User talk:Raymarcbadz

Edits to United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics

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]

Column widths on "Nation" at the 2012 Summer Olympics articles

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

]

Relay teams

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)

2012 Summer Olympics

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]

Number of IOA's

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]

Talkback

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

		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]

Israel at the 2012 Summer Olympics

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]

Re:Putting "Did not advance"

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

]

Athletics

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

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.Rudolph89talk 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.

Comma after 2nd element

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]

Great work

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]

Time to improve

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

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

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]

DYK for Michelle Engelsman

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

]

DYK

Hi, would you mind if I nominated

DYK? Thanks, Mat ty.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. Mat ty.007 18:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Angelo Ciccone

nominate

) 16:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Olympics Games 2014

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

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 [4], [5] and [6]. 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]

DYK for Juana Wangsa Putri

On 25 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Juana Wangsa Putri, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2002, Indonesian taekwondo practitioner Juana Wangsa Putri won a silver medal at the Asian Championships and a bronze at the Asian Games? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Juana Wangsa Putri. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox swimmer and Olympic swimmer articles you created

Hi, ~~Ray~~ Marc. You have been a prolific contributor of new articles about Olympic athletes, including a couple hundred about Olympic swimmers: [7]. Since the last Olympics, Template:Infobox swimmer and its associated formatting have been revised and updated to address a number of concerns and to ensure a more uniform appearance for all Olympic swimmer articles. (See the template instructions and examples of uniform formatting @ Template:Infobox swimmer.) Many of your Olympic swimmer articles were created before these infobox and related formatting changes were implemented. At present, about half of the 4400 articles that use Infobox swimmer have been fully converted to current standardized version of the infobox template and its uniform formatting, leaving over 2000 articles still to convert. To date all of the American, Australian, and Canadian Olympic swimmers (and most of the Brits) have been fully converted to the new standard, but it is fairly time-consuming work requiring 5 to 10 minutes per article. Three or four editors have been consistently working on this project for the past four months, and we seem to be on track to complete the process some time in the first half of 2016. It would, of course, be helpful if we had all of the existing Olympic swimmer articles fully converted before people start creating new swimming articles in advance of the 2016 Olympics.

All of that said, I'm here to ask for your help. Would you be willing to take responsibility for converting the swimmer articles you created to the current standardized infobox and related uniform formatting? If so, that would be a big help to WikiProject Swimming as we work our way through this. Please let me know. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dirtlawyer, you can just simply call me Marc. I'm willing to help and take responsibility in revitalizing and refining the swimmer articles that I created. I'll do all of my best. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You, sir, are my hero. I'm guessing that your articles account for between 5 and 10% of the remaining total. If you could upgrade the infobox to current standardized and uniform formatting for the swimmer articles you created, that would be a HUGE help. Please let me know if you have any questions about the various changes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a question. Can you tell me what are the changes on the template, and the reasons behind it? I reviewed the template moments ago, and have seen some of the changes.Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marc, I'm running out the door in a few minutes. I'll type a little summary of changes and the reasons for them later today. I'm sure you're not the only one for whom it may be helpful. Thanks for following up. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic tables

Hi, just interested to know what your goal was when modifying a lot of Olympic templates such as {{2016 Summer Olympics men's football group A standings}} that was following most recent consensus and module standard for Module:Sports table. Qed237 (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My goal for modifying a lot of Olympic templates was to make them something exclusive only for the Games through styling and color-coding. I added the font_size parameter in the module to adjust the font sizes in the templates displayed on the NOC pages, and embed with a much different color in each row that corresponds to the styling applied from the previous Games. Refer to this link without the notes. Why? Is there something wrong with my edits? Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, why do you commonly use green1 instead of the bg colors used in the templates from London 2012 for all team-based sports? And I used the abbreviation tool for qualification status? The status seems quite long to mention without the tooltip. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)All the colors in the module has been fixed to a MOS compliant standard and green1 should be used for normal qualification. Also the fs parameter I can not see how you think it works as there is no such parameter in the module. We dont have to make the tables as how they where four years ago, things change and they should be according to wikipedia guidelines. Qed237 (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fs stands for font-size. It has its own template. And I just added a parameter on the module regarding the font-size. You may search line #19 to see the code. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I dont know what you are talking about. There is no parameter called font_size in the module, you just added it as a parameter in the module call inside the templates but module does not use it. Qed237 (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss and stop editing back the wrong content with not existing parameters again, or it may be considered disruptive. We need to figure this out first. Qed237 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's inside the Module:Sports table/WL and Module:Sports table/WDL. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more as you clearly test edited a highly visible module and made modifications without consensus. Please use sandboxes first. Qed237 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about a template for volleyball? Which module should I test first? Will do first on my sandbox. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at the volleyball situation yet, I have planned to go over all tables soon but not had the time. Not sure what module is best there. Qed237 (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, why do you place the entire phrase on the status instead of using tooltip inside the qualification header. For example (Advanced to quarterfinals, and not QF). Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions we had when creating this module (to find consistency over all sports and to avoid use of multiple templates to create a table) has led to the fact that most information should be shown and not hidden per wikipedia guidelines. As an example the extra column for qualification has been added (it previously existed on football/soccer league tables) because we should not only use colors because some readers are colorblind. To write it out works better for all readers independent on what plattform they use to read the content, and to have the full information does not hurt. However, I have shortened it as we dont need "advanced to" as that is fairly obvious. Qed237 (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For testing the font size, I don't know how will I do it on my sandbox for Module:Sports table. The code looked more convoluted to put additional parameters upon viewing the ordinary module. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change something in Module:Sports table, the best thing is to first ask at the talkpage if a change is supported. Then you can copy the existent Module:Sports table to Module:Sports table/sandbox and edit that. Then when testing a table, copy it to your sandbox and change {{#invoke:Sports table|main|style=WDL to {{#invoke:Sports table/sandbox|main|style=WDL meaning that you call the sandbox instead. The same applies for the submodules but then you call WDL/sandbox instead of WDL and so on. Qed237 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking some more and it seems like a new submodule is required for the volleyball case with both sets and points. Currently we can handle one case but not the other. I am working on it, and looking for other similar tables. Qed237 (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qed237, I need your help. Do you know where can I find the code for the pre-stuff of the Module:Sports table? Pre-stuff includes sorting the wikitable and adjusting the style. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly what you mean. A standings table is a ranking list and should not be sortable and what style do you need to change? Qed237 (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding the font-size. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well as I said I see no use for that and nothing in guideline to support a reduced size. Also, why have you created documentation for the sandbox? Qed237 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, I might test the module on WDL and WL by adding some necessary changes to the code, since I can't place anything yet on the actual module for both. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp of all NOC pages

You are treading a very fine line with all these reverts. Adding men's and women's to the event column works fine to distinguish them. Please cease being so disruptive and only make these changes if/when there is consensus to do so - Basement12 (T.C) 15:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to revamp all of the NOC pages in London 2012 and Rio 2016 by adding men's and women's to the event column for all individual sports (except athletics, gymnastics, and wrestling) as soon as possible? Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We dont need to do anything, and certainly not until there is a

WP:NORUSH. It's only needed where the gender tables have been merged (and don't have a (Wo)Men heading above them), which as has been said time and time and time and time and time (etc.) again isn't always necessary and doesn't have to be done everywhere. - Basement12 (T.C) 15:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Judo | Qualification; South Korea and Japan at the 2016 Summer Olympics

Hello,

I am aware of all these conditions and do not update unless the NOC has already confirmed these athletes. Also I only update Japan and South Korea judokas. I would appreciate being asked before having the updates reverted.

The All-Japan Judo Federation has already held a press conference announcing the judokas for the Olympics, and will send out a judoka for each weight division with the exception of the heavyweights. References:
http://www.100judo.com/post/japan-announces-team-for-rio-ono-is-in
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2016/05/02/more-sports/judo/inoue-determined-help-japan-keep-pace-judo/#.V0xXtiN9568

The Korea Judo Association bases Olympic qualification on the national tournament, not only rankings. I saw that someone wrote

Lee Seung-soo

was chosen because he won the national title. References:
http://www.asiae.co.kr/news/view.htm?idxno=2016051610022503209
http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2016/05/11/0200000000AKR20160511142600007.HTML?06daf000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UocH4d0usRc

Regards, Pink-seoul-judo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Djibouti at the 2008 Summer Olympics etc

When there is only one table with a handful of athletes (and only one athlete per event) we should be sorting by surname alphabetically, regardless of gender. To do anything else would suggest a somewhat sexist bias. Where we have multiple athletes per event, a good example being modern pentathlon events, it makes sense to do men's first then women (i.e. alphabetically by event) so that the event name cells can be merged - Basement12 (T.C) 10:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I thought men and women on a single table should be arranged based on gender and alphabetical order. Why men and women should blend together by surname regardless of their gender?

WP:OLYMOSNAT did not mention any of the rules regarding the concern on sexist bias. Raymarcbadz (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

From

WP:OLYMOSNAT: "More than a single athlete in a sport category, whether individual, pair, or team, must be arranged alphabetically according to their last names". No mention of sorting by gender first, where possible we sort athletes alphabetically by name, gender is irrelevant. In some instances, e.g Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Modern pentathlon it makes sense to group men and women together even within a table, in which case we do put men first (M before W). There are also cases where we do this if there is a team (or mixed team) event included within a table e.g Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Badminton, essentially to avoid splitting individual events up. But, in simple cases where there is a single athlete of each gender they should be ordered by their surname - Basement12 (T.C) 11:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

But how about athletes competing in boxing, fencing (except team events), judo, taekwondo, weightlifting, and wrestling? Aren't they arranged by weight, gender, or surname (unless two or more per event)? Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For badminton, do we have to split tables for countries with six or more athletes, or remain merged regardless of number? Sorry if I ask so many questions. It wastes time if we keep on fixing the table formats again and again without any further discussion. Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really do ask a lot of questions.... As many users keep reiterating, each case needs to be looked at individually, we make guidelines but there are no hard and fast rules to be applied across the board and no need to "keep on fixing the table formats again and again". Technically in each of those sports, as the guidelines currently read, we should be sorting by surname even if that means going woman, man, man, woman, man, woman etc.. However, I can fully understand cases such as Australia at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Taekwondo where there is a preference to group men then women, there that is probably a better way of arranging them. The changes I made were to very small tables in old, stable articles on completed Games, with only a single man and a single woman, in such cases there is no reason to deviate from alphabetizing by surname - don't go reading into that that you need to change a million other articles. Basement12 (T.C) 11:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I think

WP:OLYMOSNAT needs to put more conditions on most of the guidelines regarding the headings and table formats for future use. The arrangement and structure of tables without any clear guidelines as of now are quite convoluted and unjustifiable. Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Any suggestions if we need to revitalize or revise the structure of tables on athletes across all sports (except team-based of course)? Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I think the guidelines as they stand are about as simple as they can get; back in 2008 when we created them the assumption was that there would always be outliers needing a bit of common sense/

WT:OLYMPICS

that we always sort mixed gender tables by event first then alphabetically. It would be a simple addition to the guideline and is already implemented in many cases as we've discussed. I would suggest wording along the lines of

"More than a single athlete in a sport category, whether individual, pair, or team, athletes must be arranged first with all men's events grouped before women's events ("Men's" is alphabetically first), then (if applicable) by increasing event distance/weight category/etc. within each gender, and finally alphabetically according to the last names of the athletes."

If the change was made then the tables at Djibouti at the 2008 Summer Olympics would then be arranged as you were suggesting. I think any larger/more structural changes to the guidelines would be better left to a quieter period of editing. If you think that wording sounds OK I'll start a discussion at WT:OLY. - Basement12 (T.C) 12:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wording sounds OK and much better. Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start a discussion at

WT:OLY shortly then. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 12:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

For the athletics, do you want to group them by gender and then sporting discipline, or by sporting discipline and then gender? Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you say discipline, what do you mean in this case, could you give an example? - Basement12 (T.C) 08:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You arranged the tables in athletics based on classification or discipline being displayed in a heading: track & road events, field events, and combined events (decathlon and heptathlon). No need for an example. I usually arranged them by gender. Raymarcbadz (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diving at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Qualification

Hallo, I'm writting to you because I had chance to qualify at diving to the Games. I just want to know how final, and how official is those article that you edit few days ago (Diving at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Qualification). And what is the source, how do you get those informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANDy91 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States at the 2016 Summer Olympics

Please stop undoing my work. By replacing editable headers with a semi-colon, you are undoing the repairs to the formatting I have spent time doing. Without being editable, you are making this page far more difficult to edit, to accurately locate where you are out of one of the more complex pages on wikipedia. By adding the requirement to sort through this complex formatting, you will prevent most users from being able to figure out where to properly make an edit. By having a header, it reduces that potential for error. Trackinfo (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are very active on this page. You know when the actual Olympics get going, this will be very high traffic and will have a great deal of potential for formatting mistakes made by other users that you and I will have to clean up. Lets do things to make this easier for other editors, not further mask the ability to edit in more complex formatting. I would really suggest we find a way to clean up a lot of this complex code. When I have a concrete solution, I'll try to implement. Trackinfo (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trackinfo, I think you should discuss this as a whole at the

WP:OLYMOSNAT. Are you against the rules on cluttering? Raymarcbadz (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Rosters

Hey, if you want i can do the German rosters for the olympic teamsports. So you don't have as much work. ;) Kante4 (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Kante. I appreciate it. And it's my birthday today, so I don't have available time to toil for more templates. Just follow the format on what I've done to US and other NOCs. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Will be doing the other ones later today... Kante4 (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rio 2016; 2 questions

Hi Raymarcbadz,

I just wanted to say that I will take care of Sportsfan1234, I just need more free time on Wikipedia to allow it. If you want to start it, I could help you to support or write it.

By the way, 2 questions:

1- Shooting: Do you know if any shooters will be qualified from “other events” like the 2012 Olympics? Cause if you compare right now, there is not many qualifiers from other events vs 2012 Do you know when the final list by ISSF will be published?

2- Canoeing: Romania and Belarus have been suspended for doping; do you know if any of the quotas will be reallocated, cause so far Canada and New Zeland should have it. I dunno if you have news on this side. ICF said quotas would be reallocated by Monday but I don’t have any infos so far. Thanks and keep your good work (and also good attitude lol.)

Best regards,

TGG23

TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheGreenGiant23, thank you for your utmost concern. Yes, I'll be posting the shooters qualified for other events at a later date. And I know, this is a stark contrast from the previous Games with more than 100 nations, because four nations under the Tripartite Commission were permitted to send two shooters without any further explanation. The final list by ISSF will be published most likely at the end of the week. If not, a week before Rio.

I haven't checked what was happening on the re-allocation of quota places as a response to doping sanctions on Romania and Belarus that resulted to one-year suspension. From what I heard, France, Latvia, Italy, and Brazil accepted the spare berths. Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you learned that? Any mention of canoeing in Canada? TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Canada just recently added the women's K-4 500 m boat because Hungary had decided to choose double starters from other boats to the team that left some of the spots empty. Regarding the update on doping cases, I just learned through numerous sources, indicating that the other NOCs accepted the unused spots that were previously owned by Belarus and Romania. Raymarcbadz (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Golf at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's individual

Hi, I'm Pianoman320. Raymarcbadz, thanks for creating Golf at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's individual!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I tagged this article as needing references (it has none), otherwise it looks great. Thanks for the work!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

the Teahouse. Pianoman320 (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Re deletion of my work

There is no explanations for your edits. If you look on the talk page there is another editor that agrees with combining the original table with a table showing the number of athletes that were rejected. The issue of doping has become central to the 2016 team. The team competition results cannot be evaluated without considering the doping issue. The reader must have a way to see which team's and how many athletes were disallowed to compete. This information should be presented in a table, so it is easily accessed, just like the information regarding the competing athletes. If you delete my contribution then I ask that you please make another table showing the rejections. Thank you Rybkovich (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rybkovich, I have just restored the table of competitors because some of its contents do not share the same format with the rest of the NOCs, and the headers are not even appropriately fixed (capitalization of the first word). Since we are mainly focusing on the athletes competing at the Games and those who are highly involved in doping, I think we should add another table showing the rejections of athletes. Raymarcbadz (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Rybkovich (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnastics at the 2016 Summer Olympics

Hi! About the ranking in the seperate events of the artistic Gymnastics. The rankings in individual events are what determines qualifications in those events, so they are relevant. (Also they double as the person's placement in that event if they did not qualify further.) However, I agree that the current table isn't sufficiently explanatory.

We could change this:

Athlete	Event	Qualification						Final
		Apparatus				Total	Rank	Apparatus				Total	Rank
		V	UB	BB	F	Total	Rank	V	UB	BB	F	Total	Rank
Emma Larsson	All-around	14.066	12.766 65	14.000 27	13.500 42	54.332	35	Did not advance

Into this:

Athlete	Event	Result	Qualification					Final
			Apparatus				Total	Apparatus				Total	Rank
			V	UB	BB	F	Total	V	UB	BB	F	Total	Rank
Emma Larsson	All-around	Points	14.066	12.766	14.000	13.500	54.332	Did not advance
Emma Larsson	All-around	Rank	—	65	27	42	35	Did not advance

Do you have a better suggestion on how to incorporate rankings? Given that it's ranking, not points, that determines qualification in the events, it's very relevant to include it. -- Lejman (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No idea so far. Let's just use the old format of tables for the mean time. We can discuss these matters after the Games. But how about those competing as teams? Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a concern, admittedly :P We could possibly base it on the Equestrian table, it has similar issues. Here are two different examples made up based on US results:

Example One

Men
Individual Qualification and Team finals

Athlete	Event	Qualification														Final
		Apparatus												Total	Rank	Apparatus						Total	Rank
		Floor		Pommel horse		Rings		Vault		Parallel bars		Horizontal bar				Apparatus
		Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank			F	PH	R	V	PB	HB
Chris Brooks	Individual qualification	14.533	1	12.766	2	14.566	3	14.400	4	15.300	5	14.766	6	86.331	19 Q
Jake Dalton		15.600	5 Q	—		14.900	6	15.133	8	15.166	9	14.333	4	—
Danell Leyva		—		14.533	12	—		—		15.600	4 Q	15.333	3 Q	—
Sam Mikulak		15.800	2 Q	13.100	10	14.533	18	15.100	7	15.375	9	15.133	4 Q	89.041	7 Q
Alex Naddour		14.700	5	15.366	3 Q	15.000	9	15.100	10	—
Chris Brooks Jake Dalton Danell Leyva Sam Mikulak Alex Naddour	Team	46.100	1	42.999	3	44.466	2	45.333	2	46.275	1	45.232	1	270.405	2 Q

Individual all-around final

Athlete	Apparatus						Total	Rank
Athlete	F	PH	R	V	PB	HB	Total	Rank
Chris Brooks
Sam Mikulak

Event finals

Athlete	Event	Points	Rank
Jake Dalton	Floor
Danell Leyva	Parallel bars
Danell Leyva	Horizontal bar
Sam Mikulak	Floor
Sam Mikulak	Horizontal bar
Alex Naddour	Pommel horse

Example Two

Men
Qualification

Athlete	Event
		Apparatus												Total	Rank
		Floor		Pommel horse		Rings		Vault		Parallel bars		Horizontal bar
Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank
Chris Brooks	Individual	14.533	1	12.766	2	14.566	3	14.400	4	15.300	5	14.766	6	86.331	19 Q
Jake Dalton		15.600	5 Q	—		14.900	6	15.133	8	15.166	9	14.333	4	—
Danell Leyva		—		14.533	12	—		—		15.600	4 Q	15.333	3 Q	—
Sam Mikulak		15.800	2 Q	13.100	10	14.533	18	15.100	7	15.375	9	15.133	4 Q	89.041	7 Q
Alex Naddour		14.700	5	15.366	3 Q	15.000	9	15.100	10	—
Chris Brooks Jake Dalton Danell Leyva Sam Mikulak Alex Naddour	Team	46.100	1	42.999	3	44.466	2	45.333	2	46.275	1	45.232	1	270.405	2 Q

All-around finals

Athlete	Event	Apparatus						Total	Rank
Athlete	Event	F	PH	R	V	PB	HB	Total	Rank
Chris Brooks	Individual
Sam Mikulak	Individual
Chris Brooks Jake Dalton Danell Leyva Sam Mikulak Alex Naddour	Team	12.000 N/A 12.300 15.100 14.500						274.133
Team total		46.900	47.333	45.600	46.333	48.000	42.900	274.133

Event finals

Athlete	Event	Points	Rank
Jake Dalton	Floor
Danell Leyva	Parallel bars
Danell Leyva	Horizontal bar
Sam Mikulak
	Floor
	Horizontal bar
Alex Naddour	Pommel horse

Thank you for your great work on olympics edits!

208.58.64.104 (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1, Heats & Quarterfinals

Hi there, I see you reverted my corrections to the athletics table at Australia at the 2016 Summer Olympics. As per the official results, there are no quarterfinals at this Olympics. see 400m or 100m. The list of stages clearly says Preliminary Round (for 100m only), Round 1, Semifinals and Final. Given that no Australian competed in the preliminary round, it doesn't add any value to have an entire column of N/A and Bye, nor to mislabel the Round 1 as a Quarterfinal for the Women's 100m. The-Pope (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The-Pope, we'll discuss these matters in the

WT:OLY after Rio 2016, pertaining to the use of rounds in athletics. For now, we'll keep the headers to follow the same format as the previous Games. We don't have much time to adjust the headers for the other NOCs, and we're trying all of our best to fill out the results. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Please adhere to

WP:V and not some mysterious everything must be the same as previous rule. It must be correct, not just the same as before, nor even the same as all other NOCs. The-Pope (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Latvia at the 2016 Summer Olympics

Hello, I would like to know why you removed the references I added to the article

♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 17:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi there, it's not necessary to put the references on the results. They can be found in the linked article of each event. And why marathon only? Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the linked event was a redirect when I added the references. Why not marathon only? I can add how much I want. Perhaps you should use edit summaries?

♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The article is already available. They have results. You may now check on the link. Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It is nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice" —

♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Listing final rankings where rankings exist

Hello! I noticed you and Hautala had opinions on wether to list Judo rankings or not at Finland's 2016 Summer Olympics page. Given this, I would be interested in your input on this proposal on the topic. Thanks in advance! -- Lejman (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you obviously have opinions on this matter, please write your opinions on the relevant talk page. Some sports don't list official final rankings (examples being tennis, table tennis, and track distances in athletics). Others, however, do, and this includes Wrestling, Judo and Archery. Please discuss here rather than merely reverting. I've made the discussion post you recommended. -- Lejman (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling

Hey, In Wrestling technical points are the score, not classification points. Classification points are not the score, they are given after the match to determinate how equal/unequal the match was and to rank the wrestlers who lost in the same round.

Classification points Classification points are credited at the end of each match in the tournament and serve as the primary tool for ranking wrestlers at the end of the tournament. Classification points are different than technical points, which are the actual points that wrestlers score during the matches themselves.

--Klõps (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technical points, which are the actual points that wrestlers score during the matches themselves. can it be be said more clearly? --Klõps (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're different. In the Rio 2016 website, the scores of each match in the standings across the wrestling events are displayed under classification points. If we rely more on the technical points, then why do we need to have a legend? If you take a look at each of the rounds, their scores display under classification more than technical [8] Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rio website says 0–6. Ok I see what you are doing... but then it should say in the legend that the tables present classification points not the actual scores of the matches. Tech points decided the medal in the medal match, not the class points. In the case of one match class points are irrelevant. --Klõps (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you revert edits on various countries regarding tech vs class points. I have no strong opinion on either; I note that the Rio page presents tech points on the game's page, while they (quite self-contradictingly) present class points on the standings page (like [9], check the Finals, Repechages, etc tabs). Regardless of system we go with, we should make sure we present the same scores on the articles for the events themselves. As it stands, all event pages, like Wrestling at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's Greco-Roman 98 kg, present the technical scores only. -- Lejman (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If both of you are highly favored on the technical scores to be displayed in each NOC page, then why do we need a legend? Have you seen this

WT:OLY. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey Rey, Your doing great with these Olympic articles. Just wanted to let You know why it took so long yesterday for me to understand Your point. Actually question is about relevance. Tech points are the score that decide the match result. Class points are decided by the referees after the match and their only purpose is to rank the wrestlers who didn't reach the medal matches. Referees just tick the right box.

In case of the medal matches class points are totally irrelevant. Class points are secondary ranking system. Btw it is the same if we would rank football results so that all the wins would be 3–0 and draws 1–1 what ever the real score were.

The legend is redundant anyway, as the class points determine themselves if loser had technical points or not, so marking the PP, PO, ST actually is doubling the info.

Classification points system:

5–0 Victory by fall.

5–0 Winning by injury, withdrawal, default or disqualification.

4–0 Victory by technical superiority, the Loser without technical points.

4–1 Victory by technical superiority, the Loser with technical points.

3–0 Victory by points, the Loser without technical points.

3–1 Victory by points, the Loser with technical points.

0–0 Disqualifications to both wrestlers

So class points score 5–0^VT written by words is – Victory by fall^{Victory by fall} Do you still think that class points are more relevant than tech points? --Klõps (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're still relevant ever since. Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an argument. You haven't given any arguments why the secondary classification points system should be used instead of the real scores. --Klõps (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What will you do if someone loses or wins by fall or if both opponents earned a draw? How will you score? Knockout, fall, superiority, or classification points? Why do you consider classification points as irrelevant? Do you want all of NOCs to remove the legend and replace with technical scores instead? Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because Classification points are given regarding to the result of the match (result of the match is technical score). Match winner gets more class points and loser may also get one point if they had technical points, loser can never have more than one class point. Don't be confused by the name of the points. Classification points sound like they would be more important and technical points vice versa, but actually technical points decide the matches. Classification points are a tool to rank places down from the 7th place in tournament format... Classification points have nothing to do with deciding match winners, class points are just a tool for tournament classification. --Klõps (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But I'm just asking about if someone loses or wins by fall or if both opponents earned a draw? It's much better if we can just put both of them on the scores simultaneously (both technical and classification)? Or propose a new table to generate results containing both scores for transparency and clarity to the wrestling rules. What do you think? Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop with this disruptive editing. You are adding scores that are not on the top of each match result nor whats on the individual articles on Wikipedia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WT:OLY. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

What if someone loses or wins by fall?

Event pages mark them with superscript ^F Shariati 2^F–0 Popp. From here: Men's Greco-Roman 130 kg

or if both opponents earned a draw?

The rules try to exclude chance for draw, but if they do happen winner is decided by highest technical points awarded, cautions or by last tech point awarded. Wrestling rules by United World Wrestling page 23

In case of tie by points, the winner will be declared by successively considering:

- the highest value of holds

- the least amount of cautions

- the last technical point(s) scored

It looks like event pages only use bolding the winners score. Even the official pdf reports leave it for the reader to know the rules which wrestler won. Superscript ^W might be used 2^W–2

Classification points page 15 The loser is eliminated and ranked according to the classification points marked, except wrestlers who lost against one of the finalists as they take part in the repechage for the 3rd or 5th places.

Classification criteria From the 7th place, wrestlers of each category will be ranked depending on their ranking points, retirement or forfeit, injury or disqualification.

So for all the medal winners and finalists these classification points do not mean anything – totally irrelevant secondary rating system. --Klõps (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Race reports

Hi, thanks for adding race descriptions in event articles about Swimming at the 2016 Summer Olympics, but I noticed the language is far from neutral in many cases. For example, [10] has phrases such as Kyle Chalmers stunned the vastly experienced field of sprinting superstars, Pieter Timmers rocked an astonishing 47.80, and Duncan Scott finished a fantastic fifth. And I found similar subjective phrases in several other articles from Swimming at the 2016 Summer Olympics. In an encyclopedia it's better to let the facts speak for themselves, and let the reader decide whether an achievement is fantastic or not, for example by referring to their (lack of) previous achievements. Gap9551 (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gap9551, thank you for a quick, healthy reminder on the race descriptions in swimming. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, but I noticed that instead of discussing the concerns I voiced here, you reverted several of my edits in which I aimed to fix some of the above issues, while also apparently ignoring my edit summaries. Examples: You reinstated the fast-charging Sun even though Sun outsplitted Horton by only 0.01 on the final lap. You reinstated other point-of-view edits I removed such as incredible turn [11], relentless attack [12], and loaded field [13] (it is better to simply describe the achievements of those in the field). Those terms are not suited for an encyclopedia.

You reinstated sprint dorsal without discussion despite me arguing in my edit summary that "sprint" is debatable for a 52 second race, and also "dorsal" is not used as synonym of backstroke swimming. Also [14] Hosszú immediately passed the American at the final 25-metre stretch doesn't make sense as you just mentioned the turn in the previous sentence, and those locations are separated by 25 meter, i.e., not "immediate". Finally you reverted me adding a last name to your own version for no clear reason.

Again, I appreciate you writing summaries for these races. That is great work. But the tone should be neutral and not reflect any opinions we may have about the achievements, and we should discuss phrases we disagree on. Gap9551 (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we misunderstood each other here and in your following edit. With reaction times I meant the take-over time (the few tenths of a second between when one relay swimmer touches the wall and the next leaves the block), because I thought you were referring to that with brilliant exchanges. Now I understand that by exchanges you probably meant the split time of the whole leg. Gap9551 (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a semantics issue. I understand what you mean by their Olympic title defense in this event for the fourth straight time but technically they only defended it 3 times. Australia won in 2000, then the US in 2004-2016, for 4 titles in a row. So in 2004 the US did not defend their title, as they won it for the first time (not counting pre-2000). Gap9551 (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thank you for notifying me about the corrections. If you're going to check the descriptions that I made in swimming from the previous Games (2000 to 2012), please do so. I'm tired of proofreading and I need enough time to fill out the descriptions for the remaining events. It's indeed a waste of effort for me. Raymarcbadz (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By all means keep writing these descriptions, as they are a huge improvement. I really hope I'm not discouraging you. Don't worry about them being perfect in every way; nobody's contributions (including my adjustments) are perfect right away, that's why on a wiki everybody can and should edit other editors' work. Without your work these articles would remain bare lists of results, so you're doing great work here. I just hope you don't mind me making the odd adjustment to it. Gap9551 (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gap9551, thank you for encouraging me to keep writing. I know that you checked the descriptions in each event at the present Games, but kindly inspect the descriptions that I had already done from the previous editions, particularly in swimming. You may be unaware that all of them were written by yours truly, Hope it helps. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll have a look at some point. Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop reverting back to your preferred version which includes similar words listed above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC) I am re-adding back my comments here. This is a collaborative effort here, and you are not assuming good faith when I fix some of the issues raised above by @Gap9551:. Why do you keep reverting? Can you please explain your actions here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's indeed a collaborative effort.

WT:OLY or set up an article that constitutes the rules on grammar and composition related to Olympics. (just a suggestion) You're trying to lose the importance of the word "Olympic", and make the descriptions more senseless and incoherent. Raymarcbadz (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

October 2016

Hello, I'm Sportsfan 1234. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Fiji at the 2016 Summer Olympics without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Why are you removing perfectly valid prose in an article?? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A perfectly valid prose? Why some of the words in a single sentence, such as "match" and "win" overused all of the time? Is this allowable or are you just trying to limit somebody's vocabulary skills and dictionary tools by abusing deadwood and wordiness, or avoiding the "weasel" method? Be clever please. If you want sentences to be grammatically valid, try to polish them with varied words, or much better, rephrase the sentence. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but that doesn't mean you remove the whole thing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I'll report to the user who put the content and advise him on the grammatical structures, while doing his own proses. Thanks for the alert! Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XXX at the 2016 Summer Olympics

Hi Raymarcbadz. I couldn't help but notice that you are reverting almost all my editions on the XXX at the 2016 Summer Olympics articles. In all of those editions I used the Edit summary to give a brief explanation of my actions. Now, I've been noticing that you are, pretty much, reverting what I've done without giving any reasoning behind your actions neither in the summary nor in the talk page. If you want to give me the reasons behind your actions, I'll be more than glad to hear and discuss them, until then, I'll be reverting your editions to the aforementioned articles. Felviper (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Felviper, why some of the information that I placed before was misleading? How will the users know the reason for the nations being absent in a particular Summer Olympic edition, especially those who were boycotted at the 1976 to 1988 Olympics, or those who failed to register in any edition? How about the United States and XXX at the 2012 Summer Olympics articles? Much better if I can just rephrase the sentence to avoid hasty generalizations and misleading information. Thank you for your utmost concern. Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raymarcbadz. Thankfully you just gave two excellent examples, one of why I'm reverting that information, and another of how that information should be included. In this article, the paragraph said:

Paraguay competed at the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 5 to 21 August 2016. This was the nation's twelfth appearance at the Summer Olympics, with the exception of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, because of its partial support to the United States-led boycott.

I erased the with the exception of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, because of its partial support to the United States-led boycott. part because it said that it was the nation's twelfth appearance at the Summer Olympics implying that the only time the nation was absent was in 1980, which is false because Paraguay did not attend any Summer Games before 1964. In this case you should either erase the info or write it in such way that it leaves no room for confusion (by explaining that it was the only time since the nation's first appearence or by explaining each absence of the games), and that second thing was exactly what you did. This is the new paragraph you wrote:

Paraguay competed at the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 5 to 21 August 2016. Since the nation's official debut in 1968, Paraguayan athletes had appeared in every edition of the Summer Olympic Games, but did not attend the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow because of the nation's partial support for the US-led boycott.

Perfect, it clearly explains the nature of that specific absence (Honestly, I think it is not the best idea to put this info on every XXX at the YYYY Summer Olympics, it should be only in the XXX at the Olympics article -the user reading that article wants to know about those specific games, not about that nation's full olympic history-, but you seem to have a lot of experince editing Olympic articles, so I'll leave it in your hands). However, you made the same mistake in this article. The paragraph was:

Chad competed at the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 5 to 21 August 2016. This was the nation's twelfth appearance at the Summer Olympics. Chad did not attend the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal, and the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow because of its support of the African and the United States-led boycotts.

I decided to erase the Chad did not attend the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal, and the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow because of its support of the African and the United States-led boycotts. for the very same reasons. Ok, the article explains what happened in 1976 and 1980, but what happened in 1936? Why wasn't Chad part of the 1952 games? Of course I know the answers, and any user ready to check a few links will know too, but the idea of every article is to try to be as clear as possible, and by being ambiguous and misleading by implying those were the only absences of Chad, the article is just not fullfilling its mission. As such, rephrasing the sentence (as you said) or eliminating the misleading information are the only practical options I see to avoid this.Felviper (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation, Felviper. How about this one?

Philippines competed at the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 5 to 21 August 2016. Since the nation's official debut in 1924, Filipino athletes had appeared in every edition of the Summer Olympic Games, but did not attend the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow because of the nation's partial support for the US-led boycott.

or

The United States, represented by the
Summer Olympics edition of the modern era, with the exception of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, which they boycotted
.

I just got these information from the aforementioned articles and applied them to several articles of the XXX at the 2016 Summer Olympics, and then you said that all three examples are incorrect, because either the information was misleading, or the sentences should only be allowed in the XXX at the Olympics. How about the countries that have attended in every edition of the Summer Olympic Games, except for one occasion, like the United States. The sentence for the Philippines was correct, while Paraguay and Bermuda didn't. I already put the nation's official debut in XXX. What else should I add or modify other than "This was the xxth appearance at the Summer Olympics", especially for those who have many absences in the past? Unless you want to leave them with only one sentence in general, or add a background section for a brief information about the nation (see this example). Some of them managed to expand their descriptions with the possibility of being nominated for "good article" category. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Your undo on Maldives at the 2016 Summer Olympics

Why? Its the same with most of the GA xyz at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Country alias

Hi,

The IOC refers to CIV as Côte d'Ivoire [15] and TLS as Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (shortened too Timor-Leste) [16]. So please do not change the above module to your preference without a proper discussion/consensus please. Thanks. Primefac What are your thoughts on this? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Here's the problem. Sportsfan 1234, I think you need to move the articles of Ivory Coast and East Timor to those with the names Cote d'Ivoire and Timor-Leste, respectively, instead. Changing the names of these aforementioned countries affected the infoboxes. Take a look at Cote d'Ivoire. There are so many unnecessary links in the infobox. Primefac, kindly fix the code for Cote d'Ivoire and Timor-Leste. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the Ivory Coast pages was actually an issue with a different template; I've fixed that issue so there shouldn't be a proliferation of redlinks any more.

You both make interesting points. On the one hand, the IOC name in {{

COMMONNAME. I think that a proper consensus needs to be taken as to which name we use; start an RFC to determine if we use the common name or the official IOC name. Until then, with nothing broken, I don't think we need to be changing anything for the moment. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Mentioned at AN

Raymarcbadz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see

User:Fram. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Already read their messages. My gosh. They're attacking me, especially Fram and my relentless rival Sportsfan 1234. Thank you for the update! Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading these articles carefully? At the time you moved the Anna Illés article it had a 'Hungarian' team listing as a reference which was actually a list of the Greek team. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read and assess some of them if I have ample and free time. I'm busy working on the descriptions for the NOC articles at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Going back to Anna Illes article, I already corrected the link. Raymarcbadz (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thanks for moving some. given the eye of sauron about, you might want to try checking each reference and using the find button - keep up the good work. Beatley (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, EU vs ER

Hi again, I just realized there's an inconsistency between Template:Olympic swimming record codes and Template:Swimming record codes. Just recently, I resolved with another IP and the World Championships articles should use "ER", as it's the code used by FINA and listed by Omega Timing. Should there be a consistency here? Any reason other than sounding like "emergency room" that we deviate from a standard?

I've also posted to the other IP about this, and either its edits on Olympics pages need to be undone, or the code on the template needs to be changed. 24.17.207.180 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've somewhat violated 3RR, so I'd like to request that this edit be undone for consistency with Template:Swimming record codes, at least for now. unless you decide that that template need to be changed to "EU", which means hundreds of articles need code updating. 24.17.207.180 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Summer Olympics national flag bearers

Hi Raymarcbadz. I noticed that you created the article

2000 Summer Olympics national flag bearers, but at the time did not include any sources. I was wondering what source(s) you used to create the article; in particular, I was looking for a source for Willy Kalombo Mwenze being the COD flagbearer, as I could not confirm this from any other sources. Thanks. Canadian Paul 14:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello there, I used Sports Reference as a source for the athletes who carried their national flags in the opening ceremonies. Anything else, I could not find a legal source about the flag bearers in Sydney 2000, unless their names can be heard in one of the YouTube videos. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SvG deleted BLP

Is it possible to recover the Winifer Fernández article? That one was very well sourced do not know what happened there, I could not verify myself most of them. Yes, thanks to all the editors that went involved in this massive and necessary clean up, but there must be some of them needing to be recovered. Thanks for answering, --Osplace 18:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Winifer Fernández. It looks okay from a quick glance, but please give it a proper once-over to ensure that it meets our standards before moving it back to the article space. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply

]

Primefac Thank you very much, I will check it before moving back. --Osplace 18:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac Another article that would probably make the cut was Yoraxi Meleán, can you please check? --Osplace 19:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft restored. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much! --Osplace 02:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac I have another SvG deleted BLP: Crismery Santana. Can you please give it a check, thanks. --Osplace 20:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That one is a one-sentence stub with no suitable references. Might as well start it from scratch. Primefac (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac Understood, thank you very much! --Osplace 01:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to Country x at the 2016 Olympic articles.

I've left some notes on my edits on a couple of talk pages. My main reason for changing is that the construct of "the third time done by a female in the nation's Summer Olympic history." reads really awkwardly to a native English speaker. If you want to keep that construction, maybe consider changing it to "the third time this was done by a woman in the nation's Summer Olympic history." It reads slightly better, IMO. Red Fiona (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, it reads slightly better, but you need to rephrase the sentence clearly to make it concise, because I've seen clusters of wordiness and redundancy errors in your edits for most of the NOC articles. Or much better, "the third time being done by a woman in the nation's Summer Olympic history." What do you think? Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it needs a participle of be/was in there somewhere. How about starting a new sentence and "She was the third female flagbearer in the nation's Summer Olympic history." Any better? Red Fiona (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the third time being done by a female in the nation's Summer Olympic history" would be more appropriate. Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it's grammatically wrong, the "being done" bit. Or if not wrong, at least last used in English some time pre-the Victorian era. That's the problem. If you prefer it, that's okay, and I'll just stop changing it, but I wouldn't be surprised if other users changed it. (Don't worry, it won't be me. I accept that they're articles you've watchlisted so you'll just change it back.) Red Fiona (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Olympic Roster and semi-official athletes

Hello... you apparently removed some of the athletes I listed as being partially recognized as Swedish olympians. On the official Winter Olympic athletes page, 20 Swedish athletes are listed in cross-country skiing (see https://www.pyeongchang2018.com/en/game-time/results/OWG2018/en/general/athletes.htm ). FIS' qualification page also lists 20 quotas for Sweden in the sport (https://data.fis-ski.com/dynamic/olympic-quotas-list.html?sectorcode=cc&listid=2018 ). The Swedish olympic committee only lists 110 athletes in its olympic roster. (Source: http://sok.se/pressmeddelanden/2018-01-26-jakobsen-och-hedberg-tar-sista-os-platserna.html ).

The same was true for two alpine skiers earlier, but those have since been removed from the olympic athletes page, and the FIS quotas for Sweden in alpine skiing have been reduced too, so they're no longer an issue.

I don't think any of the cross-country athletes will participate in the games unless some of the regular athletes get sick and these get called in as reserves. That said, either we should count these athletes, list their names and include them in the roster count, or we should remove their names, and deduct them from the Swedish roster count (down to 110). That's why I've been re-adding their names; I was reverted when trying to reduce the athlete count to 110 earlier. -- Lejman (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arranging men and women by gender

Show me where You found this rule? If you put men and women in the same table, then arrange them alphabetically, not by gender, height, eye color etc or what ever unknown parameter. Klõps (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, have you seen the tables in the biathlon and cross-country skiing? They are arranged alphabetically, and by event with respect to gender. If you're going to do this for alpine skiing and speed skating by their surnames on your own approach, then do them for the rest of the sports to be fair and transparent. Seriously. Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were like this, but You kept adding all in one table. If there is clearly shown criteria – Words men and women on top of the table then it is ok as word men are before women. But if You add men and women in the same table there is no criteria why men are listed before women.Klõps (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If You put men and women in the same table then A is before L etc. There isn't male alphabet before female alphabet. Klõps (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? If you're problem is based on arranging men and women both by surname and gender, please discuss it on

WP:OLYMOSNAT. Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

There's nothing in OLYMOSNAT about listing men before women if the results are in the same table. All it says is More than a single athlete in a sport category, whether individual, pair, or team, must be arranged alphabetically according to their last names, but nothing about if men and women are in the same table that then men should be listed first. And why then in medal tables men aren't listed before women? Stop messing up things! Klõps (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of a nation having more than six competitors in a given sport, this table may be further split into "Men" and "Women" results tables. And if there is less than 6 competitors then they must be arranged alphabetically according to their last names and not by their gender.Klõps (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medal tables are different from the athlete tables. They are arranged according to the date, not by surname. If you arrange them alphabetically according to their last names without specifying the gender. Then, this would have been done for the rest of the NOCs at these Games, even in Rio 2016. How about those that are split into men and women, if ever more than 6 athletes are listed in their respective sports? It would become a major problem. I suggest if you can discuss it on

WT:OLY, so that other members of the project will provide a feedback about it, and what would be the concrete action. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The Example for medals table in

WP:OSE. No rule in OLYMOSNAT says that men should always be listed before women. You have invented this rule. Klõps (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Excuse me, I don't invent rules. I've worked with the NOC articles for several editions, and now, you prove me wrong about the arrangement of tables alphabetically by surnames. Why can't you do them for the rest of NOCs? Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I edit those? I'll edit those that fell into my sphere of interest. I suggest You to read

WP:OSE. Klõps (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Stop Edit warring. There is no reason why men should be listed before women. The discussion is still ongoing. Klõps (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are You still edit warring? Wasn't it clear in the discussion at Oly, that the order is alphabetical if atheletes are in the same table.Klõps (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

have/had/has

For nation articles, using have/had/has is grammatically correct. However, without those words, sentences make sense still and will do so after the Olympics have finished. Using have/had/has means we need to go back and remove them after the games have finished. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you mentioned after the Games, do you imply after the Olympic Games are finished or after the competition is finished? You immediately removed the perfect verb forms when I checked the NOC pages again. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After they have finished. Both forms (with/without) have/had/has make sense. However, not having them makes things easier. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finished from the World Championships or Olympics? The Tokyo Games has not started yet. Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Tokyo Olympics. When the Olympics finish, the sentence will not make sense. Which is why I have removed have/has/had, as the sentence in the present time makes sense and will continue to make sense into the future. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan 1234, you make me confused. Why did you remove the word have/has/had in the description, knowing that the Tokyo Olympics has not yet started? You know that you can remove it after the Games. You would have said that better to omit the words have/had/has in your description when you message me. Think before you tell me something please. This would make sense if you want to explain things clearly to me, okay? Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sportsfan 1234

I see you reverted User:Sportsfan 1234's deletion of the qualifying date for the host nation in Handball at the 2020 Summer Olympics. That user is now running wild to change that in various articles against our standard. Maybe it will be necessary to act against that user if he proceeds.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to warn you that User:Sportsfan 1234 is strict and firm with the power to revert changes made by users against him, including me, acting himself like a “dictator and administrator” of WikiProject:Olympics. Additionally, he agrees with and judges other users’ edits, and he hates explaining the reason for someone who edits any changes that he does not know. If this happens, he instantly messages you about reverting and tries to block you from editing articles. Best if you discuss with him. You may file administrative changes against him on Wikipedia, if he does not stop running wild with the reverts. Raymarcbadz (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming Tokyo 2020

Hello, I understand what you say and I have done my research, I ask you not to delete my editions, because there were many hours of research. By erasing that indiscriminate way, you're throwing all my work in the trash. Believe me that I am on the subject, I am part of the Mexican Olympic Committee and the National Sports Commission. Do you think it's okay if I put a note in countries where it is possible that there are changes ?, to avoid conflicts between us.

Thank you and I hope you understand that it is not good to erase my work without talking to me before and trying to reach an agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taqueishon (talk • contribs) 22:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taqueishon, you sounded disrespectful when you reverted the edits. If you’re not so convinced about my explanation, better discuss it at this page

WT:OLY. Raymarcbadz (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Taqueishon, you said that "I have checked the list of the athletes classified with the FINA ranking for Rio and the first two on the list are the classified ones, therefore the preliminary name selection that I have edited is correct. On the other hand, I included countries and athletes that met the mark and when you undo my contribution, you eliminate everything, not only that you mention". In this case, why can't you recreate a table of swimmers who reached the FINA A-cut, including their qualifying times, and then highlight those who have been selected by NOC instead, if you want their names to be appeared here on this page? Be mindful that the World Championships will happen in a few weeks from now, so the list might change from time to time. Hope it works. Just my suggestion. Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a preliminary table — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taqueishon (talk • contribs) 14:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary table? So will you be the one to update the page until the qualification period ends? If you want the names of the top two swimmers to appear on the table but are not confirmed yet by NOC, better if you italicized their names. Just a suggestion.Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greece at the 2020 Olympic Games

Hello, i made once again my changes there. I will do them every time you do not understand it. Im serious too, Greece has NOT any more sailors or shooters on the events Greece qualified and there is not chance , 100%, my country to send other than their, everyone here knows that, we dont need any source about that. Also, Apostolos Christou has reached te OG many years before, 2012, 2016, check the history. He is not young and he didnt do the Olympic score at the European championships for God's shake. Also, the sources I added tell exactly that both swimmers joined the Greek olympic 2020 team, i will translate the titles if this is what you want but i kept the source of my code to enter it every time i see their names deleted. Im not the only one who changes everything without searching or asking the others why. Regards, Halkman8 (talk)

Halkman8, like what I sent you a message on your talk page, better you contact or e-mail FINA regarding your matter on the two swimmers achieved their entry times at the European Junior Swimming Championships. Here's the evidence. Are you sure that these are the sailors or shooters competing for Tokyo 2020? As suggested, the athletes should not be named yet, until the Hellenic Olympic Committee has confirmed their selection to the Greek team for Tokyo 2020.

Halkman8: One more thing. Why can't you name them in the qualification pages for sailing and shooting, if you think that Greece has no more sailors or shooters on the events? Always check credible sources. No alibis and subjective answers please, next time.

Israel at the 2020 Summer Olympics

Why do you delete the information about the athlete and the competition that the country won her quota? (For example in this edit [[17]] and this one [[18]]) Nimrodbr (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can include the information about the athlete and the competition if he or she has been selected to your team for

Tokyo 2020. Are these athletes already selected and confirmed by your country's NOC? Raymarcbadz (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I think you confuse two cases here. The information shown indicates the name of the athlete and the competition in which the country won its quota. Nowhere does it says that the athlete who won the quota is the athlete who represents the country. If he or she are selected by the NOC, I will add this information. However, even if another athlete is chosen to represent the country. The fact that another athlete won the quota will not be changed and I think that there is a place to show this information. Nimrodbr (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raymarcbadz, Do you have any objection to displaying the information about how the quota is obtained? Nimrodbr (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PenthouseLive.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in
section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Greece at the 2020 Olympic Games - Edits

Hello man, please answer me on WHY you keep EDITING my changes at the page of Greecce's participation at 2020 Olympics???? You (finally) accepted that the Greek athletes who won the participations will be the SAME who will go to Tokyo, Greece is NOT USA to have plenty of athletes. You keep EDITING the page and you put both genders at the same wiki tables. Can you please have a look at the other countries participation pages at Olympics 2016,2012 etc? Do you see for example a page having male and female sailors at the same table? Why do you have that problem? Please answer me and do not change it again and again, PLEASE. Find another page to do your own stuff if you want to keep annoying everyone. Regards, Halkman8 (talk)

WT:OLY so that everyone knows how to select athletes for Greece at the Games. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk
)
@Halkman8 is right in that when a NOC has less then six athletes, the tables are combined. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymarcbadz At last! Thank you for being respectfull too to share the guide, im not a genious wikipedia editor you know, I made the changes based on the past year Greece's pages. At sailing the athletes are 7 and as I saw you remember to seperate them. I didnt tell that if we qualify a basketball ort a water polo team that the whole team will go to Tokyo but as a Greek let me know that there is no chance, 0%, to select other sailors than their. For example at the category 470 of women Greece has NOT other female sailors to compete. Every serious greek news site here have them to the list of the "already Tokyo qualifiers". Also Anna Korakaki won the gold medal at 25 m pistol at the world champion which was an olympic qualification and you cant see her at the qualification page because she already took a place via the 10 m event but if you know the shooters that qualify to an event they qualify to all others too that they have the minimum qualification score. She is the #1 at the world ranking and you still keep deleting that. Halkman8 (talk)

@Sportsfan 1234 thank you, at last, someone mentioned it. Halkman8 (talk)

@Halkman8 Just to clarify, I meant @Raymarcbadz is right, not yourself in this case. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234 I meant that the "right" person never mentioned the specific rules about it. Did you understand me now? Halkman8 (talk)

Curious about your edits at Sport climbing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification

Why did you change the table's formatting? Do your changes produce a visual difference I haven't noticed? Not that it matters any more, but it makes it harder to read/edit the wiki markup.

Why do you keep listing Ai Mori as one of the qualified climbers? I originally wrote that in error and it was quickly (and rightly) removed. Cheers, Spacepine (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics

You seem to have
WP:OWN with nation at xxxx Olympic articles. It needs to stop right away as its disruptive. You need to discuss on talk pages and cannot blindly revert every time you disagree with something. Please comment on the talk pages. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Sportsfan 1234, kindly explain to me clearly about your edits. You continue to revert my edits and you supported NearPup instead. I think you should edit the page from now on and keep yourself updated about the Olympics. To be honest, you sounded so rude and racist when you commented me about my English. What's wrong with you? Seemingly, you just want to prohibit me from putting descriptions in the Canada page. Worse, you do not want me to edit the page anymore. Thank you for pissing me off! Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I apologize I offended you. That is definitely not the intent all. There is "no supporting" of editors on articles. Following guidelines is key and that includes properly using proper sentence structure, spelling etc. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be very clear, I've full-protected the article for a week. During this week, I expect you and Sportsfan to work together and decide what the article should say. Remember, you both have the same ultimate goal: to make the article good. You can disagree on how it should be good, but you're on the same side. DS (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to reply here or on the article's talk page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsfan 1234, what do you want me to discuss on the article’s talk page? Why? Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Sport climbing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect
Sport climbing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's. Since you had some involvement with the Sport climbing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics

I will be opening a discussion section at the Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics to discuss your edits. They are not proper English, not concise and unnecessarily increase the length of the article. Please comment there. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.
WT:OLY
, so that we could address this problem to the administrators and contributors of the project.

Honestly, reverting my edits makes me feel confused and thereby frustrated. And your comments sounded unpleasant whenever you revert my edits. Please stop it. Hoping for your consideration and understanding. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gymnastics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – List of Qualified NOCs

Template:Gymnastics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – List of Qualified NOCs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sport climbing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read
the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard
to help you create articles.

The page
deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019 September 1#Sport climbing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's
. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with
here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Sport climbing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification

I've reverted your changes to climbers names, because the original version preserves how they are spelt in the official IFSC records and climbing media (with the exception of YiLing Song: Yiling vs YiLing appears to be 50-50).
The olympic channel source is the only one that spells the names your way.
For your convenience:

IFSC Toulouse results

[19]

[20]

--Spacepine (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing my edits on 2020's men's Dutch RS:X qualification

Hi Raymarcbadz,
Just wanted to inquire about you deleting my edits about the Dutch men's RS:X qualification for 2020 not being decided yet due to Rijsselberghe and Badloe being tied in ranking. Not only have I provided two, as far as I can see, credible sources, one being the Dutch Olympic Committee for Sailing and one being a Dutch newspaper, but even Rijsselberghe himself confirmed this. I understand you may not be able to read Dutch, luckily this one is in English. Here's a 15 second clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgT7Z-bhHD8t=333 (timestamp 5:33 to 5:48)
--Dexcuracy (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand pentathlon

Your insistence on removing this cited section is disruptive. You have been reverted by several editors. Take your issue to the talk page. If instead you keep insisting on deleting the content you will face a block. Your choice. I suggest that going to the talk page is the better option. Schwede 66 02:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksey Tokarev (sailor)

Please note I've opened up a move request at
Talk:Aleksey Tokarev (sailor). Thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, feel free to put up articles on here, there's also a European one and others. You're doing decent work on sportspeople, keep it up!†
Encyclopædius 07:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Afghanistan at the 1992 Summer Olympics

A tag has been placed on
Afghanistan at the 1992 Summer Olympics
requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

g3; country did not compete in 1992

Under the
criteria for speedy deletion
, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by
here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
>[reply]

November 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use words such as "maiden" and "squad" as these have other meanings. Please use words such as "first" and "team" as they mean exactly what it is supposed too. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. What grammar rules would you like to remind me when editing the description of each article? Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russian athletes at the 2020 Summer Olympics

Hi, saw the recent move you made to this article... You may want to run it by
WP:RMC as a previous move request did not find consensus. Thanks! 162.208.168.92 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi. Kindly read the last paragraph of the article's top section about the name change. Thank you. Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion at
WP:RMC. The previous discussion shows that this is a controversial move. Thanks! 162.208.168.92 (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Controversial moves without establishing a consensus first are improper. Please don't do that. This has been discussed on the article's Talk page. The move you performed on 1 March might have been excusable, but the additional one on 4 March was not. By now you should know that
WP:MOVEWARRING is improper. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Wrestling format

hi, I improved some tables. I saw that you changed them. I studied the methods today. There is no standard in this case. It's just a matter of taste. Not a rule. See about the filmography of the actors. Sometimes movies are written from beginning to end (year of production). Sometimes from beginning to end. The goal is to make the information concise and useful. If I could, I would have summarized all the athletes in one table. What is the use of having four separate tables for a sport other than lengthening and complicating it? Please do not change my tables. The goal is to improve. Just because something has happened in the past does not mean that it is immutable. If there is a standard style sheet, give me the link. Thankful --Sasoxia (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best if you discuss this matter on
WT:OLY regarding the table format changes. Are you going to apply these to all tables? Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Please refer to this link and look at the examples of the NOC articles. Thank you. Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics

Please stop including dashes in the wrestling events. These are not needed and unnecessary. Please see the explanatory guide, there is no dash included [21] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you mass removing references from the page? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid "qualified into the Olympics tournament", its redundant. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cycling at the 2020 Summer Olympics – List of Qualified NOCs

Template:Cycling at the 2020 Summer Olympics – List of Qualified NOCs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain at the 2020 Summer Olympics Rowing

Why have you rearranged the order of the boat crews? Previously they were entered in the order that the individuals were positioned in each of the boats so that it was possible to identify who the Stroke was for instance. Drams707 (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We arrange them by their surnames, not in order of stroke, for consistency. Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing participants from Hungary at the 2020 Summer Olympics page

Please don't remove any of verified participants from Hungary at the 2020 Summer Olympics page. From this games, countries can enter two participants in K1, K2, C1, C2 competitions and Hungary took this opportunity. 176.63.153.240 (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove verified athletes from Hungary at the 2020 Summer Olympics page

I asked you before: please, please DON'T remove any verified athletes in kayaking/canoeing from Hungary at the 2020 Summer Olympics page. What you are doing now is pure vandalism. Here is the link from the Hungarian Olympic Comimttee: http://olimpia.hu/images/Tokyo2020/dokumentumok/kajakkenusport_olimpiai_egysegek.pdf
Not to mention, your last edition for Hungarian swimmers is also completely wrong (here is a link from a Hungarian newspaper: https://telex.hu/sport/2021/06/21/hosszu-katinka-tokio-4-szam-indulas ), but I'm tired of correcting your inaccurate editions. 176.63.153.240 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics

Please stop your disruptive editing. NONE of your changes in the prose of the respective sports make the article better, in fact some of the changes make it grammatically incorrect. In athletics/swimming the tables are organized by event, not athlete. For sports where they are facing a competitor, only the last name of their competitor is included in the results table to reduce clutter. As for beach volleyball, not sure why you removed the group stage and combined it into one box? Makes no sense. Please focus on other countries which have next to no updates. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the corrections carefully. Be mindful at first. I will give you my comment about these.
- You forgot to merge "Summer McIntosh" and "Crystal Emmanuel." They both compete in two events as individuals. It's confusing to count. Why can't you check them again?

- Too many repeated words, such as "qualified." Do you know how to make your sentences concise?

Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed by event not athlete, which is why the two names you listed are shown more than once. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you again, Sportsfan 1234. I always inspect the corrections. Be careful of what you are doing. DO NOT MAKE THE REVERT POWER YOUR HABIT. Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics, you may be blocked from editing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you again, Sportsfan 1234. I always inspect the corrections. Be careful of what you are doing. DO NOT MAKE THE REVERT POWER YOUR HABIT. Check all sections. Every time I make a correction, you immediately revert them on Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics page. What's your problem? Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Singapore at the 2020 Summer Olympics. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Singapore at the 2020 Summer Olympics. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paper9oll, I've already fixed the articles. Please follow the format from the other NOCs. I've been working on these articles for several editions of the Summer Olympics. The act to revert my other corrections is not a healthy option. If you revert the entire article, other corrections may be disregarded, so you better be careful about what you are supposed to do. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you indefinitely for removing references from articles. PhilKnight (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight, when will you ever unblock my account? You reverted my current edits. Please ALLOW ME TO EDIT. I AM UPSET NOW FOR WHAT YOU GUYS DID TO ME. ESPECIALLY Paper9oll Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Raymarcbadz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I need to continue editing, checking, and inspecting articles related to Olympics on Wikipedia, since I am an avid Olympic fan. Please address this unblock request immediately. Thank you!

Decline reason:

Raymarcbadz I suggest you step away from Wikpedia for a few hours or a day or however long it takes for you to calm down. Indefinite does not mean forever. I am sure that User:PhilKnight does not intend to block a user of 15 years with 87K+ edits permanently over this. However it was needed to block you so to stop your disruptive editing.
Come back when you are calm, consider what others have been telling you on this talk page. Make a reasonable request to be unblocked and it will be given fair consideration. Nothing is to be gained posting while you are angry. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I also suggest when you do make your calm unblock request that you don't ask to go straight back to the area that you were being disruptive in. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, encourage other Wikipedia users to help me in editing the articles related to the Olympics, especially the NOCs (the articles where I frequently edit), while I am indefinitely blocked. Sorry if I felt angry and disruptive. I have get used to the table format for the articles. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin can unblock Raymarcbadz without further permission from me. I would prefer if Raymarcbadz agreed not to remove references from articles. PhilKnight (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and promise not to remove references from articles anymore. Sorry for being unruly and disruptive for a while ago. Hope you unblock my account, so I can continue editing the articles. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have unblocked your account. PhilKnight (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China at the 2020 Summer Olympics

I see you rearranged list of athletes by alphabetical order. Please note that there are no rules or consensus stating that the alphabetical order is the only correct and suitable order. Please do not reorder a list if the current order is also reasonable. --阿pp (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also. Regarding initials of Chinese-style athletes' names, if the 2-character given name is not separated by a space or a hyphen, the initials of both characters should be capitalized, in order to avoid confusion. For example, Yu Mengyu should be initialized as Yu MY, instead of Yu My, because in the latter case readers not familiar with the context might assume "My" is the given name, not the initials. I see that you will request unblock in the near future, and I advice you to take these advices of mine into considerations before making your request to the admins. --阿pp (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judo

Hey, in Judo there are only two scores anymore. Has been the case for three years or so. Just so you know, can be seen at the Judo articles for the Olympics or past WC's. Kante4 (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How come only two scores appear in judo? Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first time i noticed it is the 2017 Judo WC article. I watched some fights and there is Ippon and Wasari. There was a smaller one earlier, see here. Kante4 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands at the 2020 Olympics

Amongst other things, don’t introduce incorrect ordering of Dutch surnames here when you clearly have no understanding of the subject matter. Thank you Poll3tj3 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up on this, the following is wrong with your edits:
1. Changing correct athlete name into incorrect name in swimming.
2. Changing correct alphabetical ordering of Dutch surnames into incorrect ordering throughout.
3. Introducing inconsistencies, such as A) ordering men before women in some sports, but not in others; and B) ordering by athlete name in some sports and by event in others. There is not set way to do this, but if you do edit, make sure the result is better than it was. As it is, you have turned consistent info into inconsistent info.
4. Changing correct column headers in Cycling Track into clearly incorrect header.
5. Removing athletes' official final ranks as per olympics.com in e.g. tennis, table tennis, judo - whilst making up your own rules on which sports up to which ranks should be mentioning these.
6. Plainly reverting again all of my recent edits which addressed above items 1 through 5, and which all have their unique reasoning stated in the edit summary. This constitutes to outright vandalism and is unacceptable.
That's a lot of wrongs. Please take some time to reflect on what you are doing, maybe taking the above discussions on your user page into account as well, and refrain from starting an edit war. Thank you. Poll3tj3 (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
WT:OLY. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I appreciate your general efforts, but I have some problems as stated above. Please can you address each of the above items 1 through 5 specifically, such that hopefully we can reach a consensus on these 5 different subjects. (Also, you signed your previous comment with my name) Poll3tj3 (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo 1964 flagbearer info

Bro why did you remove my comment? I'm just saying that you should provide sources for this info, otherwise someone could be swizzed if they find who the REAL flagbearer is for a specific country if you put a certain athlete as "flagbearer". 60.240.12.67 (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes names in the XXX at the 2024 Summer Olympics

Please, stop adding the names of the athletes in the XXX at the 2024 Summer Olympics pages, they may have validated their standards and have won a quota, but that do not mean that they will be present at the 2024 Summer Olympics because : 1) Their National Olympic Committee can decide that they do not want them at the Olympics by giving their quotas to other athletes; 2) They can be injured before the Olympics and not participate at the Olympics; 3) They can give up their quotas; 4) If lots of athletes from the same country qualify for the Olympics, the NOC can decide to choose who they want to go at Paris; 5) They are lots of reason that they can absent at Paris 2024 : it's ONE YEAR and a half !!!
Please wait for the official lists in 2024 ! Pindrice (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(for sure, yourself, you don't know what you will be doing in one year and a half) Pindrice (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pindrice Those articles do not say these athletes will 100% participate in the games, but that they achieved the entry standards. Any athlete that does achieve the entry standard, but somewhy does not participate in the Olympics, are still worth mentioning in the article. Otherwise there would only be a list of results, but to my understanding, Wikipedia in not merely a database for results.

If it can be sourced that an athlete has achieved an entry standard, it should always be mentioned, and as a matter of fact, we've done it for years. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did find a mistake though, "Olympic Qualifying Time (OST)" – Is it Olympic Qualifying Time (OQT) or Olympic Selection Time (OST)? Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Olympic Qualifying Time (OQT) Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pindrice. We only name the athletes who achieve the qualifying marks from the nations without holding the selection trials before the Games. We always check the sources periodically and indeed, we have constantly updated the list every time since the qualifying period has commenced. As mentioned by Pelmeen10, Wikipedia is not a database for results or statistics. We do not establish an official list of athletes at a definite date in every NOC article. If you strongly support and defend your case and refute our claims, then we should not establish the wikitables at this moment. With over a decade of my experience in editing Olympic articles, setting the athlete tables in their respective NOC articles is indeed a rigorous and laborious task to accomplish. Would you want us to wait for Paris 2024 organizers to release the official list of athletes? If this happens, several NOC articles will display incomplete and inconsistent data of the athletes in their respective tables. Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Rigorous" ? That must be a joke, right ? You seem to forget that Wikipedia is not a place where you can write nonsense : absolutely none of the athletes in the pages have validated sources, we even don't know what time they achieved to get considered as "nominated" or "qualified", that must be sourced, and we must know where they achievied this time. I have done all the articles and there's is only for Romania that has been done, all the others they don't have articles. It's a pity that you'be on Wikipedia for so long and that you forgot THAT ALL INFORMATION MUST BE SOURCED ! That's the number one rule that you are clearly violated ! This one plus a bunch of others ! You must find press articles or official results/times or others to prove your claims, if not, I will be forced to delete again these names and start a talk about the subject on the Sport Project talk page because it's clearly a violation of rules and it's a pity that has been done for years without anyone saying anything. Where are the proofs ? "Checking the sources" by your own is not an accepatble situation, the sources must be clearly identify and spread to the readers. You say that "Wikipedia is not a database for results or statistics", but excuse me, this is exactly what you are doing : putting random names without validated sources ! Pindrice (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One year and a half before the event we don't talk about "Qualified athletes" and when I read the page "Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Qualification", in every tables it is said "Qualified athletes", that is not the truth at all ! And in "Athletics at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Qualification" it's worst : "Nominated athletes" it's worst ! In one or others case it's not true, they are not qualified or not nominated : they just make the standards, that's all. Wording is really important. Pindrice (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss this matter in their respective talk pages. Do you want these tables to be revised? Raymarcbadz (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should further discuss this matter on the
WT:OLY so others may voice their opinion about your pressing concerns regarding the athletes’ names. Raymarcbadz (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Just removing a name and leaving the rest as it was, is not better. It points that there is a spot for the NOC at that event. But how did the NOC get that spot? It needs to be sourced just as much. And anyway, why do we need a blank results wikitable so early? Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure that everything is set for the Games at the earliest possible time. Otherwise, this would take a long time for editors to establish wikitables on the NOC articles once the Games are fast approaching (around one to two months). Please remember that the schedule of qualifying meets becomes tighter around March to June of the following year and everyone needs to exploit strenuous effort to have the tables ready for the NOCs competing at the Games, especially when selection process occurs. Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note that the quota places for sailing and shooting are awarded to the NOC, not directly to the athlete based on the qualification rules established by their respective sporting bodies. (for clarification) For swimming and athletics, we are relying on their entry standard times to determine the athletes who will compete at the Games. Nations that regularly hold selection trials, such as United States, Great Britain, and Australia, leave the names empty at the very start until they have selected the athlete. For some nations (e.g. Suriname, Hong Kong, or Tunisia), their names will always be mentioned unless they withdraw from the Games because of unforeseen reasons. Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the results wikitable is about 1 year too early. So instead of wikitables such as

Athlete Event Heat Final

Time Rank Time Rank

Marwan El-Kamash
Men's 800 m freestyle

I propose a table such as

Athlete Event

Marwan El-Kamash
Men's 800 m freestyle

Or a simple text without any wikitables. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To save time and effort, let's adhere to the current wikitable format instead of wikitables without columns or simple text. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Qualification

Please restored again the edit to Jr Tahun as all of those swimmer qualified via 2023 AP Race London International Lama tanpa dirimu (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These swimmers did not attain the OQT at the 2023 AP Race London International. Look carefully at the OQT marks posted on each event table of this article and refer to the link here. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Hello, I'm Sportsfan 1234. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Bahrain at the 2024 Summer Olympics, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not create nation at the 2024 Summer Olympics articles without reliable sources. For this particular article, you cited an [22] article about entry standards for athletics at the 2024 Games. This reference DOES NOT mention anything to do with Bahraini athletes qualifying. I have removed the source as it has nothing to do with the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bahrain at the 2024 Summer Olympics, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Citing sources incorrectly is a serious issue. Also, please do not create redirects for articles moved to draftspace. The article should be worked in draftspace then moved back when ready. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsfan 1234: If your purpose for the NOC articles is to put reliable, research-based sources, then the countries without reliable sources in their articles should be removed from the list of athletes qualifying in each event at the Games. Do you want to leave the articles REDLINKED and not let the users create a new one? I think you should report to the administrators about this problem. Thank you!Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you make rules about CITATION, DESCRIPTION, and FORMATTING on the
WP:OLY? Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

How can I stop? You initiated the idea to remove poorly sourced content. Do you have any basis or criteria for the source citation? If this relied on the Wikipedia rules, then why does
WP:OLY exist? Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Bahrain at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Again, please stop adding improperly cited material. Linking a refence discussing a result, which does not touch upon Bahrain competing at the Olympics is incorrect. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jr Tahun added the references on the article, not me. Stop blaming me on your accusations. You initiated the idea to remove poorly sourced content with your abusive and uncontrollable entitlement and you targeted me to get warning without my knowledge. How dare you? Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You added in the reference [23]. Next time I will be taking it to
WP:ANI. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
In this case, you want
WT:OLY because the rules for adding appropriate sources remain unclear and unjustifiable. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Ismael Alhassane, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You cannot undo a deletion discussion which resulted in redirect. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Before you impose a complaint or refutal, kindly read the content of the article containing relevant information and citation sources. I have published over a thousand articles in Wikipedia throughout the decade, then you would remind me of the policies and guidelines in which you would dump all the content into waste. "familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines" I would like to ask you a question. Are you the key administrator and contributor of this page? Do you have over fifteen years of experience producing high-quality articles? Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's
Fram (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Nomination of Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World 2023

Please stop remove that marking the second time to stage the final in india because that is true for the 71st edition of miss world was announced by president and chief executive officer of miss world, julia morley. If you continue to remove unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Miss World 2023, you may be blocked from editing. ☆ Joseatienza (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2023 (PHT) Joseatienza (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, you repeat the word "India" in the sentence. "Miss World 2023 will be the 71st edition of the Miss World pageant, to be held in Goa, India on December 2023, marking the first for the host country to stage the final since 1996 and second overall in history." This statement is indeed correct. Do you want to repeat the same word over and over "India and then India"? Are you trying to maintain the errors in the sentence without letting others correct them? Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, Joseatienza, please apply English grammatical skills correctly in composing a statement. If you have problems with the statements that I edited, you better have to discuss them on the Miss World 2023 article talk page. Many pageant editors already reminded you of your unruly actions. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read
the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard
to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on
deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics
. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by
Fram (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

How about Algeria at the 2024 Summer Olympics? You insist the consensus to delete Eritrea and not Algeria. Both articles used the same source. Is this a biased, unjustifiable practice? Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps most of your similar creations need to be draftified, but the AfD was for Eritrea, not for Algeria, and consensus was clear. You have now rapidly recreated this twice, if you again recreate it I will take it to ANI to get your autopatrolled right removed (or whatever other sanction the community feels is more warranted), as your editing is highly disruptive. If you disagree with the AfD result, you need to take it up with the closing admin, and if you still disagree, bring it to
Fram (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The real question is... Why Eritrea and not Algeria? They both use the same source cited in the article. I need a substantial and honest reason. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a question for whoever nominated the article for deletion in the first place), which wasn't me. Most likely reason is that they noticed one and not the other, nothing more nefarious than that.
Fram (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
JML1148 nominated the article for deletion. He did not also notice the other article with the same source. Raymarcbadz (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, why not Algeria? I've taken the liberty to resolve this issue for you: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_19#Algeria_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics. Ravenswing 23:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read
the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard
to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on
deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics
. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by
here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Excuse me. I created a redirect on the article. Why are you contesting for deletion? Should you leave it as REDLINKED alone? Raymarcbadz (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Algeria at the 2024 Summer Olympics" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Algeria at the 2024 Summer Olympics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 19 § Algeria at the 2024 Summer Olympics until a consensus is reached. Ravenswing 23:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't understand why I have been blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia. I'm currently editing, updating, and checking on the content about the Olympics. I'm striving to defend my case against those who support topic ban on me. When will I get the opportunity to use the editing privileges, realizing that I've been indefinitely blocked? Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the reason specified in the block log is
WP:ANI about a possible topic ban are quite incredible. I for one was astounded to see you refer to other editors as "monkeys and trolls". DanCherek (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
What does this mean "some of the comments at WP:ANI about a possible topic ban are quite incredible?" Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I refer some editors as "monkeys and trolls" because they harass my edits through reverting and edit wars unless they provide a valid, meaningful reason. Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Raymarcbadz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I need to continue editing, checking, and inspecting articles related to Olympics on Wikipedia, since I am an avid Olympic fan. Please address this unblock request immediately. Thank you!

Decline reason:

This request does not address any of the concerns that led to your block. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Raymarcbadz, disruptive editing includes unblock requests such as this one and UTRS. Continuing down this path and doubling down on name-calling will not lead to an unblock. Please file a serious and adequate unblock request, or do not file one at all. Star Mississippi 19:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So when will I be able to edit and update articles on Wikipedia? Raymarcbadz (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: Honestly, I'm struggling to file a serious and adequate unblock request. All my reasons for the unblock request are insufficient and invalid at this moment. I need help on this matter. Raymarcbadz (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your question of whether you should leave for good. Not necessarily. Indefinite means just that, undetermined, but it does mean you should pause in the repeat unblock requests as three in an hour are not productive use of your time or admins. What you should do is reflect on a) what areas do you want to edit if there's a topic ban implemented and b) what the broader issue is so you don't run into the same issues in other areas. A long tenure and high volume of edits doesn't mean you're "right" and win a content debate, especially when you're editing against consensus. Star Mississippi 20:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What areas do I want to edit if topic ban is implemented? Pageants, Olympics, and random. Which topics do you demand me for a topic ban? If this applies to a particular article, then I might not edit the other articles connected to an article attained by a target ban. Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if a topic ban is implemented, you're banned from editing that topic. If unblocked it is very unlikely you will be allowed to edit about the Olympics because you show complete disregard for the guidelines in that area. Pageants also have notability requirements you'd need to follow to edit productively there. Star Mississippi 01:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If
WP:OLY. Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Bans, topic or otherwise are not permanent.You will be told how to appeal and when that would be allowed if one is implemented. Please read @Ravenswing's comments where they explained all of this to you. Referring to editors as trolls and monkeys because you disagree and continue to edit against consensus shows complete disregard for the guideline. Star Mississippi 01:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, @Sportsfan 1234 initiated a topic ban because of the article creation issue. I don’t understand why this user convince the editors to ban me from editing Olympic-related articles. Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't "convince" other editors, your conduct in that thread and the linked articles & discussions did you do no favors. Continuing to blame everyone else but yourself is going to get you nowhere. Star Mississippi 01:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So by any chance, when I will ever be unblocked from editing? I could not edit the Olympic-related articles anymore because of the indefinite blocking. What shall I do next? Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bans, topic or otherwise are not permanent.You will be told how to appeal and when that would be allowed if one is implemented.

You are clearly not reading information provided to you. That is disrespectful of editors time.

Right now you're not allowed to edit anywhere. If you're unblocked, you're likely to be subject to a topic ban. Star Mississippi 02:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read the message already, yet I’m still discontented and upset about the indefinite blocking privilege and topic ban. Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that anyone involved in this dispute is under any impression that you're not discontented or upset; you have said so several times over. But since Star Mississippi directed you to reread my comments, I'll give you a few more, about as plainly and bluntly as I can:
(1) Will you still be listed as a participant at WT:OLY? Maybe so, maybe not; I've no idea what criteria they use or activity level they require; it is not a WikiProject in which I'm myself active. I submit that this is a petty issue that is by far the least of your worries right now.
(2) Presuming you remain indeffed and/or under a topic ban, who will edit Olympic-related articles? Someone else. Who will clean up the "messes?" Someone else. Who will update the NOC/qualification articles? Someone else. Many editors are involved in sports topics. People were editing such articles before you started on Wikipedia. People will edit such articles after you're gone. Neither yours, nor mine, nor any other editors' contributions are indispensable or irreplaceable.
(3) When will you be unblocked? You need to understand this: you were blocked because admins and community members decided, based on your many public statements and actions, that you cannot be trusted to edit as per the policies and guidelines in place, that you
seem to comprehend so little of this makes it difficult for me to imagine how you would regain the community's trust. Whether an admin (I am not, myself, one) will unblock you down the road is one thing, but you should expect that Olympic topic ban to be in place, and that's not going away any time soon.
Anyway, that's my final attempt to get through to you; I won't be responding here. My own opinion is that quite a few editors have spent quite enough time doing that, and that's time we haven't been spending improving articles. Ravenswing 06:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Will I get a chance to appeal for an Olympic topic ban or indefinite blocking to be lifted? Or at best, should I leave Wikipedia for my own good after this case? Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How come I “showed complete disregard” to the guidelines? I don’t understand what you are talking about? Is the topic ban on Olympics indefinite and permanent? Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Raymarcbadz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to request to have my account unblocked for many reasons but before I cite each of them, I would sincerely apologize to the editors involved for stimulating my emotional outbursts, inciting personal attacks, particularly on the public statement about "monkeys and trolls" and "Lugnuts' mess remark" in my screeds, and protesting the community's decision for a topic ban in our discussion on
WP:ANI
discussion for the past three days. If you could offer me another opportunity to unblock me, I would strive to humbly acknowledge the decision made by the community about the case and if the topic ban is necessary, I would accept the fate. Thank you!

Decline reason:

Attempted
block evasion at The Olympic Archives (talk · contribs). Cabayi (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Cabayi: Why did you keep on denying my unblock request? How long will the indefinite blocking last? Are my reasons unacceptable and illegitimate? Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request to have my account unblocked for many reasons but before I cite each of them, I would sincerely apologize to the editors involved for stimulating my emotional outbursts, inciting personal attacks, particularly on the public statement about "monkeys and trolls" and "Lugnuts' mess remark" in my screeds, and protesting the community's decision for a topic ban in our discussion on WP:ANI. A user of 17 years with almost 100k edits permanently, I have never deserved to get angry, shout publicly without consent, and worsen my situation with the other editors about their intent to impose a possible topic ban. As much as I try to act calmly and civilly, I know that I can be trusted to edit, to work collaboratively with my fellow editors, especially those involved in sports topics, and listen to the many voices about such criticisms related to my craft, whether article creation or article editing. I have already learned this for many years and if changes occur without engaging in disruptive editing or edit war, I would accept them. Adapting to the new policies and guidelines related to WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS, and WP:SIGCOV (this happened around two years ago) proved to be "challenging" for me because I get accustomed to the frequent article creation or editing about an Olympic athlete, an NOC article for the upcoming Olympics, or any person in general throughout the past decade. I read and understand about these policies lately but citing a source and putting significant details to the content pose an insurmountable challenge towards my end because I have no viable option but to follow them. If people agree to delete or refuse to redirect, so be it. I should stay neutral instead of ranting and engaging in a personal attack. I should have dealt with these changes and let the consensus decide without refuting any claim. I would also regret myself of my unruly actions and the inconveniences caused throughout the community especially during the WP:ANI discussion for the past three days. If you could offer me another opportunity to unblock me, I would strive to humbly acknowledge the decision made by the community about the case and if the topic ban is necessary, I would accept the fate. Thank you!

I have already addressed your concerns. I have explained my reason sincerely and proactively. What else should I do to file my appeal for an unblock. I already did my best to reason. Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I declined one appeal at User talk:The Olympic Archives and applied a hard block in place of the autoblock. I declined the appeal here because The Olympic Archives (talk · contribs) was a bad faith attempt to evade the block on this account. That action is "unacceptable and illegitimate". In your next appeal you will need to address this in addition to the causes of your original block.
Indefinite is not infinite. Cabayi (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympic Archives has a different account. FYI. Raymarcbadz (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My concerns are about your sockpuppetry. You have not addressed that. Cabayi (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Raymarcbadz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to request to have my account unblocked for many reasons but before I cite each of them, I would sincerely apologize to the editors involved for stimulating my emotional outbursts, inciting personal attacks, particularly on the public statement about "monkeys and trolls" and "Lugnuts' mess remark" in my screeds, and protesting the community's decision for a topic ban in our discussion on WP:ANI. A user of 17 years with almost 100k edits permanently, I have never deserved to get angry, shout publicly without consent, and worsen my situation with the other editors about their intent to impose a possible topic ban. As much as I try to act calmly and civilly, I know that I can be trusted to edit, to work collaboratively with my fellow editors, especially those involved in sports topics, and listen to the many voices about such criticisms related to my craft, whether article creation or article editing. I have already learned this for many years and if changes occur without engaging in disruptive editing or edit war, I would accept them. Adapting to the new policies and guidelines related to
WP:SOCKPUPPETRY
, disclosing my real identity as the original owner. I hope you understand my case. I exhausted all of my best so I could regain my trust in the community and restore my editing privileges as a way of contributing solely to the community. I promise that I will never commit such actions again. If you could offer me another opportunity to unblock me, I would strive to humbly acknowledge the decision made by the community about the case and if the topic ban is necessary, I would accept the fate. Thank you!

Decline reason:

User has said they will stop editing. PhilKnight (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lately, I created another account temporarily so I could get an opportunity to edit articles periodically while the indefinite blocking of my original account continues. Blocked means you are blocked, not just your specific account. You,Raymarcbadz, are currently not allowed to edit anywhere on the English Wikipedia. If you are topic banned, that would also mean you are not allowed to edit in those areas. Do you understand that? Are you willing to agree to a topic ban if consensus determines it's needed? I said at ANI, I'm not sure whether that would be enough and by socking you're proving it -- topic ban requires you to not edit in the area but the software doesn't block you from doing so the way a block does. If you're unblocked with a topic ban and edit in violation, we'd be right back here. That's not a productive use of anyone's time. I recommend declining as I think they're just saying what they think we want to hear, but I'm not acting on this.Star Mississippi 11:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite leave from Wikipedia

I think I’ll stop editing from Wiki for an indefinite time. The block remains indefinite. It could last for a week, for a month, or to an extent, for a year. Because @Star Mississippi, @Ravenswing, @JML1148, and @Sportsfan 1234 agree to propose both a topic and community ban, I am desperate to return to editing an Olympic-related article (I think these sanctions won’t work, unless more editors would support). I might no longer have a chance to update any articles as Paris 2024 approaches. Even if I file for an appeal, nothing will happen. You will keep on denying it and you will sanction me severely. It will become unproductive and useless for me. I try and follow the policies and guidelines. and unintentionally break them. Sorry to you guys for letting you down.

For @Sportsfan 1234, assign other active users to continue my decade-old legacy in editing and producing high-quality, content-driven Olympic articles.

At best, I should take a break and move forward to a brighter path. Thank you for everything!

P.S. I have high-functional autism. Raymarcbadz (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So do I, for what it's worth; it runs in my family. I not only can still recognize that rules exist, that personal attacks are not tolerated here, and that articles need to be in compliance with notability standards, I can follow all those rules, I can wrap my head around the premise that they apply to me, and I know that claiming to have autism neither exempts me from Wikipedia's rules nor entitles me to special treatment.
As far as your block goes, the prerequisites to being unblocked are that you (a) understand you broke the rules, (b) resolve not to do so again, and (c) convince an admin of your sincerity. Neither your soliloquies on this talk page, nor those on other sites -- like the thread you started on totallympics; did you really expect that no one would notice? -- are likely to help in any of this. Ravenswing 11:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me about my soliloquies? Everyone notices my sentiments on Totallympics and they have the right to share their own opinion. They humbly respect my worth. If you could have endorsed to me the notability guidelines a long time ago, I would have appreciated, read, and understood them before I voiced my opinion about this matter. Today's notice of these guidelines is quite bewildering and surprising for me; thus, I could not stand much. I'm sorry if I let you guys down. I will attempt to file an appeal this week and see if I could resolve not to commit a mistake again here on Wikipedia. Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Raymarcbadz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to request to have my account unblocked for many reasons but before I cite each of them, I would sincerely apologize to the editors involved for stimulating my emotional outbursts, inciting personal attacks, particularly on the public statement about "monkeys and trolls" and "Lugnuts' mess remark" in my screeds, and protesting the community's decision for a topic ban in our discussion on WP:ANI. A user of 17 years with almost 100k edits permanently, I have never deserved to get angry, shout publicly without consent, and worsen my situation with the other editors about their intent to impose a possible topic ban. As much as I try to act calmly and civilly, I know that I can be trusted to edit, to work collaboratively with my fellow editors, especially those involved in sports topics, and listen to the many voices about such criticisms related to my craft, whether article creation or article editing. I have already learned this for many years and if changes occur without engaging in disruptive editing or edit war, I would accept them. Adapting to the new policies and guidelines related to WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS, and WP:SIGCOV (this happened around two years ago) proved to be "challenging" for me because I get accustomed to the frequent article creation or editing about an Olympic athlete, an NOC article for the upcoming Olympics, or any person in general throughout the past decade. I read and understand about these policies lately but citing a source and putting significant details to the content pose an insurmountable challenge towards my end because I have no viable option but to follow them. If people agree to delete or refuse to redirect, so be it. I should stay neutral instead of ranting and engaging in a personal attack. I should have dealt with these changes and let the consensus decide without refuting any claim. I would also regret my unruly actions and the inconveniences caused throughout the community, especially during the WP:ANI discussion for the past three days. Lately, I created another account temporarily so I could get an opportunity to edit articles periodically while the indefinite blocking of my original account continues. I have discovered that the newly created account breached the rule of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, disclosing my real identity as the original owner. I hope you understand my case. I exhausted all of my best so I could regain my trust in the community and restore my editing privileges as a way of contributing solely to the community. If you could offer me another opportunity to unblock me, I promise that I will never commit such actions again and I hereby understand the guidelines and rules imposed by the community. Thank you!

Decline reason:

Off site post acknowledged above within the last 17 hours shows continued battleground, finger pointing and failure to understand the reasons your editing is not aligned with standards, indicating this is just parroting what you believe we want to hear to be unblocked. You will need to advise what you're going to edit on if you're unblocked and topic banned from sports articles. You did not do so above. Star Mississippi 12:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What shall I edit once I got unblocked? How long will the topic ban on Olympic-related articles last if applied? Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not ask me what you'll edit, that's something you need to decide. A topic ban will likely come with a period of time in which you're able to appeal. But expect not to be able to edit them for a significant length of time. You're very close to losing access to edit this page, per @DanCherek:'s note below so I suggest you plan your next edits well so that they're productive. Star Mississippi 22:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Francesc Repiso for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Francesc Repiso 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/Francesc Repiso until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block." -- Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry, I didn't notice that the edit I reverted, in which you removed the declined appeal, also included your current appeal. Cabayi (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Raymarcbadz, I don't know why you keep refactoring others' comments and duplicating Cabayi's in particular [24][25][26], but you have already been asked not to do so [27], and I will remove your ability to edit this talk page if it continues (if that happens, any future appeals will have to be submitted to the Unblock Ticket Request System. DanCherek (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 27 § Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics until a consensus is reached. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of siteban

Per
WP:UNBAN regarding options for appeal. I wish you the best in any non-Wikipedia endeavors. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Adding I've also revoked your talk page rights. You do not get to remove any of the unblock requests for this current block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article,
Draft:Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 49 kg

Hello, Raymarcbadz. It has been over six months since you last edited the
Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 49 kg
".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion
. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article,
Draft:Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's +67 kg

Hello, Raymarcbadz. It has been over six months since you last edited the
Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's +67 kg
".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion
. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lisa Ecker

The article Lisa Ecker has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

@Tamzin @JzG or anyone else wandering by with admin goggles, have a look at Special:Undelete/Lisa_Ecker and see if you see any timing concerns: draft moving, re-creation or otherwise? (@BeanieFan11 explicitly saying so no one else wonders, there's absolutely zero concern with your dePROD here). Star Mississippi 17:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me more like the coincidental interaction of two prolific Olympics editors. SvG's version got G5'd and then Ray recreated it. Unless I'm missing some detail you had in mind? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ray also moved SVG's draft back to mainspace before it was G5ed. My spidey sense might be set too sensitive on this one but its been revving since he invoked Lugnuts, although there's no suspicious overlap there. Just collaborators. Thanks for your thoughts. Star Mississippi 17:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt they are the same editor fwiw. Raymarbadz's English is not great to put it politely. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your second look, appreciate it. Star Mississippi 18:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There would be much less drama if they went to
WP:NOTDIR and proposed the exception in which they so fervently believe. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh sorry to clarify, I didn't mean I thought Ecker should be kept (I haven't read the sources and have zero opinion on the nom), just that I didn't think BeanieFan11 was at all involved in what I was flagging. (Sorry for repeat, testing if a clean reply vs. tool reinstates gibberish that was pointed out. Star Mississippi 16:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lisa Ecker for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisa Ecker 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/Lisa Ecker until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Guy (help! - typo?) 01:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Miss World 1984 - Thames TV.png

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Miss World 1984 - Thames TV.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in
section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"
Boxing at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's lightweight" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Boxing at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's lightweight has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 26 § Boxing at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's lightweight until a consensus is reached. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Tanzania at the 2024 Summer Olympics

request
that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.
talk) 16:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Concern regarding
Draft:Uganda at the 2024 Summer Olympics

request
that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.
talk) 14:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"Athletics at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Athletics at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 17 § Athletics at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres until a consensus is reached. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:MW1992 - SABC.png

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:MW1992 - SABC.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in
section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

"Equestrian at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Individual jumping" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Equestrian at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Individual jumping has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Users who are not banned are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 6 § Equestrian at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Individual jumping until a consensus is reached. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Breaking at the Summer Olympics

Template:Breaking at the Summer Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chae Eun-hee

The article Chae Eun-hee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. seefooddiet (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposed deletion of Olga Gnedovskaya

The article Olga Gnedovskaya has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails
WP:NOLY
.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus
for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the
talk) 10:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposed deletion of Khalid Al-Hammadi

The article Khalid Al-Hammadi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails
WP:NOLY
.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus
for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the
talk) 10:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Ragi Edde

The article
Ragi Edde has been proposed for deletion
because of the following concern:

Fails
WP:NOLY
. Article is inflated with placements from a single race.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus
for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the
talk) 10:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposed deletion of Alexei Pavlov (swimmer)

The article Alexei Pavlov (swimmer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet
WP:SPORTCRIT
as there is not significant coverage in reliable sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Adabow (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Nomination of Alexei Pavlov (swimmer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexei Pavlov (swimmer) 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/Alexei Pavlov (swimmer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Adabow (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anjelika Solovieva

The article
Anjelika Solovieva has been proposed for deletion
because of the following concern:

Fails
WP:NOLY
.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus
for deletion.
This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Boldbaataryn Bütekh-Üils

The article Boldbaataryn Bütekh-Üils has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails
WP:NOLY
.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus
for deletion.
This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Zaman

The article
Salman Zaman has been proposed for deletion
because of the following concern:

Fails
WP:NOLY
.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus
for deletion.
This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Khalid Al-Hammadi

Hello Raymarcbadz, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Khalid Al-Hammadi, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalid Al-Hammadi.
Deletion
notability
, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|1ctinus}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
-1ctinus📝🗨 14:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Siddique Umer

The article Siddique Umer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Routine coverage, fails
WP:NOLY
. Coming 3rd last and last is not really a noteworthy achievement.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus
for deletion.
This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Togo at the 2013 World Aquatics Championships

The article Togo at the 2013 World Aquatics Championships has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is not a notable subject for an independent article. Fairly fringe, I don't think it warrants its own article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposed deletion of Lucia Chandamale

The article Lucia Chandamale has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails
WP:NOLY
. 1 hit in google news and books doesn't indicate notability, especially as she has competed as recently as 2008 Olympics.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus
for deletion.
This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Darius Škarnulis

The article Darius Škarnulis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails
WP:NOLY
.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus
for deletion.
This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zahra Pinto

The article
Zahra Pinto has been proposed for deletion
because of the following concern:

Fails
WP:NOLY
.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus
for deletion.
This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ibrahim Maliki

The article Ibrahim Maliki has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails
WP:NOLY
. The 2 third party sources are 1 line mentions.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus
for deletion.
This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raymarcbadz&oldid=1280177067"

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article: User talk:Raymarcbadz. Articles is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.Privacy Policy