User talk:Palffy/Archive 1

The first 32KB of my talk page (May 2006 - August 2006).

Welcome

Hello, Palffy/Archive 1, 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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Ukraine-related themes, you may want to check out the Ukraine Portal, particularly the Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements and Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board. The New article announcements board is probably the most important and the most attended one. Please don't forget to anounce there the new articles you create. Adding both boards to your watchlist is probably a good idea.

Finally, in case you are interested, similar boards exist at Russia portal as many editors contribute to topics related to both countries. The respective boards there are: Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. Of course there are also many other portals at Wikipedia or you may just get right into editing.

Again, welcome! - Irpen 03:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Help

Dear Palffy, I would love to help and I will. I am not too sure how the copyright works either and many of the pictures that I uploaded where deleted.

I think that it would help to put this under the licensing.

{{fairusein|Name of player}
*It is used solely to identify the subject.
*It is released by the source specifically to promote the subject in question.

I will try to do as many as I can. Good Luck - ILDuceMas 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll try to help with the uploading as soon as I can. But in case I don't get around to it, I'll explain how to tag the images. After you add the tag

what ILDuceMas suggested, you should add a summary where you say where you got the image (what website or if you scanned it from what book) and what it depicts.

But if you want to upload an image, you must have a copyright tag like the one above or others. And if you dont, they will be deleted. But if you took the picture your self, then you add

which will say that the image is yours and you allow others to use it, and/or modify the image.

If you have any more questions, I'll be happy to help. Cheers, —DDima ^(talk) 20:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club Emblems

I'm not 100% of the copyright laws, but I think US law applies, due to the servers' location. Wikipedia:Copyrights isn't too helpful, but Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Football has no club logos, except D. Kiev, so perhaps it is allowable.

I noticed the work you'd put into the templates, so I was reluctant to revert, but you'd also deleted the cumulative table (probably accidentally). Otherwise I would have left your edit. I didn't realise there is (or may be) a different rule for Ukrainian images, so, accept my apologies if I was wrong to revert.

Slumgum | yap | stalk | 21:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my response at User:Palffy - Palffy 22:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top Chef

Thanks for the thanks. It wasn't a big deal because I did most of Project Runway and used basically the same format. Crunch 09:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian club logos

I think that Ukrainian club logos shouldn't be added to articles about Soviet competitions. First, there are copyright reasons. Ukrainian logos are not subject to copyright under Ukrainian law, but other logos (most importantly Russian) are copyrighted and thus should not appear in articles (except for fair use). So Russian (and possibly other) clubs will never have logos next to their names in the tables. IMO it's quite inconsistent to add logos to some clubs (just because you can) but not to others. The second reason is that clubs must have had different logos back in those days. Conscious 06:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manually, I think, changing {{}} to [[]]. Conscious 07:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions

For scorers, I used klisf. Go to СССР/Высшая лига and select a year. Then click on the team and you see the squad. This site is also useful for checking the old names of clubs/cities, as well as finding what's the modern name (click on a club name, then on "Club history").

ЦДКА is Центральный Дом Красной Армии, more even funnier names are at ru:ПФК ЦСКА Москва and their website. You're using rsssf, aren't you? Conscious 13:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Conscious 17:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Round16-waiting

Hello, When i created this template, I thought flags of eliminated teams would be erased from Group Stage boxes, to imagine last 16 matches more easily, because finally this template become ununsed when the last 16 are all known. You did it too early. Khardan 22:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC). Khardan 22:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC) My english is bad, like our football team, I know [reply]

Your attitude

Please don't refer to other users like Jooler as trolls. By using language like this you yourself are trolling and this is not the way to collaborate on Wikipedia. Diplomacy works much better and I'm sure you'll achieve much more in our community if you attempt to follow the simple guidelines we have such as Wikipedia:Civility. Cheers! jaco♫plane 00:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I agree. However, I believe all of my diplomacy options were exhausted at that point and I was simply frustrated. Thanks for the tip, much appreciated! --Palffy 00:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know where you're coming from, we're all frustrated around here sometimes :) Thanks for responding, I hope your experience from now on will be more fruitfull. jaco♫plane 03:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Round16-waiting again

Can you figure out how to make this so that the boxes/columns are a fixed size so that when you squishthe page horizontally you don't end up with everything stacked on on top each other? Jooler 09:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T&T

that's happened to me before too, sorry about that....cheers...Evill72 23:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why you delete??!!!

hi I think that's not a good way to delete others post, just let other sections be remain. regards Behnam Ghiaseddin 17:33, June 23, 2006 (UTC)

Because you obviously don't know much about what should go into a Wikipedia article and what shouldn't. Nor do you know how to timestamp. Ps, I'm not your friend, haha. --Palffy 21:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--that's a joke, of course I know better than you. every more information in wikipedia will help people to know more. but some one like you just want people know what you want to know!! I hope you change your way Behnam Ghiaseddin 17:18, July 17, 2006 (UTC)

Andriy Shevchenko

Hello to you too,

Please see Talk:Andriy Shevchenko before making anymore article edits to Andriy Shevchenko.

Thank you, Xioyux 17:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I must ask you a question. You think that only league goals and appearances matters. But look at allmighty Pele stats. Brazilian league started in 1970, should I erase Pele's previous stat? Of Course no, all stats counts. Alfmaster 17:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has not been decided by me. This issue has been debated previously, and officially voted on by Wikipedia's administrators not to include this info in infoboxes. --Palffy 21:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, then it's unfair choice do delete madly. It's democracy not your madness. Alfmaster 17:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing 'mad' about what I'm doing. If you have an issue with this, bring it up with someone who has previously decided on this and explain your logic. Otherwise, I am simply following what has been democratically selected previously for a footballer's infobox. I'm slightly surprised that you hadn't bothered to read what was in all of the infoboxes that you created for all of those players--and I don't think it could've been stated anymore clearly what type of information belonged there.. --Palffy 21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Goals

Is there a place where I can see the discussion regarding what should be in the infobox and what shouldn't? As while I don't think goals scored in cups should count I do think goals in european cups should count. Yonatanh 16:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I don't see how american professional sports are related to the subject at hand and how you can compare the difference between regular season and playoff games and between international competitions and national competitions. You could make the same case about the leagues. Why should a Bayern Munich striker who scores against FC Koln have this under his profile as opposed to him scoring vs. AC Milan? Or why should Thierry Henry have scoring against Sunderland and not scoring vs. Juventus. You could make the same argument both ways so I think the Intertoto shouldn't be included and the qualifying rounds shouldn't be included as usually teams who make it to the group stage aren't THAT bad and don't get defeated 8-0 like may happen on aggregate (or in one game) in the qualifying rounds (Steven Gerrard vs. TNS for example). Maybe we should make a rule that ridiculous scores shouldn't count on a player's page such as Lyon's 7-2 vs. Werder Bremen or Arsenal's 7-0 vs. Middlesbrough\Everton or Shevchenko's four goals vs. Fenerbahce? Anyway I think I've made my point. Yonatanh 01:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see the connection as american football and baseball are nothing like real football. I was being sarcastic when speaking about not adding ridiculous scores to profiles because of course they should be there. The European cups are generally at least as strong as the domestic leagues and therefore should be included in the player's profiles. Yonatanh 14:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine PD

Which of the criteria on Template:PD-UA-exempt are you claiming football club logos fall under? ed g2s • talk 19:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Ricken infobox

I don't know if I've made a convincing argument regarding the dubious information, but see here. Blur4760 10:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Zorya Luhansk.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Zorya Luhansk.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamo Kyiv

Sorry, The Dynamo Kyiv page is very confusing. Aliev is a midfielder, then they register him as a forward? Ahh, and they keep saying that they want rid of Aliev anyway. The problem is they don't update their "team page" and I thought the squad should be posted according to that, not an article. Should I edit the Squad Template to go with this article, then? [[1]]? Hopefully it's the correct "lastest update" on their squad, since Corea is seven. Xioyux 02:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they just haven't gotten around to changing their website. You are right, Aliev should be a MF, as opposed to FW, so that was mine and their mistake. But technically, Aliev is still on Dynamo's roster. As soon as he's moved, you can take him off the page.

The squad that should be posted should be the most accurate at that date. For example, if you know of a trade/signing that took place, but the site admin's haven't updated their site to reflect the move, you can do it in advance (as long as you're 100% sure the move is official). You should keep the Squad Template consistent with this as well--ie, the most accurate info to date. --Palffy 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, thanks for the help! Xioyux 03:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

I noticed on my watchlist you re-adding the ELO ratings to the clubs articles, do you think that maybe the AQB Sports Ratings should also be added. They can be found here as they seem to have, out of all the systems I have seen, the most accurate to current form top ten. Philc _T^E_C^I 16:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements

Hi Palffy! I see you are writing Ukraine-sports related articles. May I ask you to announce them at the new article announcement board of the Ukraine Portal so that other users can see them? Thanks, —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks again for your previous help. --Palffy 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If you need any more help, I'd be glad to help out. Cheers, —dima ^/sb.tk/ 22:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bordered flags

Could you *STOP* removing the "move to Commons" templates? Those flags *SHOULD* be on the Commons, where all projects can use them, not just the English Wikipedia... —Nightst a llion (?) 06:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ELO Rankings and your attitude

With regards to the above, thankyou for that rather naive comment on my talk page. I have deleted it. FYI, as and when I see fit, I shall continue to remove these unofficial rankings too unless you care to take the time and trouble to offer me a reasoned argument to the contrary. regards Marcus22 12:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go again:-

"It seems like you delete everyone's comment from your discussion page, anyways, so are you just trying to show your ignorance to others? How is it that you have a PhD again??"

I am quite happy to talk about the matter in hand but have no wish to enter into discussion with someone who freely posts such abusive and ignorant comments as the above on my page or on any other. Please endeavour to show a little maturity and do not so again.

As to the ELO rankings, I can see your point. But they are, as yet, unofficial and not recognised by FIFA. (Even if they are perhaps more 'accurate'). Thus they should not be included. Consider if someone introduced another unofficial system, and then another, and so on. Which would one include or not include? Serious question. The answer is one would be reduced to including those which one considered the 'best'. But that is precisely the POV kind of position we should not be encouraging.

Certainly were FIFA to recognise the figures they could and should stay. In the meantime they do not belong. Marcus22 15:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved comment to here so that the discussion can be kept in one place) I was just making a point that you don't like to have anything in your "Discussion" page in the first place and that your behavior doesn't equate to that of someone who holds a PhD...

To the original issue at hand, you're right in that, they're not official or sanctioned by anyone. And as you suggested, there already are many other rankings out there such as AQB Sports Ratings, etc. that rank these same teams differently. The issue is that none of these rankings rely on a method that actually mirrors a teams strength based on actual probability. The Elo Ratings do just that (read the chess Elo Rating page to see what its about). These ratings are actually the OFFICIAL ratings of several sports and the Elo Football Ratings are the analogous ratings for football teams.

Lastly, non-official ratings have been used significantly to gauge actual strength of teams--I don't know how familiar you are with American College Football and the BCS, but they have used averages of several popular non-official ranking methods in order to calculate which teams are strongest and are to play in the title games [1]. --Palffy 15:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. But please do not make presumptions on my behavoiur. I clear the talk page rather than let it clutter up. It is, after all, 'my' talk page thus I can do as I wish.

As to the ELO: as I have said, I can see your point. I do not disagree with you. But, nevertheless, the ELO rankings (and I know the system reasonably well through Chess) are not official rankings for these teams. The inclusion of these figures as opposed, say, to the AQB Ratings is thus POV and you must include AQB and other unofficial figures as well in order to avoid this accusation. Far easier IMHO to simply remove the ELO rankings until such time as they are recognised. I guess the choice is yours. Marcus22 15:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still happen to think that they provide valuable information, though not officially sanctioned by FIFA. It is the de-facto ranking that a lot of people use to gauge the real strength of the team. If you really think that its up for debate, perhaps you should list the issue wherether they list issues that should not be included in Wikipedia and see what others have to say on the matter. This is probably the best thing to do since we're obviously at an impasse. --Palffy 18:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no impasse. Nor is there somewhere else to debate the matter. I agree with you that they may well provide valuable information and are arguably preferable to FIFA's own rankings. But the fact that one prefers them to FIFA's rankings is not sufficient grounds for their inclusion and the choice of their inclusion as opposed to, for example, AQB Ratings, is POV.

Why not compromise and include the AQB as well - at least that would reflect a genuine spread of opinion on rankings and not a bias in favour of the ELO? If you do that then I can see no problem with your including the ELO... Marcus22 09:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think that there are some things fundamentally wrong with AQB? I wrote this recently about it...[2]..Also, it isn't a matter of preference, it's the defacto rating to judge team strength. Once again, I really think you should have others input on this matter.. --Palffy 13:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of the Czech Republic (bordered).svg

Tagged for deletion as I moved it to the commons. That means that that image will be usable from any wikipedia or Wikimedia project, so the same image may be used at the english and dutch wikipedias and the estonian wiktionary, for example. Just thought I'd give you a heads up, in case you wonder why your image was deleted here at en:wiki. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 23:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following is part of an exciting exchange with Kwame Nkrumah. Before reading it and taking much of it seriously, the following should be considered:

[3] - A user was warned of a 3RR warning.
[4] - User immediately retributed and...
[5] - ...broke the 3RR, which is what started all of this.
[6] - User complained I had removed warnings, even though it was made in obvious retribution.
[7] - A report was filed about this..
[8] - ..and soon enough, Kwame Nkrumah filed a report of his own..
[9] - Meanwhile, the page was protected causing..
[10] - ..a tirade on the first admins page...
[11] - ..and then some more on another user's talk page..
[12] - ..then proceeds to step onto my turf..
[13] - ..followed by a tirade on a second admins page..
[14]..and creating the best User page of ALL-TIME..
[15] - ..which leads to a temporary block.
[16] - Another spat with a third admin follows after the block has expired.

A day later, the verdict is in:

[17] - Kwame Nkrumah did in fact use a sock-puppet to break the 3RR rule =)

Favorite user quote:

In the end he get the page protected on his version and the tag removed: Tell me the truth, is Palffy the son of someone important here on Wikipedia, that the rules do not apply to him? --Kwame Nkrumah 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Removing talk page warnings

Please do not remove warnings and other content from your talk page. It is considered uncivil and may be vandalism. You can archive it instead.--Kwame Nkrumah 23:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an admin of Wikipedia. You are aware that if you don't stop, you will be banned sooner or later. I would advise that you be less cocky in your posts. There is also no need to warn me about the 3RR, I'm fully aware of Wikipedia's rules. --Palffy 23:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you get rid of my own response on MY OWN page? You don't deserve anything from me, you're the lousiest Wikipedia editor I've ever seen. --Palffy 23:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing warnings from your own page can be considered uncivil and/or vandalism, but if the warnings were vandalism themselves, then I think it's reasonable to revert it. Given the section title Kwame Nkrumah used, I suspect there's nothing to see here. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Response

Hi and thank you for your response to a 3RR violation. Although I may not agree with your ruling, I will accept it as is. The problem now is that the same person has now began harassing me, [18], on my own talk page and is deleting my OWN responses without my permission. I'm not exactly sure what the right thing for me to do is, but I just want nothing to do with this guy. I apologize for some of the strong language that I've used in my responses, but I have never seen anyone as persistent as this poster. Thanks and let me know, --Palffy 23:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before your decision, I put a 3RR warning in his talk page, which Palffy removed. When you wrote me that it is forbidden to remove warnings, I readded it, with your text as an explanation: he removed it again. My question is if the keep-the-warning rule applies to each contributor, or only to selected ones.--Kwame Nkrumah 23:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just heading to bed, can you please post on WP:ANI and another admin will sort it out. Stifle (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for you

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Kwame Nkrumah 12:22, August 10, 2006 (UTC)

What is this a warning for? Looking through Palffy's contributions I cannot find a violation of the three revert rule. Cowman109^Talk 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this user. I ended up warning him of 3RR prior to him making his 4th post (to which he adhered by with his pseudonym, but reverted the article with a sock-puppet post by User: Spunti). I'm well aware of the rule myself (I've broken it once way-way back before I knew of the rule, and I have adhered by it since) so this appears to be retribution by User: Kwame Nkrumah, because he's probably bitter that he got warned on 3 posts in 24hrs and I didn't (meaning I was 'close' to breaking it). The thing that bugs me the most is that rather than minding his own business, he's more interested in proving me wrong than anything else.. Also, Cowman109, do you think I have grounds to ask to CheckUser these 2 users? --Palffy 18:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..[19], only goes to prove my point.. --Palffy 18:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are keeping on accusing me of using another account, and yet to show a proof. I got accused by you of 3 reverts in 24h, but you did the same, and yet removing the tag.--Kwame Nkrumah 18:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if the two of you simply stepped away from each other and left eachother alone. Palffy has clearly already recieved the three revert rule warning and it remains in the history as well. Continuously coming here and re-adding it is borderline confrontational and harassing, so it would be best to simply discuss the possible changes in the talk page of the protected article instead of fighting about nothing over here. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 18:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing talk page warnings

Please do not remove warnings and other content from your talk page. It is considered uncivil and may be vandalism. You can archive it instead.--Kwame Nkrumah 23:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuses

From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR:

Missing two things here, firstly the previous version reverted to (which would prove that the first listed item is indeed a revert and not just a regular edit) and second, four reverts by the same person. The fourth was by a different account. Stifle (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I deserve excuses for your rudeness. You falsely accused me of breaking the 3RR, of sockpuppetry, and of writing "spiteful posts" when you were on the verge of breaking the 3RR.--Kwame Nkrumah 23:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/3RR

It is customary to warn a user that he was inserted into WP:AN/3RR list. You just was.--Kwame Nkrumah 18:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This read is currently continued here. --Palffy 05:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]