User talk:Raymarcbadz: Difference between revisions

Raymarcbadz is Somewhere

I can appreciate you trying to help but you need to read WP:OLYMOSNAT because the changes you're making are wrong. I used to think using the wheat color to indicate rounds that didn't happen was right too but then I actually read the manual of style. I don't want to get in an edit war with you over this but if you persist I will report you. You seem to know how to run wiki tables so let's not try to overwrite each other because we'll have enough idiots to deal with as the Games get closer. Torlek (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am too fan of olympics, but I see that for about days you update hardly pages has my big regret can you move forward faster thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminfandesjo (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I don't take too kindly to you undoing my removal of the forced column widths on these articles ([1], [2]) without any explaination in the edit summary. If you think there is a good reason for having them then by all means lets discuss it but the standard format for this type of article is not to do so as the results tables are already very wide in many cases without the addition of unnecessary blank space - Basement12 (T.C) 11:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary here does not count as discussion. I appreciate the amount of work you're putting in to update these articles but please stop adding these forced widths unless you can provide a good reason for having them - Basement12 (T.C) 11:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Serbia at the 2012 Summer Olympics does not have an edit summary. For a third time I ask you to please not readd the forced widths without discussion first, and certainy not to do it without the use of an edit summary - Basement12 (T.C) 16:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you apply them in all of the nations if you think that some rows have unnecessary spaces? I am already tired with editing and revising them. I spent weeks and days to do them. (T.C) 16:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

That's what I've been attmpting to do - I started with the larger nations first (GB, China etc) in the hope that others would follow my lead and adapt the other articles as they went but remember there is no deadline so I'll get around to doing them all in time - Basement12 (T.C) 17:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we use the width of 150 for the athletes? They look similar to those from the 2008 Summer Olympics. I wanted to do something different for this year's Olympics by adapting a table format for the results. (T.C) 17:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

The pages from 2008 and early don't specify a width - by specifying 100 or 150 it is often making tables much wider than they need to be. On tables (and articles) that are already very large and very wide the preference has always been to do whatever we can to reduce the sizes, hence all of the tables in the the manual of style don't use columns with forced widths. Doing something different is a good idea if it improves the format and can be rolled out across all nation articles for all Olympics but there is no need to change the format just for the sake of it - Basement12 (T.C) 19:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added the relay team members to the United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics. What is your source for that? I get all of the USATF press releases (actually I seem to keep proofreading them and sending them back for correction). I also checked the USATF site. There has been no announcement I can find of the relay team members. Yes, you and I can conjecture, but that's not what we should be definitively reporting on Wikipedia. We even have additional issue because the men's and women's teams select using different methods. And what about Allyson Felix? She didn't run the 400 but with a PR about a second faster than those other girls is certainly likely to be considered for a spot. I'm waiting for decisions in writing. Trackinfo (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added the source based on the 100 and 400 results. As I am telling you, that is not a hard and fast rule. You may be completely correct, or the selection people might throw you a curve. We should properly wait for the announcement. Trackinfo (talk)

Hey, why are you changing the Template:2012 Summer Olympics Denmark men's handball team roster, to a wikitable? The way it is and should be is the hs squad template which is used for handball tournaments, like the olympics. So, i reverted it back to the right format. Kante4 (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, what does "fs=95" do? Kante4 (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes the font size Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, was just curious. Kante4 (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to leave you note and ask if you have a source that states there will only be four independent Olympians at the forthcoming London Olympics, as you stated with this edit. The thing is, the sources now cited in the article give a total of seven. I desperately want the numbers in the article to be correct, but they also need to be properly sourced. I'm not challenging the accuracy of the edits you made, but I think it would help us all if you pointed us toward wherever it was you heard that there were going to be four, and not seven as the London 2012 site and olympic.org states. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Olympians must have four athletes, three from the Netherlands Antilles and one from South Sudan. The other three athletes in the main site would come from Kuwait. These athletes were mistakenly placed in the IOA, and they should have belonged to the Kuwait team. As I found the source about Kuwaiti delegation, eleven athletes from this nation are competing in the Games, and not seven. You do not need to worry about the list, because it is still inaccurate. In a few days, the list of athletes will be official. The source can be found in the site: [3] Thank you! Raymarcbadz ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! That's exactly what I was looking for. Gonna add it to the article now. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were helpful with the above inquiry, I wonder if you might be able to point me toward a source that says there will be four Independent Olympic Athletes at the Games, rather than seven, which is what the London 2012 site and Olympic.org have led me to believe. A few users have changed it from seven to four several times without ever citing sources. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raymarcbadz. You have new messages at Basement12's talk page.
Message added 14:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Basement12 (T.C) 14:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the response I wrote and stop readding the templates - Basement12 (T.C) 17:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Olympics Barnstar
		A token of my appreciation for the hundreds, if not thousands of updates you've been making to the 2012 Olympic nation articles. Keep up the good work! - Basement12 (T.C) 17:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering what your thoughts are on the boxes containing "Did not advance". Earlier, you changed one of them to have the n/a style grey background, so I consequently changed the others to be the same. Now you have changed it back to having a plain background. Why is this? Should they all have blank backgrounds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airelivre (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, putting gray background for "Did not advance" becomes more confusing, as mentioned by Basement12, so we have to follow the same standard except for the "n/a" and "bye" in which we are using this background. (T.C) 18:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I reverted some of your changes, did not realise that. I came across the use of that "n/a|Did not advance" template a few days ago, and thought it was much better than a simple "colspan+Did not advance". God knows there was zero consensus four years ago, we had red backgrounds, green backgrounds, some beige backgrounds, sometimes italics, sometimes not. I still feel using the grey background and n/a template would be a general improvement this year, both information-wise and design-wise, but I'll follow consensus if it is against it. --JMDP (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it would be better if we put simple "did not advance". Someone warned me about changing formats for "did not advance", especially when you put background color or n/a template. It's better if you follow the consensus, just like what I did to other sports. --Raymarcbadz (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question : Do you really feel having "n/a|Did not advance" is confusing ? Three days ago on Basement12's talk you wrote the opposite : "Without color makes me confused". I'm just asking this out of curiosity, because to me, the grey background makes things less confuse, not more, so I wanted to know if I was the only one. --JMDP (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rules about "did not advance" are based on WikiProject Olympics guidelines. Here's the explanation behind the concern.

Per WikiProject Olympics guidelines the boxes should not be coloured. Adding the template to grey them out makes it far too easy to confuse with rounds that don't exist for that event; we need it to be clear that the athletes were knocked-out of the competition. Simply putting a centre aligned "Did not advance" is the way to go - Basement12 --Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now I see that I was not the only involved party on this, and now I see the background behind it. Well, clearly you guys in the project need to talk this out then, because the supposed confusion isn't really confusing to many of us. And if they are so worried that people somehow could not distinguish between the words in two grey boxes, than perhaps they can consider another subtle colour, because white is really not visually appealing in this case?--Huaiwei (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not because you are confused with the template, but putting "n/a" in the template for "did not advance" seems confusing with the rounds that do not exist. I know that you misunderstood my statements, and I hope you fixed what is right from the consensus. Always read the manual. WikiProject Olympics guidelines. Thank you.--Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: ranks for athletics should be given within heats not overall (this is different to what we do for swimming) as qualifiers for latter rounds are decided by the fastest 'X' finishers in each heat. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 10:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to mention this too, the overall rank is not the correct one to use. Rudolph89^talk 11:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The column has always been "rank" - not "position in heat".Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But how about field events? I was confused after I realized that the results would be based on their positions in heats. (T.C) 12:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Field events appear to use the overall rank, as you will see in the field event that they aren't split into heats and that "the top 12 athletes qualify" or something similar. That's different to some of the shorter track events where the first 3 or 5 of each heat qualify. Rudolph89^talk 00:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Track and field events have always ranked the athlete not by what they finish in the heat but by the overall position. The official website also has this. Thats why its called Rank. Brudder Andrusha (talk)

Read the first message again, Andrusha. And the note displayed in the key legend of the athletics. GB 2012 Summer. (T.C) 10:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Results have not always been listed as such, certainly not in Olympic articles. Knowing an athlete was 29th fastest overall in the heats is a useless statistic when qualifiers are decided by position within the heat and could potentially cause confusion as it's perfectly possible for an athlete to qualify ahead of another with a higher overall rank. What is needed is a key explaining that ranks are given within heats (e.g the one at Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Athletics - Basement12 (T.C) 14:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not confusing at all. The official website which is the source for rankings is clear an athlete qualifies for the next stage (round) of the event. In that case the table used is invalid and should never use Rank in its title. But of course rank is used for Field events. There must be consistancy and Rank should exactly be that - The position of the athlete within that round of the event. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Rank" does not always define an overall rank for all events. Like what User:Basement12 said, ranks for athletics should be given within heats not overall (this is different to what we do for swimming) as qualifiers for latter rounds are decided by the fastest 'X' finishers in each heat. The rules are cleared, and I think you ignored the styles they made. Thank you. Try to negotiate with User:Basement12 if you want to change the manual of style for the WP:OLYMOSNAT, regarding the qualification rules on track and field. (T.C) 16:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The official results have a column for overall rank and place in heat. Since there is only one column "rank" that is used in the Wikipedia table, the value to use should be the place in heat as that directly relates to whether they qualify or not - that is the critical value. The same situation happens in the Rowing table, where the place in heat is used in the rank column, rather than overall rank.Rudolph89^talk 21:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Basement12, and User:Rudolph89, here's the problem. It seems that many users don't care about your guidelines. Take a look at these pages. Poland at the 2012 Summer Olympics, and Iran at the 2012 Summer Olympics. I would say that these pages should be exceptional in our manual, because they have their own way on putting the styles, and results in the tables. Any comments.

Hello Raymarcbadz.

Thanks for your hard work on articles relating to the recent Summer Olympics. I have many of the pages on my watchlist, and it seems you are contributing in every single one of them.

One thing though; in your recent edit of the article covering Austria, you removed a comma in the lede. Actually, that comma should be there, according to WP:Basic copyediting, section Common edits, bullet point 9.

Thanks for your understanding.

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to expand the lead. I've done some fact-checking and edited it. Unfortunately Hong Kong has always been a complicated territory, so I understand the difficulties in getting the facts straight. [4] Deryck C. 08:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Raymarcbadz.

Thank you for your work expanding the article. However, I find that the following statement from your edit is not accurate: "For the first time in its history, Spain did not win an Olympic medal in tennis and in cycling." It is certainly not the first time in its history this happened. Spain had won medals in tennis at every games since it was re-introduced as an official Olympic sport in 1988, but had not previously win any medal in tennis when it already was an official Olympic sport from 1896 to 1924. And Spain had never won any medal in cycling prior to 1992. I am not trying to dispute the fact that Spain won the gold medal in 1992. Thank you for your attention. Xelaxa (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go back through and change the team sports to templates when I'm done putting tables on all the pages.

Thanks for the heads up. As for little capitalizations here and there, I can fix those too. One project at a time. JDBear (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that you follow the right approach for the 2004 pages, just like what we mostly did in the 2012 Olympic pages. Thank you, and help me fix these pages. Right now, I'm working on the basketball template for the navbox. If you have time, can you also do for the navbox templates of other team-based sports Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:56 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Right now my focus is getting tables on all the ((nation)) at the 2004 Summer Olympics pages. Where there's a need for fixing the ((sport)) at the 2004 Summer Olympics pages. They're all over the place. JDBear (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try to fix them step by step to ensure that the tables for every nation that you are working on are already filled out. Focus first on the nations. To finish these pages immediately, I can also help out putting the tables for other nations at my own preference, but it's up to you if you can do it by yourself. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:05 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I can get them done. I'm half done already. JDBear (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:35 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm done with all the countries up to North Korea. Don't worry about the nation pages, I'll finish them. Then I'll fix the team sport pages.JDBear (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Good job. But we need to do some corrections. Take a look at Latvia at the 2004 Summer Olympics and Estonia at the 2004 Summer Olympics. You need to follow the scheme for judo and wrestling. Raymarcbadz (talk) 19:30 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Haven't done Latvia yet. N. Korea comes before that.JDBear (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JDBear, no need to fix Latvia, Luxembourg, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and San Marino anymore. I already filled them out with results and tables. Thank you. Reminders: Athletes with less than six athletes in every sport, not sporting event okay, should be placed on one table only except athletics, diving, fencing, swimming, and wrestling. Just put the word Men's and/or Women's beside the event. Use the manual WP:OLYMOSNAT, and carefully follow the guidelines. Raymarcbadz (talk) 08:45 20 September 2012 (UTC)

JDBear asked me to take a look at some of the work on the 2004 pages, a couple of points arising from what I've seen

• The use of pictograms in the headings is now discouraged, they can cause problems with screen readers and as such go against WP:ACCESS guidelines, as and when you come across them being used please remove them (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics/Archive 13#Header images for discussion on this)
• When combining tables use your discretion; if there are e.g. 6 male athletes and a single female, it still makes sense to combine the tables rather than include a seperate women's table with a single athlete. Also re your comment above ("except athletics, diving, fencing, swimming, and wrestling") - it's fine to combine tables for any sport and is infact normally most needed on athletics and swimming where smaller nations will only enter a single athlete of each gender as they are allowed automatic quota places
• You are still capitalising the entire word when athletes are able to skip a round it needs to be "Bye" not "BYE" - Basement12 (T.C) 11:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Raymarcbadz.

I can see on my watchlist that you are doing an absolutely fabulous job on wikipedia. You're carrying out a herculean task. Don't forget to take a break every now and then though. There is a life outside wikipedia, believe it or not. ;-)

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raymarcbadz, I've just been through a whole bunch of the articles you have created and I am really impressed. To the point which I have requested that the autopatrolled userright be enabled on your account. It's probably a good idea to keep an eye on WP:PERM/AP in case the reviewing admin has any questions.

I do have one concern though, thanks for adding WikiProject banners to the article talk page, but it's a good idea not to do the assessment yourself, as you have a conflict of interest. As well you have been assessing articles as start class when you have tagged them with a stub tag.

But in any case, thank you for creating such the great articles! Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, no. Actually, users can assess their own articles as "stub", "start", "C", "list", or "B" class. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll remember that. Thanks Reaper, sorry Raymarcbadz. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled autopatrolled on your account. This does not affect your editing; rather, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please take note of the following points:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority.
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal.
• You can display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page.
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it.

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask me. Otherwise, happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raymarcbadz. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 14:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raymarcbadz. You have new messages at Stigni's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for creating Jung Jin-Hwa, Raymarcbadz!

Wikipedia editor Andrewman327 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I marked Jung Jin-Hwa as reviewed, although I have my doubts about the subject's notability.

To reply, leave a comment on Andrewman327's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Probably is time for you to improve your editing. Would you like to write a Good article? Then you have to get familiar with all this:

Mostly with the Manual of Style and also take a look to this essay: Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Thanks for being here, but remember spending time in real life with real people. Osplace 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did not remember writing this previous message. You are very prolific in writing articles, but stub articles. You should try to improve your writing, not in "grammar and conciseness", but in article structure. Here you have some examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 of Good Articles. Wikipedia:Writing better articles is a very good essay, please take a look of it. You should also take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, and be aware of what you are doing might not be ok (is not). What I want you to understand with this message is that may developt way better articles without conflicting with other authors/editors with this new knowledge. Osplace 15:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Osplace, Sorry if I just reverted your version, but based on your concern for the articles, I replaced stubs with under construction since we can't provide much information yet on the article which I have created before. Everything would be better if you add information in your sandbox, and then place them appropriately in the specified article. Remove stubs once the article has already been done and complete. Bear my patience because I'm currently working on the articles for the 2004 Summer Olympics national flag bearers. Thank you. Raymarcbadz 18:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to explain you in this edit that you have deleted, that this template means that someone is still working in the article. I already had changed the article and had editing conflicts with yours. I still do not know why you have remove the template since have no sense to do it, the article was kind of new and was ok to use it. I am replacing the template with the Template:In use, and please do not remove it, because I am working offline with this article. I already was working before with a related article, so I already had information about her. In the other hand, I hope my recommendations about your structural editing will be welcome by yourself. Thanks for paying attention, Osplace 18:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've already read about your concern before I deleted your message. I didn't reject it. Okay. Hands down. Just put the template on the article if you're fully working and researching on the topic, but keep in mind that stubs must be removed once the information has been fully gathered. No problem. Raymarcbadz 19:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raymarcbadz. You have new messages at Darkwind's talk page.
Message added 04:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—Darkwind (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raymarcbadz. You have new messages at Darkwind's talk page.
Message added 13:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—Darkwind (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry to possibly disappoint you, but the amount of time I'm able to devote to Wikipedia these days is fairly limited. In principle I'm interested in creating more articles on athletes, but whenever I have time to contribute to Wikipedia, I do whatever happens to inspire me at that moment. There's a lot I want to do on Pacific Island politics in the French and English Wikipedias, for example. And regarding athletes, there's a lot to do on the Paralympics, which currently have less coverage than the Olympics. Aridd (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Raymarcbadz.

Thanks for your tireless work with convenience templates. However, please sign your edits with some kind of edit summary, such as "replacing bla bla bla with convenience templates".

Thank you and keep up your good work.

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, HandsomeFella. But I have to add more handball templates later with the women's event. I'll track your reminders and maintain good work, okay. Don't worry. -- Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason why some biographies, at your leisure, should have this color? I'm not revert, but explain. --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand what that was all about. First point: with a few exceptions you are allowed to blank anything you like from your talk page, but that makes communication much more difficult. Only when I trawled back through the page history did I discover what your problem was. I suggest that communication with other users would be easier if you do not blank conversations from your talk page, but use one the bots such as User:MiszaBot III to archive them after a certain number of days. That's only a suggestion - it's up to you.

The "Help improve this page" message is from the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5. That is part of the software provided by the Wikimedia Foundation, which hopes it will encourage readers to become editors. The software adds it at random to a certain proportion of new articles - it is not in any way a criticism of the particular article. I think you need to get used to it, because if they find it successful they will probably increase the proportion of articles that get it, maybe to 100%. If you want to comment about it, you can do that at the talk page Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5.

Please do not do cut-and-paste moves - always use the "Move" button. The reason is that every contributor is promised by the license terms that they will get attribution for their contributions, and the article history is the way that is done; but cutting and pasting loses the history.

In the particular case of Andrei Kazak, I ought to re-unite the history from the page in your user space with the article, but that particular history is so horrible and silly that, in the spirit of WP:Ignore all rules, I am prepared to decide that the encyclopedia is better off without it. However, if the history is not with the article it ought not to be lying about attached to the blanked page in your userspace, so I have deleted that. If you want to set up another user sub-page, you can easily do that by typing "User talk:Raymarcbadz" followed by / and a page name into the search box (see WP:USERSUBPAGE) or by going to Help:Userspace draft and filling in a name.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michelle Engelsman, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after her retirement in 2008, Australian swimmer Michelle Engelsman was honoured for her "Speedo Services to the Australian Swimming Team"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michelle Engelsman. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Tatiane Sakemi does not have 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! + Crashdoom ^Talk 14:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to improve the text I enter, OK, but I did not understand why you withdrew data with reliable sources of biography. These data were missing in the biography and I only completed. Dariusvista (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Now I understand about missing data. Sorry if I delete most of your information that you place. Make sure that when you're putting complete information, the sources must be properly cited and the grammar must be PUNCTUAL. Some of your data that you put on the article after I revised some of them over the past few days are complete. My main concern is the proper citation of your sources, especially when you're using them whose language is other than English. You have to put language and translation title inside the sources to make them more user-friendly and easier to understand. For the grammar and use of information, improve them with clarity, conciseness, and sentence variety. Always remind about these things. OK. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I always try to do it, but my English is not perfect (I'm brazilian). And all my editions are reliable, I perform extensive research before putting sportsmen data. I have no interest in inserting false information. Sorry for anything. Dariusvista (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. I'll be the one to do it. I'll stick to your reliable information, but I have to revise everything to make the article more reliable in detail, and polished in grammar. There's no concern about the use of English language. Our English is not always perfect, but there's room for further improvement. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have early career information about her, you may add up as well. I added two sections on her article. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. My goal is to improve all the brazilian swimmers articles, the best I can. If you could revise these articles, I would be grateful. A good place to search on the Brazilian swimmers is the site of CBDA, the Brazilian Confederation of Water Sports, which has a long news section detailed here: http://www.cbda.org.br/editoria/noticias?esporte=natacao. And some of the biggest sites in Brazil (portals and sites of major newspapers) are: UOL (portal), Terra (portal), IG (portal), Globo / Globoesporte (TV station and newspaper), Folha de São Paulo (newspaper), Estado de São Paulo (or Estadão)-newspaper, and Lancenet - sports newspaper. Dariusvista (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Raymarcbadz. I have reverted your addition of Budapest birth place to the birth date parenthetical (i.e. "(born October 14, 1986 in Budapest)") of the Balázs Gercsák article. Per the examples provided by MOS:BIO for the proper structuring of the first sentence of the lead section of a biography, we are not supposed to include the subject's birth place in the birth date parenthetical. It is entirely proper, of course, to include the subject's birth place in the infobox and main body text of the article. This is the established Wikipedia-wide consensus. Thanks for your understanding. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Why swimmers from Florida Gators only?"

Ray, I work on Olympic swimmer bios, but I am also an alumnus of the University of Florida and I keep all Florida Gators swimmers on my watch list to prevent vandalism. Every time you improperly format the lead sentence of these bios, it pops up on my watch list. This is not proper formatting for only Gators swimmers, however (or even all Olympic swimmers). This is the proper formatting for all Wikipedia biographies. I respectfully ask that you adhere to Wikipedia-wide formatting for biographies per MOS:BIO, and omit the birth place from the birth date parenthetical in the lead sentence of all biography articles, not just Florida Gators, not just swimmers, not just Olympic athletes, but all biographies. You are making these articles into odd balls with formatting that makes these articles different from the standardized format used by the vast majority of Wikipedia bios. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for giving me some tips. I'll rely on that only for Florida Gators swimmers. Not all biographies on Wikipedia follow the same proper format, because they may depend on their style, or most importantly, their own local paradigm. (See Yannick Agnel or Sun Yang). Some users follow what you have, but not at all. Sources are truly limited, so I'm doing everything I can to keep all these things available on Wikipedia. I'm currently working on the Olympic swimmers right now, so I'll keep this every word from you. Thank you for your wise words, DirtLawyer. I don't always call Ray, just call me Marc instead. Ray isn't my nickname though. Regards, Raymarcbadz (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it'a true that not all biographies are formatted without the birth city in the first sentence, MOSBIO is an agreed upon formulation of what "look" we would like for Wikipedia biographies. It could take a long time for all articles to be formatted according to these requirements, as not all editors pay strict attention to formatting and style matters. It's unfortunately not the type of change that can be easily automated, and there are only a few editors concerned with making these changes manually, so we would thank you for your diligence in the above connection. We would also thank you for your articles created. Regards, -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 12:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raymarcbadz, by any chance, are you trying to write/create pages for all swimmers at an/the Olympics? If so, if your formula page includes only detailing of their Olympic swim(s), you may want to add a listing of the other meets/championships an individual is already linked to. I've noticed several entries to this effect of late. (By only covering the Olympics, it belittles their career, and may inadvertently omit important information about them.) Anyways, not sure if you're on this quest or not, but thought to mention it. (it's just a thought, only a thought). -- Hooperswim (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hooperswim, I noticed that you edited two of my articles. And yes, I may add a listing of other meets and championships, but the problem for it would be citiations and sources, which are considered a key point of articles. I don't belittle their career and omit any information about them. I'm trying to do whatever I can just to expand these articles as quickly as possible. If you want to add a meet for them, put it in a paragraph form, and describe in proper English format. Stop capitalizing event names please! You're not a boss okay. I hope you understand. Don't underestimate my works or edits please. Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for creating the swimming articles but all events "will take place" and not "took place". Kante4 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I can make some corrections once I completed with everything. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok cool, just wanted to point it out before you start adding the women's ones and have more work. ;) Kante4 (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You MIGHT want to check the article name of a swimmer if you change the name. We should try to reduce the number of redirects and link to the article right away. You add many links which uses a redirect and revert some good edits somehow... Kante4 (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you've done a great deal of work on the latter. This is to inform you of my removing the mention of Ms. Capote's Disqualification. News sources at the time, say there was an incident[5] with her swimsuit, but that only a pageant official came to fix it afterwards. The source for saying she was DQ appears to be IMDb. IMDb fails WP:RS. Just letting you know. I saw the article's page history and you aren't the editor responsible for the erroneous information....William 17:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the heads up. I always try to see if they are Olympians too (usually via what links to the article). I'll expand them from SportsReference - always good to cross a few more Olympic bios off the list! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may do so with Sports Reference, because this will strongly support the biography of a cyclist as an Olympian. Raymarcbadz (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working back from the 1920s on the Olympics and the latest years for the UCI events, so hopefully there will be some crossover! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you mind if I nominated Angelo Ciccone for DYK? Thanks, Matty.007 16:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Just put it in his talk page. Raymarcbadz talk 17:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The link is at Template:Did you know nominations/Angelo Ciccone. Matty.007 18:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I would ask if you know any Canadian website or portal, that has the following sports information: "all medals of Canada in the Pan American Games." For me, it's hard to look for this information, but for those who live in North America should be easier. I'm needing it to complete some things on Wikipedia, speccialy in swimming articles. If you could help me, I would be grateful. Rauzaruku (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Angelo Ciccone, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Angelo Ciccone lapped the entire field, but didn't win a point in the Men's Madison at the 2008 Summer Olympics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Angelo Ciccone. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

hello, could you update the qualified athletes in each country these 2014 Olympic Games if you like it! thank you very much .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminolympique (talk • contribs) 10:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason(s) why luge is kept separate by gender but other similar sports like Skeleton are not on the different country pages? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, we put both men and women together on one table if the luge group consists of a maximum of 6 athletes; otherwise, we'll split them into separate tables. Same rules applied for the Skeleton. Everything I mentioned can be found in the WP:OLYMOSNAT. Raymarcbadz (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with wiki policies so thank for helping me out! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also the table size reductions imo don't make too much sense for the countries with just one athlete. Let me know what you think. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the number of the athletes, we'll stick to the idea of reducing the table sizes to 90%, not only because we should be conformed to the style used for the nations' pages at the Summer Olympics two years ago, but also we'll be providing enough space for the results and other materials related to the nation's participation (e.g. pictures of athletes). Take a look at this example whose national team is consisted with just a single athlete, and please be familiar with the procedures and styles from the WP:OLYMOSNAT. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BTW the deficit part of the table is there to show the reader how far behind the racer was. This is also seen in the individual sports pages so I don't see why they need to be removed in the nation pages. So please do not remove it. Thanks! Also do ou have a source for Ukraine's figure skating team? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I just received the athlete's names in two pre-Olympic qualifying events, namely 2013 World Figure Skating Championships and 2013 Nebelhorn Trophy, unless there might be some changes with the roster. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are separating by gender for ccsking when we did the opposite for alpine. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my technique for the events with longer phrases is to keep the men and women separated so that they would be worthy enough to provide enough space for the results. Being puzzled, you might as well look at the example. Raymarcbadz (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so for the longer events we add the identifier at the top? Also why do we keep the genders separately? My preference is actually to have it separate, but if we don't for alpine then we shouldn't for all sports. On the other hand if we do keep it separated we should separate all the events. What about Luxembourg for ccskiing? Do I leave that? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Luxembourg, just leave it instead. All the nations with ccskiing, leave the men and women separated instead, and kindly remove the deficit column on the table. It's not necessary. For alpine skiing and skeleton with fewer athletes, we'll still maintain the one-table scheme for both men and women. Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the deficit column from the nation articles. The goal of the article is to transcribe the results page individually per country and CCsking includes the deficit column. So please revert. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have some important questions for you to answer. Why do you think that deficit column is necessary in the cross-country skiing for each nation pages? Do you think that those from the previous Olympics had made a fatal mistake for not having the deficit column in their pages? Your answer about the deficit column that you posted on my talk page seemed unconvincing and unsatisfied. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a) These nation pages are supposed to transcribe the results page onto individual country pages. Am I wrong with this assertion?

b) Which means the deficit column which is also included in the alpine results pages along with ccsking should be added to the individual pages. It is also not against WP:OLYMOSNAT. Furthemore take a look at these examples [6], [7] and [8]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Do you have an convincing arguent besides it being "unnecessary"? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will refer to your second answer. Yes, I have a convincing argument. I've seen your examples already, but not all nations pages share the same model that you improvised. Here's another evidence for this. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But others do. Which means there isn't a clear cut answer. I stand by my version but I am open to a broader discussion with others. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, others still do, but does the majority of all the nations competing at the previous Olympics use a similar paradigm that you created? Just go ahead with your broader discussion and let the consensus decide. Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Not necessarily, we put both men and women together on one table if the luge group consists of a maximum of 6 athletes; " what if the athlete is competing in more then one event? Do we split if the events are over 6 per gender? (For ex. Bulgaria has 2 male athletes and 9 events in between them + a women with 3 events, do we separate or keep together?) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the events, we don't necessarily split the males and females. Just keep them together. But for the number of athletes, you have to do so for 6 athletes and beyond. One more note, no final column for alpine skiing, biathlon, and cross-country skiing, since they don't have preceded rounds before final. (referring to the sport in general, not the events). Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Ill merge Bulgaria into one. Also the final column is necessary to show it is the final, especially for those new to the sport. Besides it doesn't make a difference besides adding "final" over the table. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Also the table looks cleaner with the heading. There is no lead otherwise. Maybe you have another suggestion? Also its not against the rules.[reply]

The word "final" is already implicit in the column, but this doesn't mean that the final column must be placed there. For those new to the sport, they should think that all the columns placed in the table are already finals (no preceding rounds before that). Have you seen this one? All the results being placed there are finals, and no elimination process whatsoever. And of course, it doesn't make any difference. Adding "final" over the table seems to be your idea. I don't know why did you think it's necessary. I have nothing against your suggestion, or against the rules complied with the project as far as I'm concerned. If you have more concerns, post everything you have in the WikiProject:Olympics talk page. Keep in mind that I have other things to do in the real world. Thanks. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be implicit but the point is its not listed or visible. So it is needed to distinguish. Also why are you removing the dash in figure skating after being told three times not to do so? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the page for the United States? Instead of using the dash for each pair, they just simply break them. So if you want to do the format for the United States to make it similar to other nations' pages, you may do so. Let's see if other users would agree with your ideas. Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just one article. Where they seem to have their own set of rules (for ex. speed skating). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I wanted to say that I admire all that you do for these games sochi, I too am a fan of jo, I note all skilled in paintings, you help me a lot, how y'auras t 'he qualified nations? what are the flagship? THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminolympique (talk • contribs) 14:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per subject. Our mutual friend is most grateful. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello, could you add the tests to which the athletes are qualified (slalom, super g, combined, giant slalom, downhill) skiing (10km, 15km, sprint, sprint teams, relays, 30 km and 50 km) Akpin skiing and cross country skiing ... as you did for Greece thank you very much Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, USA, Austria, Japan, Finland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Russia, Switzerland, Kazakhstan, Estonia, Great britain, Poland, Ukraine, Romania and China — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminolympique (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello thank you for adding cross-country skiing slovenia, you could also make a list for all these countries: - Germany, Belarus, Canada, China, Korea, Estonia, USA, Finland, France, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Norway, Poland, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine! It would great! thank you very much for answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminolympique (talk • contribs) 09:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Benjaminolympique, As of the moment, the final list of athletes competing in cross-country skiing is not yet final, so we'll put them for each nations page in the coming days. Same case applies for alpine skiing, biathlon, Nordic combined, and ski jumping. Raymarcbadz (talk • contribs) 09:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The deadline is until February 5? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminolympique (talk • contribs) 09:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me again to bother you, but cross-country skiing 15km men, there is a table with qualified, do you feel able to do the same thing on the other distances? thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminolympique (talk • contribs) 19:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello would it be possible that you update the quotas for each country skiing thank you very much