User talk:Poulsen/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] POV image

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Most_likely_elevens —Preceding unsigned comment added by HornetMike (talk • contribs) [1]

[edit] Zenden

Thanks for doing the references on the Zenden page from my links - now I can see how to actually do references! Thanks! Da-rb 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilberto Silva

Dear Poulsen,

Thank you for all your great suggestions on how to improve the Gilberto Silva article. It's a really nice change to have a comprehensive list of things wrong with the article! I'll get working on your list of improvements.

Thanks again, and all the best. -GilbertoSilvaFan 23:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Poulsen. Would you be able to take a look at the new career statistics table at Gilberto Silva? Note the new table much in the style of Daniel Agger as you suggested, (though with some slight alterations). The reason I ask is that I'm not sure if I should/can fit the international statistics table into the master table. Do you think I should try? If so, how would I do it? ie. which rows would the brazil stats sit on? Thanks for any pointers you can give.
Regards, -GilbertoSilvaFan 16:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi - me again! Hope you don't mind helping me out with another Gilberto Silva question...
You mentioned in your review that that I cite "fans" then a negative/positive opinion, and that I should cite a source for fans opinions. I completely agree with this. However, I'm having a hard time finding a reliable way to cite a group of fans (in this case Arsenal fans). These opinions are sometimes very important, and greatly affect a players career at a club, but they often go undocumented. For example, fans usually let a player know how well-liked they are at matches by either jeering them or chanting their name. Also, opinions of fans are often heard in stadiums by people shouting or talking about their views. I'm sure you know this. In my opinion, these views (when deeply divided or unanimous) are very important, and should feature in an encyclopedia article, but of course the problem arises as it is impossible to cite sources for these feelings... as there are no sources. In the Gilberto article I try to give both sides of fans opinions to make it as NPOV as possible.
My question is: should I remove all reference to "fans" if I can't cite sources for their opinions? OR: are unsourced views better than no views at all? Alternately, how do I cite fans views? Link to fan forums? Fan blogs? Newspapers don't document fan-views about a player unless they are one of the most famous players in the world - and this doesn't include Gilberto.
Thanks for any help you can give, I really appreciate the help from advanced Wikipedians like yourself. All the best, -GilbertoSilvaFan 16:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Edit: I asked this question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Unsourced_references_to_.22fans.22, and was told that references to fans opinions must be backed up by a reliable source. I have now deleted opinions which I could not add backup by reference, and referenced the rest. I'll now re-nominate the article for GA-status! Thanks for all the help, -GilbertoSilvaFan 13:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Poulsen. Hope you've been well. I've recently nominated Gilberto Silva as a featured article at WP:FAC#Gilberto_Silva - so I'd really appreciate it if you could vote on whether you think the article meets featured article criteria or not. Also, if you have any ideas on how to improve the article, I'd love for you to tell me. Thanks for your help in getting this article to a stage where it can be considered FAC! All the best, GilbertoSilvaFan 13:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Forgotten Realms request on wizards.com

Hi,

I just posted a request for assistance for anyone interested on the WotC forum. Just so you might be interested to know - and maybe to participate.

Address is http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=712010.

Have a nice day
David Latapie (✒ | @) 12:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Jesper Christiansen

Hej Poulsen.

Det havde jeg ikke lige tænkt på, men det var i nr. 3 (23. maj 2006), side 100-108. Forfatteren hedder Jesper Traunberg. Det er produceret af Advice A/S, og har et ISSN-nr. på 1901-1555. Hilsen kalaha 16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Noted Players

Hi - is the wording Listed according to when they became managers for Tottenham Hotspur (year in parentheses): really worth having, since it is quite obvious from the content that follows? Also, will you be updating the Noted Managers section (which also cites "Template FC") since you have just left it since adding the comment yesterday (and isn't in the format the comment suggests). Also, note Jol is a Head Coach - I'm not sure why this was removed from the original section title. Stephenb (Talk) 10:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't feel strongly, although I do think the manual of style page had the text there in italics to indicate what would replace it, not necessarily that it should also be present in the FC article. As to Jol being referred to as a Manager - well, factually, that's inaccurate elsewhere, then! Stephenb (Talk) 11:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Football AID 29 October - 5 November

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Goalkeeper (football) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

[edit] Barnstar

Have a barnstar, you've done all manner of things which deserve one. Oldelpaso 18:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Football (soccer) barnstar
For your contributions to football (soccer) articles, I award you this barnstar Oldelpaso 18:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage

Hi Poulsen. Saw that you used IE, so thought I'd let you know that your userpage layout is broken in firefox. http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/9185/poulsenyo4.png GilbertoSilvaFan 23:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for sorting the Iranian football bio stub articles. Cheers. Siba 14:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marco Simone

Great article! I always wanted to work on that article (sad how most people don't remember Simone) but you've done a great job Luckyj 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Moor

Thanks for your help. I knew it looked like a hoax vanity article, and the author was behaving like that (removing {{hoax}} and {{references}} tags, and modifying messages on his talk page), so the article talk page would not have had any effect. What we needed was at least one person who understood enough about English football to give the confidence to know it was a hoax. Thankyou. The same author has a 15 year old heavyweight boxing champion Craig Romeo Armstrong, which even I can tell is fake. --Scott Davis Talk 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference on Team CSC page

Thanks for fixing that. I edited the section, saved it and then saw that it had stuffed up the referencing below, but hadn't a clue where I'd gone wrong. Can you tell me?

Also, someone has requested that we amend the Operación Puerto doping case page, but I'm not sure exactly what they mean. Is it the writing style? The referencing? Any ideas? kju 11:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That looks brilliant, thank you. On the weekend I'll copy your lead and fix up the referencing so that it lists source and date as well. kju 13:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tottenham Hotspurs

Why did you remove the finish dates from the noted players? Because it is a good resource to see you know and I would like it put back. Govvy 13:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It took me a lot of time to get those dates and I was going to finish it! Govvy 21:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for fixing my broken links on Skoubo

And thanks for not complaining. I really try to avoid fixing hyphens in date ranges when they are in a link, but some days are better than others. Good luck, and happy editing! Chris the speller 17:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Munich

Have I invited you to WikiProject Munich? If I haven't or if I have the invitation is open. Any help that you could provide would be good. Kingjeff 01:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VB's most common lineup

I have to say, that I don't fully agree with the discussion about these "most common lineups", but I accept that you deleted it. I just think that it contributes with a lot more information, than nothing! It would be useful for me as a way to quickly gain an insight in a club that I don't know. But just remember to be consistent an please delete the one at Real Madrid as well. Milhouse Mussolini 12:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No longer participant in WikiProject Football?

Hi, I saw you removed yourself from the list of participants, and I just wanted to check by to hear what's up. I hope you aren't going to quit editing Wikipedia or football related articles, because you are one of the good editors we need to bring the project and articles forward to our goals. Take care! – Elisson • T • C • 13:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[copied from User talk:Johan Elisson]
Hi Johan, I've just decided to quit the wikiprojects I'm in, and stick to editing Danish football articles. And perhaps the odd Swedish Brøndby player ;) Poulsen 14:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[end copy]
Oh, ok. I hope to see you around anyway, commenting in discussions and making proposals! May I re-add you to the "inactive participants" section though? To make the numbered list complete? (BTW, you can answer here, I'll keep track.) – Elisson • T • C • 14:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. I didn't know if I should add myself when I plan on still being active.. Poulsen 15:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You do what feels best. :) – Elisson • T • C • 16:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Jamaica-footy-bio-stub}}

Hi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a new stub type. As it clearly states at WP:STUB, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.

In the case of your new stub type, it appears to be fine. But if you expect stub sorters to be able to use it for stub sorting, then we need to know about it. And we also need to cheeck to see whether it is one that is actually needed and fits in with the stub hierarchy (it may well have been far more useful, forr example, to create a more general category for Caribbean footballers in general). Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to it's creation. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 06:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Grutness. I don't expect stubsorters to do *anything*, as I don't have a problem populating the stub category myself.

Well, you may not expect them to do anything, but - seeing as they co-ordinate stubs across Wikipedia, they will. You can't WP:OWN a template and category - once it is made, it is available for all to use, so making it known to othersis important, and double-checking that it is in line with other stubs before it is made is important.

And as you pointed out yourself, my created stub is fine.

Not quite what I pointed out. I pointed out that it appears to be fine, and may well have been better if it had had a wider coverage. I don'tknow and you don't know, because you never sought debate on it. Also, just because it seems OK doesn't mean that you couldn't have accidentally overlooked something in its creation. Even experienced stub-makeers can make mistakds, which is another reason why double-checking through a debating process prior to creation is important.

I can see a Stub WikiProject as a good way to enforce common standards, but please don't be a police force with a monopoly of action. Especially when the task performed is standard (i.e. this Jamaica category), by people who know what they're doing (I was one of those who made the first sub-stub categories in the European football biographies category, and have made edits to clarify flawed football biography categories).

Not a police force - an advisory service to double-check things are right. We're not nasty people who arre going to say "no, go away" if you've got a sensible type you want to make. But we will help spot if any improvements can be made or any errors have been overlooked, and will make work on sortingg the category easier as well. You may have created any number of stubs but -as I pointed out - that doesn't mean your creations will automatically be right. And the work of five minutes of making a sstub type can take a week of work to fix up if you do accidentally stuff up. I know - I've done so myself before now, as havee almost all editors who have made lots off stub types. But 99% of those stuff-ups are caught due to WP:WSS/P.

I just don't see why I should use my leisure time go through internet bureaucracy, with a band of (more or less) random people posing as judges, to make a category which is sound anyways.

Well, one reason is because - in the long run - it would have taken you far less time than going through and populating the category yourself did. Also, as I said, you may have made an error which would have taken a lot, lot longer to fix than the few days of debate. As to them beeing "more orless random", that is true - but they are also the people with the widest experience on Wikipedia on how the stub system works, so they are the nearest to experts on stubs around. Anywhere. Grutness...wha? 08:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point that the project is good at structuring things and has a higher probability of catching mistakes than the casual user, but when the structure is in place, please let the editors edit - isn't that what "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means?

Yes - it's an example of the old Wikipedia adage "Be bold". But, being bold only appplies to articles, as WP:BOLD clearly states. It doesn't relate to templates and categories, simply because any mistakes relating to them can take a long time and lots of work to fix, and - espeecially in the case of heavily-used templates such as stub templates - can cause problems for Wikipedia's servers.This is who so many templates (including many stub templates - are permanently protected from editing.

My point is, that when I stay within the consensus rules for stubs and create quality work, then it is a waste of time to wait for the bureaucracy to take its time, just so the stub project can say: We think it is okay. And it is especially a waste of time to tell people who did no wrong, that they were wrong in not consulting a Wikiproject before editing, just because you say so. I will (and have) use(d) the notability/usefulnesw guidelines when making new stub categories, but as I see it, the Stub Project should solve queries and make structures, not hinder free editing.

The only "free editing" that we hinder is that which goes against accepted and logical stub structuring. As I said before, if you propse stubs that are in line with normal stub splits, and they have enough stubs to split, then it'snot likely they will be turned dowwn -- what is posssible though is that more work ill bee avoided that would otherwise hinder all the editors involved in that extra work froom doing other tasks. In other words, all you are doing by proposingg stub types is avoiding the possibility of causing a lot more work for a lot of editors. In other words, you are removing the risk of annoying a lot of people and hinderigg the progress of Wikipedia.

I have listed the most obvious candidates for stub creation at the top of User talk:Poulsen/notes, where especially Ukraine and Slovakia are high on the list. If the Stub Project goes ahead and does them fine, but else I'll do them when I get around to it.

And here we have exactly an example of what I am talking about. Since all biography stubs are created by modern countries, if you had made Soviet-footy-bio-stub, it would havee been taken straight to WP:SFD. A mistake which would have been picked up quickly if you went to the bother of going through WP:WSS/PP with no problems to anyone, but - once created would have caused considerable amounts of effort to fix. You are not infallible - you can and would have made a mistake. No clearer evidence can be shown that you should follow the standard advice and go through the proposal process. Grutness...wha? 11:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In "hindering free editing", I mean you put up a level or two of bureaucracy (controlled by more or less qualified people) between the user who gets an idea, and the work actually being done. Yes, it is less work when things aren't screwed up and only has to be done once, but as I have shown you, the Stub Project isn't a guarantee for that. The annoyance is a factor, but if your goal is to avoid annoyance, then Wikipedia shouldn't be open to all in the first place.. It is an interesting thought that I could "hinder the progress of Wikipedia" in any way, but I really doubt it.

Not quite sure where you get the idea that Wikipedia beeing "the Free Enyclopedia that anyone ccan edit" equaatees with everyone being able to automatically edit anything they want. The largee number of XfD pages andd even larger number of protected pages clearly show thhat there is freedom to a deliberately limited extent. No-one is free to edit pages that will cause more work for other editors - it would be cazy too allow that to happen. And - by the amount of extra typing that we havee both done when we could have ben woking on improving the encyclopedia, you certainly seem to have caused far more work for both yourself and for me with this - and no doubt for others as well at WP:WSS/D. So, yes, by spending so much time arguing this out - you arguing that you should be able to do what you want and me arguing that following long-established and extremely useful protocols is more effective and more in line with the idea that Wikipedia is a community - is most definitely hindering the progress of Wikipedia. And because Wikipedia is a community and does occasionally get people who simply want to create things without cheecking them first, it needs the occasional layer of bureaucracy here and there. Stub sorting actually has farr less of it than many parts of wikipedia. Compare it with the levels that need to be gone through of an anon eeditor wanting to start a new article,for instance. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, as you can see, I didn't include the Soviet cat in the "most likely" category of Ukraine and Slovakia, even though it has more articles than Ukraine. That is, I wasn't completely numb to the problem, but that is of little consequence now.

They're all listed together on your "to do" page, as you pointed out in your original comment. BTW, you may be interested to know that tthere has been debate over one or two of the other you mentioned going on for a few days on WP:WSS/P, and upmerged templates forr one or ttwo of them looklike they will be going ahead. No separate categories, though, so i you'dd made them it would have led to yet more work for everyone at WP:SFD.

Nevertheless; Why is it controversial to have a category of stubs of an established category, when the established category is seemingly uncontroversial in itself? Especially when the Soviet footballers category is in the main footballer catalogue (and not, say, as a subcat in the Russian footballers category).

Well, it wouldn't be a subcat of that, would it? The Soviet Union covered 15 different republics. But it no longer exists, and many of the players who played for the Soviet Union alsso played for their separatee national siiddes. All of them were born somewhere in a nation which is current and non-Soviet. As with all other biography types (excluding Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece) modern nationalities are used in stub sorting. Stub sorting wworrlks in a slightly different way to permcatting - There is nothing wrong with an article being in 20 permannt cateegories, but if a stub is in more than about three, people start kicking up a fuss about having too many templates. For that reason, some rationalising needs to occur, one example of which is in nationalities. It makes far more sense, forr instance, to add Montenegro-bio-stub to someone's article than adding AustroHungary-bio-stub, Yugoslavia-bio-stub, SerbiaandMontenegro-bio-stub and Montenegro-bio-stub. Similarly, there's no point adding both Soviet-footy-bio-stub and Ukraine-footy-bio-stub to someone who played all their football in Ukraine, but under two different political regimes.

And why does it make sense to have a Korean stub category but not a Soviet stub

Quite simply because, in the case of Korea, most categories would not be large enough to support separate North Korean and South Korean categories separately. There are a few that do, but many of them are still at a state of waiting to be checked for potential splits. History-related and biography-related categories it makes sense to keep as a single Korea type, since in the history of Korea as a whole, the spplit beetween north and south has only been f relatively short duration. By comparison, in he history of the nations of Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union was of only relatively short duration, so it makes more sense to split primarily by those nations. Grutness...wha? 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Euro templates

Hej. Jeg lavede den kun fordi vi vandt, og jeg synes at det skulle vises ude på spillernes sider i en nav.box. Men whatever, bare slet den igen så... kalaha 10:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nu er det nogen tid siden resten af Euro-skabelonerne blev slettet så det undrer mig bare at lige nøjagtigt den danske er blevet beholdt. Ved du hvorfor? Jeg kan kun se at det er mig der har foreslået "keep". kalaha 16:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:FC Nordsjælland players

Hej. Jeg ved ikke rigtigt om Category:FC Nordsjælland players kun skal indeholde spillere fra FCN mens det har heddet FC Nordsjælland, eller om de gamle Farum-drenge også skal inkluderes i denne kategori. Hvad synes du? kalaha 19:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub type unproposals

You might at least consider informing WP:WSS/P of your intention to create a type category, whether or not you plan on waiting five days and/or listening to what anyone else has to say. Bear in mind it's not a formal "approval process" from any designated set of individuals, it's just a canvassing of opinion. Doing it "under WSS's radar", then having it listed after the fact by someone else at the "discoveries" page -- where much the same discussion then happens, but in somewhat aggrieved tones, and without your input -- has broadly the same effect in the long run, except for causing added aggravation in the process. Alai 01:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I was more commenting on the apparent 'philosophical disagreement' you and Grutness seemed to be having, and was suggesting a 'middle way' in general, since you appeared to be distinctly at odds on the value of the whole proposals process/bureaucracy. (Admittedly I only noticed that following a comment at /D about the Slovak- type, but I was in no way suggesting there was anything wrong with that. Even G. seems to agree that it's an appropriate type, but to express frustration at the lack of communication.) Alai 20:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bo Svensson - captain

Hej. Jeg er 100% sikker på at jeg har læst i et interview med Bo Svensson at han selv bedte Backe om at få frataget anførerbindet, på trods af at det kom ud i pressen som en dicideret degredering, hvilket jeg også selv troede indtil jeg læste interviewet. kalaha 14:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow... Imponerende research. Jeg må forveksle det med den nævnte situation hvor Linderoth havde karantæne. Jeg var overbevist om jeg havde læst det i et nummer af FCK Balls, men har lige skimmet dem igennem og kan ikke finde det. Må du sgu' undskylde. Det er næsten pinligt. kalaha 15:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MF eller FW?

Hej Poulsen. Når Morten Olsen udtager sin landsholdstrup, kalder DBU (i hvert fald her imod Australien) Grønkjær og M.Jørgensen for angribere, mens Rommedahl står nævnt som midtbanespiller. Da dette ikke giver nogen som helst mening, synes jeg at enten skal alle fløje stå som enten midtbane eller angriber på artiklen Denmark national football team season 2007. Hvad synes du? kalaha 13:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nej, det har jeg godt nok ikke, men jeg mener at tidligere har de skrevet Romme som angriber og Grønk som midtbane. Det samme med Jan Kristiansen, som nogle gange står som midtbane og andre gange som forsvarer.
Hvis man går ind på dbu.dk/page.aspx?id=313 står både Grønk, Romme og Jørgensen som midtbane, mens Jan Kristiansen som forsvarer. Inde på de forskellige spillerprofiler står Grønk og Jørgensen så igen som angriber [2] [3], mens Romme igen står som midtbane [4]. Synes det er meget mærkeligt, og for at det (i de mindste) skal give mening her på Wikipedia, bør der stå under artiklerne om landsholdet præcis som der står på klubartiklerne og spillernes egne profiler. kalaha 18:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Andriy Shevchenko, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

[edit] FCK GA?

Hej. Vil du hjælpe mig med at få F.C. Copenhagen til at blive WP:GA? I oktober dumpede den GA, så du kan jo selv se hvad der blev skrevet. kalaha 20:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hej igen. Ja, nu er det efterhånden længe siden at FCK artiklen dumpede GA, men tror du ikke efterhånden det er på tide at renominere den, da der virkelig er sket meget. Af hvad jeg kan se ud fra "de punkter den dumpede på" så er langt de fleste opfyldt. Det eneste er at der ikke er en sektion om "Management", men det er vel heller ikke et krav. kalaha 18:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danish football champions - FL???

Hej Poulsen. Tror du ikke at Danish football champions er god nok til at blive Featured List? Den er i hvert fald (næsten) lige så god som den svenske tilsvarende. Den mangler kun nogle billeder - som er megasvære at få. kalaha 11:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, ja og det er nok ikke helt let at finde billeder, hvor fotografen har været død i over 100 år. kalaha 11:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ja, men hvorfor er den egentligt det? Jeg synes alle de fair use-regler er meget indviklede. kalaha 11:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
"Fair nok"... Lidt ligesom jeg selv har gjort med billederne fra landskampene, jeg har "taget" fra UEFA. kalaha 11:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Haha, ja herlig sætning vores svenske kollega har fundet på der. kalaha 11:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ja så er der godt gang i diskussionen kan jeg se, men jeg synes lige det ville hjælpe gevaldigt på det hvis du med fed lige skrev Support så det tydeligt kan ses du er for. kalaha 18:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

I Angelbo award you this Barnstar for article on andelsbevægelsen and other danish related contributions
I Angelbo award you this Barnstar for article on andelsbevægelsen and other danish related contributions

Here is something for you, as a thank you, for all your contributions to wikipedia. Regards -Angelbo 10:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Barnstar

Thanks a lot. I really appreciate it. And my thanks to you for creating the actual article. I'd completely forgot about that issue. :) If you could dig up a few references for it, that would be great. Happy editing. Valentinian T / C 23:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for the comment regarding the Portal. I'm glad to see that somebody actually read it. :) Valentinian T / C 23:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the Barnstar, now I know what people feel when I paste them on talk pages. I will definitely get around to do it more often. Regarding Valentinian, he can at some task tend to postpone doing them and needs a little encouragement and help in the right direction -Angelbo 23:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forgotten Realms

Hello Poulsen,

Long time no see, mmh?

Well, that might interest you: WikiProject Forgotten Realms—Some clarification on this project.
David Latapie (✒ | @) 02:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1991 FIFA World Youth Championship

The 1991 FIFA World Youth Championship took place in Portugal from 14 June to 30 June 1991. The 1991 championship was the 8th contested. Korea competed as a united team of both Koreas.

So i changed the flag, and makes they have two coach became reasonable. Matthew_hk tc 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Matthew_hk tc 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Football at the 1912 Summer Olympics

Hello - User:Poulsen and User:Poulsen Authors of pages Football at the 1912 Summer Olympics Early you have written lists of commands(teams), I have found additions under lists of reserve players the data are taken from official sources, it is necessary to read them simply closely(attentively),there are much more information than is given at you. Certainly and commands(teams) of England and Finland and in a number of others there were spare players. Names and surnames of players are established, search of dates of birthes and clubs is now conducted. User:Doma-w, I would like to enter with you correspondences, I have pair questions on structures of teams.In exchange I shall inform to you shall send additional lists and I shall inform a place whence it have taken. Though with some players will come to understand, there there are some problems Can write the letter e-mail li77n@hotmail.com Gavrilov Sergey

 Aka Sergey-63 [5]  - he is mine topic

Excuse for style of the letter, English I know badly.

[edit] Good work

Thanks a lot for your contributions on Football at the 1912 Summer Olympics. Also you have really done a great job to expand all the Danish players of this tournament.

Please allow me two notes. I would like to say, that it would be better to shown the medal summary on top of the page. Because I would say, that this is the main information of this side. The other is, that I would prefer to give the DoBs on the squad page in the style with written month names like it is on all player pages. Because this is much easier to read. This avoids confusion and it is not necessary to ponder if 03-04 means April 3 or March 4. I think their are enough mistakes in the web. :) Thanks for all! Doma-w 22:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, you are right! I havn't thought that the date is shown in two lines in lower resolutions. And it really looks more stylish to have them streamlined.
An infobox would be great, but I have no experience about this... Sorry. Also there is another problem with the individual pages for all matches. As you can see on my talkpage, I have received already a "warning" that these pages could be deleted easily and quickly. My idea is, to show them all on one page, or to split them in two pages (main and consolation tournament)?
And I would like to ask you, if you have same further information about the consolation tournament. Because I am not sure, if this games were an official part of the Olympic games? Thanks and :) Doma-w 13:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course! The consolation tournament is worthy to have an article, no question about this! :) I asked, because I am not sure if it was official or not. This is also the reason why I have shown the games played by these players in a seperate column. If we are very petty, maybe e.g. Zoltán Blum is not an Olympic competitor, because he only played in the consolation tournament. :)
Thanks for moving up the medalists. Doma-w 11:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Especially for you: a little present ;) Doma-w 02:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Great! Looks really perfect! Now there is only a report for each match missing! :) Doma-w 23:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age of Empires: The Rise of Rome

I undid this edit after a concern was raised here about its factual accuracy. Please refrain from adding such content to the article. ~ G1ggy! Reply | Powderfinger! 06:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologise, I didn't realise that it wasn't you who added that content. On the other hand, I didn't post in that forum thread, I simply cite it as a reference that people who know the game well have never seen this content. Again, I apologise. ~ G1ggy! Reply | Powderfinger! 06:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emil Jørgensen

Hello Poulsen.

 Look page [6]
 Emil Jørgensen – read discussion on this player  (It was written for a long time by I)
   at you it is written - Emil Jørgensen  07.02.1882  
   [7]
   Emil Ludvig Peter Jørgensen 17.02.1882. 
   The full spelling of the player is given  
   But the mistake is written other birthday, somewhere, 
    On the other site about this player it is written 
    [8] 07.02.1882
 Dates of birth of the player different, are not present the exact information.
+
 Axel Thufason - read discussion on this player (It was written for a long time by I)
 Look page [9]
   Axel Thufason - read discussion on this player (It was written for a long time by I)
   On page about the player it is written that the surname of the player was written on
   miscellaneous, but is not explained why 
   Below the text as it is explained in magazines IFFSH
      Was born on the Faroe Islands and came to Denmark as a small boy. 
      His original name, which later adapted to Danish, had been Axel Tufvesson

Gavrilov Sergey 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Gavrilov Sergey