User talk:Nlsanand

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


Hello, Nlsanand, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  andy 21:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coppa Italia[edit]

hi. i think if we have "The final is played over two legs using the aggregate scores." in the Coppa Italia article, we should probably address golden/silver goals and the away goals rule in the same space... but i dont know those things off the top of my head. any idea? Nateji77 08:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Toronto bus lines[edit]

Please do not remove the deletion tag from an article undergoing an AfD discussion. You are welcome to participate in the AfD discussion. Any comments you place on the talk pages will likely be ignored when it comes to deciding whether to keep or delete these articles. Atrian 05:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if I implied that I will be judging you. That is not the case. The person judging these articles will be the administrator assigned to arbitrate the AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/25 Don Mills (TTC). The consensus so far is a unanimous delete so if you want to be heard I suggest you add your 2 cents worth. Atrian 05:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientology Public Relations[edit]

This article is a joke. You can tell it's a joke by looking at the user who created it, someone who calls himself/herself "Lord Xenu." Xenu is the bad guy in Scientology mythology. Whoever created Scientology Public Relations did so out of malice, either towards Scientology or Wikipedia or both. I urge you to reconsider your vote. Respectfully, Republitarian 19:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oldest School in Scarborough[edit]

Please see the discussion on the Talk:Scarborough, Ontario page entitled Oldest school. I think what it comes down to is that Agincourt C.I. and R.H. Academy were the first schools in their respective parts of the area before Scarborough existed as a municipal entity. Atrian 13:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Football League Systems[edit]

Yeah, I'm just lowercasing the 'L' and the 'S'. I also gave it a parent category, which I'm not quite so sure of. If you know of a better place for it please let me know. I don't understand what you mean with your question about links, there was only an 'h' when I showed up. If you're wondering about the members, an admin will move them to the new category name as part of closing the nomination. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

B'nai B'rith[edit]

Hopefully I've cleared that up now, see talk page Talk:B'nai B'rith. --Magabund 09:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Knife crime in Glasgow[edit]

What about that article did you not see as saying there is a knifecrime problem in Glasgow? I am going to edit it again.

Please, do not vandalize my edits without giving a real reason. Nlsanand 04:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think the reference justifies the spin you are putting onto it. It would be better to discuss in talk than to continue to add it I think. Cheers. --Guinnog 05:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Stick it back in if you like; just make sure that the words you use are an accurate summary of what the link actually says, please. Can you also please be careful about using the term vandal outwith its wikipedia definition at WP:VAND; folks like myself who spend a lot of time reverting actual vandalism are unlikely to take it well. Cheers. --Guinnog 06:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I've corrected your edit again, to reflect what the link actually says. It isn't a revert but a correction. I'll post on the talk page too and you can join in if you like. --Guinnog 06:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Bilabial fricative[edit]

Check out the pages for the nasals and plosives. This is the format that I am converting to. Naturally, some information is going to be lost, but these pages aren't the place for long detailed explanations of the phonological aspects of all the languages that have these sounds. I don't know what you mean by my "interpretation" of IPA but I've been putting a lot of work changing these consonant articles and for you to accuse me of "disguising" my edits is unwarranted. Please assume good faith next time.
I've taken out Riverense again because that section is for examples with very little explanation. If you've got an example then go ahead and put it in, the page on Riverense was so disorganized that I couldn't make heads or tails of it. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you found a good example word for Riverense. I honestly don't like removing languages from these pages, especially noteable examples or sounds that don't occur very often. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You too, man. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 03:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Uvular plosive[edit]

I was going to make a request at the language reference desk or the Somali language talk page. Then I thought, well an untranslated and even untransliterated example is an even better start and in itself a pretty good call for translation so I went to a random page on the Somali Wikipedia page and looked for a word with the letter q. However, I see you've found a good example as well as transcription and translation. I hope my journey will help you out the next time you come upon a similar situation. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 08:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)



You reintroduced a link to YouTube in the article on Kimbo Slice (diff). I had previously removed it (diff) because YouTube is not considered a reliable source and does not qualify as an external link (see Wikipedia_talk:External_links#YouTube_and_related_discussions).

Sincerely, Oden 08:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

World's Smallest Political Quiz userbox[edit]

You may be interested in User:Audacity/Userboxes/WSPQ, which is a replacement for the old Political Chart userbox. The new userbox takes the two variables (economic and personal freedom), calculates which political alignment they place you into (Statist, Libertarian, Liberal, Centrist, or Conservative), and links your userpage to the appropriate category.

Please reply to User talk:Audacity, as I will not be watching your talk page. Λυδαcιτγ 07:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Streetcar lines[edit]

I added several more sites to the 501 & 502 streetcar lines, wondering if you still have an interest in improving these pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ng.j (talkcontribs) 20:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikimania 2009[edit]

Toronto Candidate City for Wikimania 2009
Wm toronto 2009.png
Support TORONTO in its bid to become the host city of WIKIMANIA 2009
The University of Toronto is the planned host site, which I see is your alma-mater!

Visit m:Wikimania 2009/Toronto for TORONTO's MetaWiki page and help build a strong bid.

-- Zanimum 16:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice of discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Talk:2012 Major League Soccer season regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

July 2012[edit]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Joe Arpaio, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Such comments do not promote a better encyclopedia. In fact, they distract from what we are seeking to accomplish. --S. Rich (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
How's it defamatory? The wording of the article clearly understes his racism. It could have been written by his press secretary. Some people on this site don't like calling a spade a spade. Given that it's a talk page and not the main page, I'd hardly suggest that it could be considered malicious. But thanks for deleting anyways. I'll assume you sympathize with this clown? Cheers Nlsanand (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Toronto FC season[edit]

I'm sorry, I should have requested confirmation after you made this edit since Toronto can still make the playoffs under some very unlikely circumstances. and among other articles will confirm this. Do you have a source to support that edit? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Your source is bad. The MLS itself states "If Toronto FC fail to take maximum points from any of their remaining matches, or if Columbus ties or wins this weekend, or even if D.C. United wins, TFC will be eliminated from playoff contention." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I did no such thing: you need to work on your reading comprehension skills --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Elimination in football/soccer[edit]

Effectively, you were correct. However, the math didn't support it. Assuming that all results went Toronto FC's way, they would have been eliminated on October 20; the date of the match you stated. Here is the formula for elimination in soccer or any sport that uses a point system. If it equals zero or a negative number, the trailing team is eliminated.

S × PPW + 1 - P1 - (MP × 3 + 1 - P2) = Magic Number/Tragic Number

  • S = The scheduled number of matches
  • PPW = How many points a victory is. Three in football, two in the NHL, etc
  • P1 = Points earned by the better team
  • MP = Matches played by the trailing team
  • P2 = Points earned by the trailing team.

Kingjeff (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your formula does not account for the fact that certain other teams play each other. In this case, it was that DCU and Columbus had to play each other and were on 41 and 42 points respectively. Since, they played each other, one of those teams would, at minimum have at least 43 points by season end. Since TFC at most could achieve 42 points, this meant they were eliminated. Your formula above does not account for it. Nlsanand (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You will need a source for the date of elimination that you have provided. Kingjeff (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:2012 Toronto FC season that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

You've been here for seven years and you don't know enough not to name call? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Troll comment was valid; you encourage Kingjeff to start an edit war, on something you knew was incorrect. I stand by my words. You were acting in bad faith. Nlsanand (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Per comment left here "i did not revert, i inserted neutral language in anticipation of this being decided by admin". The definition of a revert per WP:3RR is: "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time". So the edit I undid was a revert. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record[edit]

Note: The text below was taken from Walter Görlitz's talk page, after he deleted it. It's been shown that he's been caught in a logical fallacy on this debate. One word PWN"D. Cheers! Nlsanand (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

He's deciding to go against a sourced statement and he was disproven with mathematical logic. Kingjeff (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I had to warn you. 3RR investigation opened. Feel free to remove it with an edit summary of "understood" or something similar. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe this is vandalism on his part. The date I provided is sourced by a credible source. Kingjeff (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I understand his point and am willing to entertain that they couldn't make the playoffs prior to the Fire match, but as you state, at least four RSs (I have a second one from the CBC) state that they were officially eliminated after that match and not before, and so what you are saying is the official version. For me, they were eliminated from the playoffs after they lost the first seven straight. =) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey when you're willing to say "you'll entertain it". What does that mean? You've been editing on these boards a while and seem like a smart guy. I am just asking you in a quite stragihtforward manner. Do you think the sources that gave them a chance prior to the Fire match are correct? Doesn't that [[WP:CALC}} apply? Nlsanand (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that the sources were correct and MLS said that the were not officially eliminated prior to the Chicago game, but they had no way of making the playoffs mathematcially the weekend before. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
What? Tht doesn't make sense. "officially eliminated" has no meaning. You're either eliminated mathematically or you're not. It is black and white, either they were or they weren't. By your logic MLS site could never be wrong, since you're treating them as the authoritative source for when a team is "officially eliminated". Is this that my understanding? Nlsanand (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Silence in the peanut gallery? You know a "My bad" on your part would go a long way to restoring some street cred. Seeing as you insisted and I quote, "your math is wrong" when this shit started. Nlsanand (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


You have stated that you "didn't really fully understand the 3-revert rule." But here is what you have put in the edit summary.

"deleted Kingjeff's choice to ignore the 3 revert rule. inserted neutral wording, in anticipation of a decision from admin."

"Walter, I invoked the 3 revert rule awhile ago. I am fine for you to have this administered. I will equally point to my posts on tal."

"3 revert rule enforced. Take it to administration."

"3 revert rule enforced, read talk page. I have responded to you directly."

"reverted against 3 revert rule, see discussion page. This has been clearly demonstrated mathematically and concurred with by another poster. Until it's disproven, please do not edit this again."

Why are you quoting a rule that you don't understand? Kingjeff (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I understood the 3 revert rule to mean that you need to wait for consensus and not just get into an edit war. Once it's been reverted three times, it goes to administration. I'm not really a Wikinerd, I just like reading and contributing. Honestly, I never thought some shit like this would happen. Anyways, I'm man enough to admit when I was wrong. But you have yet to admit that your math was simply wrong. Nlsanand (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

But it's not. I even have admitted that the match counts for something. I also believe that the section from the Magic number article is wrong. The logic is that there is an impending elimination. In this case, it's October 20. Kingjeff (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Your definition of "eliminated" is confounding. Please don't bring your crazy edits to a different article. I gotta go spend some time with my wife, and don't have time to have this obnoxious conversation with you. Let me guess, you voted for Palin. Will follow up tomorrow, holla. Nlsanand (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I hold the same opinion about your definition of elimination. With your points you brought up, the logic would indicate that October 20, atthe latest, would be the elimination date. Kingjeff (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude, the math is clear. The defintion is intuitive, you're just too thick to understand, and apparently too fucking busy to read. You're like Romney, you're so used to being stupid, it almost seems natural to you now. Nlsanand (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: elimination from possibility of reaching postseason[edit]

No offense, but I think you've got the wrong guy! I looked at the revision history for that page and the only edit I made was naming some references! That is, unless, we're thinking of two different articles. I assume you're referring to this article.

Edited to add: I fall under the "official" camp. Take this example: 2012 Boston Red Sox season#Game log. It was obvious the Red Sox were going to be eliminated well before they were "officially" eliminated, but I didn't put the brown stripe denoting elimination until it was official. I take the stand that, even if a team has 10/15/20 (etc.) games left and is close to but has not been "officially" eliminated, there is still technically a possibility, even if a very miniscule one, of them winning all of their remaining games. Is it highly improbable? Yes. Is it impossible? No. For that reason, I would say wait until the elimination is considered "official."

RedSoxFan274 (talk~contribs) 22:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The difference in this case was that even if the team had won all of their remaining games, and the team in the last playoff spot had lost all of their games, TFC would still have been eliminated, as it would require the last team out of the playoffs to pass the number. So there wasn't even a miniscule chance of them qualifying. There was no chance. The trick was because two competing teams had to play each other pushing one over TFC's most possible points. Not sure if that's clear form the edits on the talk page. So in this case, it was impossible, however TFC's tragic number was one. It's discussed in magic number (sports)#subtlety Nlsanand (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, look at the definition of the word from a dictionary. That's where I got my definitions from that I placed on Talk:2012 Toronto FC season. I even put the links to the 2 definition so you and others can see what I saw. Kingjeff (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at 2012 MLS Cup Playoffs, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You are smart enough to know that what you did was wrong and I won't stand for it at all! Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

See the talk page on the article....the edits were annotated. You're off leash at this point. I think you got some issue with MLS articles based on the fact, you've been shown to be so unknowledgeable. Spare me the histrionics of the above, and can we just work on improving the article? Again, I'll go to any form of mediation with you. You were shown last time to be incorrect, that's why your push to have me sanctioned didn't work. You were in the wrong, and to simply put it, being a WP:DICK. Nlsanand (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, see the talk page. The edits had summaries, but at least three were against common practice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


Do you pronounce "fight" for the word fête ? (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't say it that way. The way I say it, it rhymes with bet.Nlsanand (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. It's pronounced "fight" in Quebec French. See (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of James River Cup for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James River Cup 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/James River Cup 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. BDD (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


You hear "tett" or "tight" ? (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Next matchday scenarios[edit]

Hello! I invite you to a new discussion on the matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios. Ivan Volodin (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[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.

Craigellachie distillery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Spey, Craigellachie and Speyside
Glen Spey Distillery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Speyside
Macduff distillery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Speyside

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 CFL season[edit]

Please stop adding irrelevant information to this article and to the standings templates for this season. No previous CFL season article has any mention of using E for eliminated teams, nor has there ever been any use of the letter Z for home field in the Semifinal. In addition none of the other five North American sports season articles use this kind of formatting either. Deadman137 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to have this info in article during the season. The reason you don't see it is because it gets removed after the end of the season when it's no longer relevant. Also, Z isn't relevant, why is Y? Nlsanand (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Nlsanand. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)