavrč was pushed from 2nd to 5th league by their owner for some reasons, they did not have a bypass and were not dissolved Matej1234 (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
                        • Yes, but in the last instance it's irrelevent by whom, Svoboda and Jadran were pushed from NZS. So... if the club is pushed to fifth league (doesn't matter by whom) and doesn't found a new legal subject it is ok, it is the same club. If the club founds new legal subject and fderation accepts new founding date (so to say, has a bypass and is dissolved) and the new subject continues to play in same league, it is ok, it is the same club. But if the club founds new leagal subject and fderation accepts new founding date and is pushed into fifth league, then it is not the same club. Very strange logic for me.Linhart (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
                          • As someone on SNPortal mentioned, it has to do something with renaming from NK to ND Gorica, the club was not bankrupt, did not have any debt and compeltely normally finished the 2002–03 season, same as Factor in 2006 when it was change of name and ownership, but NZS claims its a new club Matej1234 (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
                            • Of course they had huge debt, HiT left them a year ago... but that is not the point. Point is that NK Gorica went bankrupt and ND Gorica was formed. Olimpija also "completely normally" finished 2004/05 season and "renamed" to NK Bežigrad. Factor, on the other hand, is wrong, as you can see on The reason for 2006 is (in my wiev) that NZS wanted to blur some mahinations from before, rgarding Črnuče etc, it has no relevance in this story.Linhart (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

And why do we care about NZS afterall? Why don't we care about UEFA, it is superior, and it has only one Olimpija.

  • Because most of the references says 2005, look at the Olimpija's page, there are at least 5 references which says 2005...on Wiki, there should be only sourced material and not original research, but if you find at least three more reliable references (beside Olimpija's official website, of course) where it says "1911" as club's foundation, then make a merge request and I will give you support on that. Matej1234 (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • UEFA, siol, soccerway... And for me, it is not about Olimpija, I simpy hate those articles, when i see two Pirans, Šmartnos and others, according to wikipedia Slovenia has practicly the most dissolved clubs. It is becoming absurd.Linhart (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
      • But that's how it is, literally half of the clubs have been dissolved in the 1990's...and some clubs do not lie about their foundation, just like NK Brinje-Grosuplje, they have 2003 in their badge and also mentioned on their website that they were foudned in July 2003, same goes with Šentjur etc., while at the other hand, some clubs like Olimpija just cant accept the fact that they were dissolved due to their own faults Matej1234 (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Brinje is an exception, if the club wants to have new date it is ok. But all others still use old years on badges and websites. It is nothing special for post-socialist transition states for clubs to be dissolved, check out russian clubs or serbian on wiki, there is always one article and if the club was refounded, it is mentioned there. It is not a lie, it is just common practical non-limited way of looking at things.Linhart (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Fine, propose a merge at Olimpija' talk page with all details and references, I'll support it. But until Olimpija is merged, all other clubs will stay like they are now, it would be even more absurd and biased if all clubs gets merged, but Olimpija stays with 2 articles, thats why this needs to get done first. Other clubs merge, especially small ones like Piran etc. would have been no problem, but I bet that Olimpija would get some opposition. Matej1234 (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
              • Yes, I know, that's why I have no will to contribute to wikipedia. There are so many things that are wrong (ŽŠD still being the only stadium without recognized national team matches etc), things get changed and erased just becouse of some "sources", that someone has time to find, allthough it is wrong. I will leave it to someone else and the time will tell.Linhart (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
                • ŽŠD / Bežigrad / Slovenia natioanl team stadium statistics are fixed now Matej1234 (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
At the time Gorica made a bypass it was legal (it wasn't ethical but it was legal). Whoever wants to create a separate article about Gorica can present his/her case on the article's talk page and disscuss the matter there. Couple of years later rules have changed and the old Olimpija, Ljubljana and Mura weren't allowed to do this and were dissolved as they couldn't pay off their debts. In fact, the old Olimpija has also made a bypass before they eventually folded and were dissolved. This was during the late 1990s under chairman Zidar (bypass was also made by some other clubs). In ice hockey we have the newest example. Olimpija ice hockey club under chairman Sekelj once made a bypass and "ereased" their debts which was legal, at the time. Recently Jesenice folded, though, if bypass would be legal they would certainly used it to save the club. The UEFA part regarding Olimpija has no real value. UEFA uses domestic correspondents for each of their 50+ members. Rok Šinkovc's view on the matter is his own. Regarding domestic football UEFA is not above the Slovenian Football Association. The latter needs to apply to the domestic (Slovenia) legislation, which UEFA doesn't. Ratipok (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Btw. Why have you, Matej1234, deleted a big chunk of the Olimpija 2005 lead? A wiki lead should be a summarization of everything within the article below. Ratipok (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Summary yes, but text in the lead and in history section was literally the same, in the lead it should only be mentioned when the club was founded, in which league they play, how many trophies they won etc. and not detailed explanation of how olimpija is stealing other club's history and should not use 1911 etc. Matej1234 (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Park mladeži[edit]

Please don't move the stadium article, Croatian stadiums articles are all titled "Stadion XX", let's keep it consistent that way. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

They can, but generally speaking, we tend to name these articles so that we have consistency across venues in any given country. Croatian ones follow the example of French and Italian stadiums which are all titled in French/Italian, whereas Slovenian ones are all translated into English. Timbouctou (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Stadium prods[edit]

I saw you were prodding a lot of articles about stadiums. I removed the one for Slavija Stadium and then redirected that article to NK Slavija Vevče. And then I noticed more. Some might well not be notable, but for many, shouldn't they be redirected to the team when notable, if the stadium is referenced in the article about the team? Nfitz (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Ah yes, if there's any useful content other than the team, name, and capacity, that would make sense! Nfitz (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


When editing the 2013–14 NK Maribor season you need to look at the total stats for PrvaLiga attendance (here: ) and then update the article and tha match section (attendance). The report section attendance number is NOT official but is only a report of the STA (Slovenska Tiskovna Agencija) and nothing more (the attendance number there is usually a speculation of the writer). You added 6,000 for Maribor vs Olimpija match and totaled that in the infobox total PrvaLiga number which was then given at 45,900. But if you see the OFFICIAL total attendance number for Maribor (the first link) you actually see the total attendance is 45,600. NK Maribor official website actually uses the OFFICIAL PrvaLiga number for attendance on that match and its set at 5,500 (link: ). I have put the number in the match section as 5,700 (so the total number and individual match-by-match number are equal). I imagine 5,500 number is correct but you have probably used STA reports numbers in some previous edits and the real wrong number is in a different match section (now, who know which). Regards, Ratipok (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The top report ([9]) are the official stats of the PrvaLiga, the bottom are the stats from the club. The match report (article) of the same match on the official PrvaLiga site are from STA (1,350 [10]), however, the PrvaLiga doesn't use the STA numbers as official, as you can see on the top report. The total attendance record can be seen here [11]. Who knows why PrvaLiga decided against the attendance numbers in the match sections (where they used to be). It only generates confusion. Ratipok (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit Summaries[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForrestLyle (talkcontribs) 18:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Dob 2014–15 Slovenian PrvaLiga[edit]

Hello Matej1234 Dob has won the league but has financial problems.Where dob will play next year?1.SNL or 2.SNL?

The team is on the 2014–15 Slovenian PrvaLiga page. Regards-- (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Slovenian football[edit]

Hello Mate1j234 i don't understand your recently contributions about NK ZAVrc players and i revert.

These pages are stubs(not Half done) about fully professional footballer (see the list) with transfmarkt information +references(soccerway).

Where i'm doing mistakes, vandalism, errors?

If i'm doing errors please write in my talk page and tell me about the errors.

Also see your Enis Đurković, Jaka Ihbeisheh, Andraž Žurej and my former creations, where is the difference?

I'm not the perfect wikipedian but i'm not a vandall I'm waiting your reply Cheers and good week--Lglukgl (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok i will add ex.links and other tips also what about the stadium?

I've created 2.SNL and 3.SNL stadium and 2.Snl and 3.SNL are professional but you have deleted these pages. Why they aren't notable?--Lglukgl (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I thinked that slovenian football was in a good financial situation but i know that Koper has many many many financial problems also i 've read a interwiew about Ankaran (2.snl) and a italian players says that in Slovenia the clubs pay as welll (+accommodation and meals).

Strange so are Mengbwa Hyacinthe Akamba and Ousmar Koli professional players or they have find a work in Slovenia?Sorry to bother you about my curiosity about slovenia

If ŠRC Katarina isn't notable why The Sports Ground, Stompond Lane(400capacity) is notable?

Cheers--Lglukgl (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Matej1234

Who has won today the important match (Krka Radomje) today ? Krka or radomje?

Who will play in 2014-2015 1SNL? Cheers--Lglukgl (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks strange these rejected.--Lglukgl (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Dob and Radomje are losing a great oppurtunity

merging or deleting[edit]

There are two articles of identical content but with discrepancies.

I'm contacting you 'cause I've seen you've been working on that article. Articles in question are: Yugoslav Volleyball League & Yugoslav Volleyball Championship

User that created the other article (you haven't been working on) is — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Jan Oblak[edit]

Your source is just as good as newspapers interviews. Yes, he's going to Atletico Madrid but it's not official yet. Fixed4u (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Official. Fixed4u (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello. Whats your very best argument against using/having match events written in chronological order, as in this example click? Regards, Ratipok (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Miroslav Čovilo[edit]

As I wrote on TalkPage of that article surname is Čovilo (not Ćovilo). I can't change the name of article so it would be good you to do that.--Марко Рајковић (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Changed Matej1234 (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)