User talk:DemonJuice

This is DemonJuice's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2

Re: USL 2009

Hey, I appreciate the help on the page! I just started a new job, so sometimes I don't get a chance to edit the page on game night. I'll take care of the average attendance, but here's the formula I use to get that: I take the number of games before the night's scores, subtract then number of games with unreported scores, and use that as the base number. I multiply that by the average attendance listed, then add the attendances for the night's games to that number (the attendances are usually listed on the match reports on the USL site) to come up with total attendance. Then I take the aforementioned base number, add the number of games played that night to it, then divide the new total attendance number by the new base number. It's not entirely accurate, but much easier than sitting at the end of the season and adding and dividing everything up! Again, thanks for the help on the page. Mtndrums (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with the Results table, the score is listed as home goals-away goals for both teams, the shading indicates the result for the team. For example, taking the 26th's Miami-Carolina game, the scores for both teams would be listed as 9-0 with the blue shading for Carolina and red shading for Miami, instead of Miami's listing as 0-9. This was how I originally listed the games, but after checking other Results tables, and noticing that everyone else used the home-away format for goals, I changed the USL table to be more in line with that. If I haven't updated anything by around 1 AM or so Eastern time (unless there's a game on the West Coast), feel free to go ahead and make the updates yourself. Mtndrums (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good link, however I wonder how long it takes them to get attendances up there. That will probably be used by season's end, though for right now (since we try to get those updated as soon as the stats come in) it would probably be easier to work off the USL stats. Mtndrums (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that link was VERY valuable, thank you so much for sharing that! It's made things a lot easier and a lot more accurate than my previous method. Thanks again! Mtndrums (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USSF-D2 results

Thanks. If you have perl, I have a script that takes the raw scores and creates the conference tables. It might save you some time if you get around to updating the results while I'm practising guitar (like what happened tonight). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not set up for perl right now, I was stuck home and super bored yesterday. :) I'll leave it to you most of the time. I'm keeping the tables in a spreadsheet so I can figure out week-by-week table place for the Timbers season page. DemonJuice (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Oregon

Welcome to WikiProject Oregon! I hope you'll continue to edit the Timbers, and perhaps branch out to the rest of Oregon too. Also know that User talk:EncMstr deals with Oregon sports (IIRC), so he's a good one to talk with if you have questions. tedder (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there DemonJuice, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:DemonJuice/sandbox/Timbers Army. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USSF D2

I had the result from the NASL site, complete with attendance! It now shows that the game is tomorrow. What the heck happened there? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha... who knows? Their site is wrong all the time. Somebody probably mixed up the game from the 13th with the one tomorrow. They've been good about fixing their standings when I point out inaccuracies via Twitter. The H2H points thing screws everybody up. DemonJuice (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.J. Obatola

No probs! Happy to help :) --JonBroxton (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Player categories

That's a good question, and unfortunately I don't know the 100% correct answer. I've always worked on the assumption that we should add categories for every team and every league in which the player has played, so that you can see at-a-glance the makeup of both categories. I honestly didn't know about the team pages being a sub-cat of the league pages, and so clearly there's some duplication there. I just wonder whether it's really it's worth going through them all. I mean, if you want to remove the league cat and just leave the team cat, I'm sure it would be fine, but I don't think it matters all that much if they are in both places. Cheers! --JonBroxton (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I won't make an issue of it, I use both team and league cats frequently. For example, I've been going through the NASL and MISL bios and cleaning them up. Having all the guys listed in alphabetical order in those two cats have made it much easier for me to do that. I also use league cats as a quick reference to see if particular players played in those leagues. Otherwise, I would need to look up each player bio or search through multiple team cats. Finally, if you take a look at guys who played in the Premier League, Serie A, etc. you will see that they have both team and league cats listed. Mohrflies (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle-Portland Community Charity match

I see that you have undone the addition to the Seattle-Portland matchup in March. However, deleting this whilst still keeping it posted on "Memorable Moments" doesn't make any sense. Although it is a pre-season match-up it is the first of it's kind and will continue in the following years. Does this exlude future adds? Hollywouldz (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Hollywouldz[reply]

Portland Parks Photo Blitz!

	<font=3> Want something to do this weekend? I propose a WikiProject Oregon weekend photo blitz! Let's try to fill up the List of parks in Portland, Oregon as much as possible by getting out and taking our own pictures or finding ones online that can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The pictures uploaded will not only benefit the aforementioned list, but they will be used for future articles about specific parks and will fill up the Parks in Portland category over at Commons. Get your cameras ready! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb round2 2010 D-2 Pro League Playoffs CW

I looked at the page and was very puzzled: why did you make it a template, instead of a section in an article, or even a separate one? I have nominated for speedy deletion per WP:CSD A3. TYelliot (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Johnson

Fair enough. But there's no point putting the source in the edit summary. It will just get lost as more edits are made. You cannot expect readers to know to hunt for such a source in the history page of the edit summaries. Brad78 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. Also, I wasn't entirely accurate. See my note on your talk page. DemonJuice (talk)

I've added some details to the main body of the text, added some notes and a reference. Hope it's right. As an aside, do you know when the transfer deadline was? Brad78 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's smashing. Thanks for the help. Brad78 (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timbers Teams

Do you consider the MLS Timbers to be one-in-the-same as the NASL and USL Timbers? Or just different teams using the same name and respecting the name's history? --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of both. The USL and MLS teams are certainly the same. Same website, same owners, same stadium, etc. In fact, the official roster for the MLS club is now at the exact same link the official roster for the USL club was at. The NASL and WSL/APSL teams were certainly different entities but the club operates as if they were not as evidenced by the USL club retiring the number of a NASL player and continuing that on with the MLS club. DemonJuice (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might end up having to be an either/or situation. Either we are going to say that yes, the NASL and MLS are the exact same club, or we believe they are two different clubs with the newer symbolically carrying the torch of the older. In my opinion, the fact that the MLS Timbers are honoring retired NASL numbers and associating themselves with the history of the name doesn't make them one-in-the-same with the original club. When the NASL Timbers folded, it was a definitive end to an organization. Now that MLS Timbers have chosen to pick up the name doesn't instantly mean the very same club has sprung back to life. Otherwise we'd just give them the same article, right? Now there might be an argument for the USL Timbers and MLS Timbers being one-in-the-same but that's probably a discussion for another time. I think most people–including Merritt Paulson and MLS in general–view the MLS Timbers as a brand new entity. Something that has never existed before...just with a name that has. They come across as being all the same in name only. --Blackbox77 (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument and it has merit. Whatever the consensus turns out to be, I'll comply with it. There's a push to merge the Whitecaps articles and the arguments would be very similar for the Timbers. I'm not married to the template as is and I agree it is divergent from other MLS navboxes. Then again, the Timbers are a somewhat unique situation and what happens elsewhere on Wikipedia has never been a valid sole defense for what happens in a particular article. If we're going to get technical, how come the Earthquakes template lists honors and seasons that should really be attributed to the Dynamo? Again, that argument means nothing towards the Timbers template. Let's discuss it. Why are you averse to including the history? DemonJuice (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, DemonJuice! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're Invited! Come Celebrate Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary!

<font=3> You're invited to help celebrate Wikipedia's 10th anniversary! Visit this link for details. An informal celebration will take place at the AboutUs office located at 107 SE Washington Street, Suite 520 in Portland on Saturday, January 15, 2011. An Open Space Technology meeting is scheduled from 5pm to 7pm, with a party to follow. Admission is free!

--Another Believer _(Talk) 18:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timbers-Fusion

This was the thread I started on BigSoccer about it: http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1650929.

I live in Ventura County so it was only a 15 min drive for me after work. It was a fun game actually - REALLY cold, but nice to know I got to see the MLS Timbers first *ever* game (even if it was a scrimmage), which is why I went really. Perlaza was really good, he was full of running and tricks and had the Fusion left back in knots most of the second half. His cross for Nagbe's headed goal was lovely, floated right on to Nagbe's head, and he just had to nod it past the keeper. Nagbe was OK; he came in for Dike after 20 mins when Dike got hurt, but other than the goal he wasn't especially threatening. He played fine - but he, and the whole team, has to get a lot better. The passing was woeful at times, and Fusion broke their offside trap seemingly at will. It'll all come together eventually, of course, I know this is only 3-4 weeks in to pre-season.

Alhassan and Umony impressed me too, Alhassan hit a 25-yard thunderolt which the Fusion keeper saved. Rodrigo Lopez looked really good too, skilful and confident on the ball.

Oh, also, the reported attendance for the game from the link is MASSIVELY overstated. No way there were 1,400 people there. More like 300, max. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am on Twitter - @mmuk64. I'm on Facebook too, under my name (Jon Broxton) --JonBroxton (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timbers transfers

Hi, I added the "subsequently traded" text to the Transfers In section because in some cases (McCarty, Wallace, Alvarez) the player was acquired and traded the same day, leaving the reader unsure as to the final result. I'm just looking to clarify it for a casual fan viewing the page.Bubbagump24 (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the draft picks not being included in the Transfers In until they sign. They were already listed when I started updating things so I didn't delete them. If you check the 2011 pages for other MLS clubs, their unsigned draft picks are not included in the Transfers In box (with maybe 1-2 exceptions). I agree about removing Bornstein and Findley, too. Again, they were already listed when I started updating. Take a look at the 2011 Red Bulls page and the monthly overview texts at the top. Maybe we could do something like that for the Timbers that mentions Findley & Bornstein were drafted and their MLS rights retained by Portland though they chose to go overseas.Bubbagump24 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added overviews for Nov-Jan, removed unsigned players from transfers in, and added a note to the roster about unsigned draft picks. I made the changes separately to make them easier to undo. Bubbagump24 (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kalif Alhassan

Look like the Timbers official site shows it sans "h", so go for it! --JonBroxton (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Portland Timbers season

Don't be discouraged by the lack of feedback from the season task force. Everyone seems to be active on the main talk page now and the season page doesn't see a lot of action (probably because there isn't much to talk about). I'm not an expert on North American soccer, but I wouldn't hesitate to nominate it for GA status when you think it's ready. There isn't really a template for how a season article should be laid out. What matters is that it is well written, clear and accurate. There are a number of them here, which you have probably seen already, and they all differ for each club. When you think it is ready, go for it and I'm sure it'll be promoted in no time. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WPORE COTW 2.0 - the picture edition

Greetings one and all. For some of you, this will be your first time receiving one of these messages, as it has been a year since the WikiProject Oregon Collaboration of the Week (COTW) was a regular thing. My hope is it gets back to being a regular thing.

Usually I would go over the past COTW, but we are basically starting out anew. So, without further adieu, this edition is our semi-annual picture drive. We usually try to do it when there is decent weather in the state, and today seems to fit the bill. Now although you are encouraged to go out and take pictures, you can also just search the internet for images that have the proper licensing and upload those. Flickr is one site that has a fair amount of content with the proper licensing (most images on Flickr are not compatible). See WP:COPYRIGHT in general. For some “free” sources, check out the our dormant subproject that has some links to sources.

Lastly, if you need to know what images we need, here are the requests. Please remove the request from the talk page if you add an image.

Finally (this is not image related), as the years have passed, we have lost many good editors, and others, like myself, are no longer in school or are working full-time or both, and thus are less active in the project. The project lives on, but it has created a bit of a power vacuum without a de facto cabal still around all the time. With that in mind, I encourage newer project members to step-up and fill some leadership type roles. Granted, we have no formal ruling junta or anything and no real defined roles, but there are many maintenance type tasks that some of us just took on to keep the project going. For instance, I ran the COTW, was pretty much the only one doing assessments, updating the portal, and even handing out the awards. I am sure others in the project can name what things they have done. The point being, that while I enjoyed those and still do some of those, I simply no longer have the free time to do all of it at a level that the project deserves. That said, I hope to start a discussion at WT:ORE where we can see if some newer editors would like to step-up and take on some of these tasks, which will hopefully make for a more inclusive project, and maybe get us back to the heyday of say 2008 when things were really rocking for WikiProject Oregon.

As always, please click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Best

I noticed you removed my addition about Clyde Best's stint at Feyenoord Rotterdam, classifying it as 'vandalism'. However, if you had taken the trouble to check the reference, you would have noticed that my statement is true. Moreover, the information is relevant as well, as tens of thousands of Feyenoord fans still remember Clyde Best this way, and his name always comes up when there is talk of Feyenoord looking for a new striker for the club. In fact, there is no malice. It rather resulted in Clyde Best becoming a kind of a cult hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.145.214.118 (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is contained here: WP:VERIFY and here: WP:NPOV. Your edit met neither of those criteria. If you can make one that does, I'd have no problem with it. I didn't read the source the first time (so I should not have labeled it vandalism) because of the NPOV nature of the edit. Your note to me was much more NPOV on the subject. That source isn't sufficient, anyway. DemonJuice (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just the fact that YOU cannot read the article, doesn't mean that it does not fulfill the criteria. There are many more references (just Google clyde best feyenoord), but unfortunately for you all in Dutch. Try Google Translate or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.145.214.118 (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting sick of this. If you undo my edit one, which is relevant and verifiable, one more time, I will report your bullying as vandalism or abuse.175.145.214.201 (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As am I. I've asked you to make your edit more NPOV and use reliable sources. You've refused to do so. DemonJuice (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, in my opinion, means that you accept both the good and the bad. This is not a fan page. Consistently removing some aspect from history just because YOU don't happen to like it, is in fact a direct violation of the principle of neutrality. That is exactly what totalitarian regimes do with the history of their country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.145.214.201 (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO. Really? That's where you're going with this. I'm at my WP:3RR limit so your edit is there for another 24 hours. I've let you know what needs to be done for that edit to stay and you flat refuse. I will continue to revert until you can cite a verifiable source and use NPOV language. Neither of which you are doing. DemonJuice (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may just have a little bit too high an opinion of yourself. Who are you to let you know what needs to be done for that edit to stay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.24.35 (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the fact that the page was protected against your edits for a time, the fact that you wouldn't engage in the conversation on the article's talk page and the results of the discussion on that talk page that sprang from your edit speak for itself. I tried to give you advice about how to add that information in an encyclopedic way and you chose to ignore it. I never once said that information couldn't be in the article. The fact that you won't change a single thing about your edit speaks volumes. You're the one who thinks too highly of him or herself. No fault but your own. I'd suggest that you read WP:BLP but I fear you won't. DemonJuice (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm not aware of the page ever having been protected agains my edits. I left the page alone for some time because I was overseas, with no internet access. 2. The edit is completely clear, not offensive in any way, and supported by two references. The problem is not with my willingness to read WP:BLP or not, but with the fact that your interpretation of it apparently differs from mine. And I don't think your opinion is in any way worth more than mine. I know that this has become a personal matter for you now, beyond reason. So be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.24.35 (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not personal at all. It's all about the Wikipedia guidelines that I tried to make you aware of. Look at the history for the page. It was locked down to anon editing because of your edit. Read the talk page. You'll find another editor that agrees the information has merit but that your wording violates WP:BLP. FFS, dude, I was trying to help. DemonJuice (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's because English is not my first language, but I don't see what is wrong with the wording. You didn't give any suggestions for improvement except for referring to some policy documents. 175.142.24.35 (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem is that it sounds like EVERYBODY thinks that. I think you can figure out why that is a sensationalist statement and must be proven with sources. The thing is, you'll likely never have an adequate source for that kind of statement. Maybe in some extreme circumstances. However, it would be OK to say that a certain group of people thought that and then give a source for that group of people. Perfectly OK. You just can't make a blanket statement like you did. DemonJuice (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just don't have any idea of how Clyce Best is remembered in the Netherlands, especially among Feyenoord fans. In fact, he has achieved almost legendary status for being the most disappointing signing ever, so much so, that right now, thirty years later, he is still remembered and mentioned as such. I don't know what you mean by adquate source, because I have given not one, but two, and I could give you even more or the same. The only problem is that you (who are you) reject it because you can't understand Dutch. Why not try Google Translate or something like that and check for yourself, rather than just blindly undoing this edit that actually helps to paint a more complete pictures of this unique player? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.24.230 (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you still keep reverting. The alternative version that you suggest, however, is meaningless. Having been viewed as a disappointment by some is something you can probably say about virtually all players. What makes Clyde Best special, is that he is remembered as one of the worst disappointments in club history, if not the worst! Even now people are still talking about it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.159.96.163 (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the info is meaningless so I've removed it. Find a reliable source to back up your claims and there will be no problem. I'm tired of explaining this over and over again. The page has been protected from anon-IP editing at least twice since this began. Not protected from me... but from you. I'm confident that I'm applying Wikipedia guidelines correctly and will continue to do so unless otherwise advised by an admin or overruled by consensus. DemonJuice (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So be it, then. One of the two references I had given is actually from the online edition of a major Dutch newspaper with half a million circulation. Not good enough for you, it seems. Your opinion counts more than that of a newspaper with 500,000+ circulation? Think about it. Anyway, why would I need to convince YOU? Who on earth do you think YOU are? Get a life.

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Clyde Best. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please discuss the issue at hand on the article's talk page. Regards, Giant Snowman 21:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that I have not violated 3RR but I will continue to revert the NPOV and non-verifiable edit on that page. DemonJuice (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of non-verifiable statements (and flagged as such) and you keep reverting the only fact that is supported by not one, but two references to respected Dutch news sources. It is obvious that you want to sabotage a neutral (good and bad) description of the subject, and just want it YOUR way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.24.35 (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you

		Civility Award
		In appreciation of the discussion we had about links on Seattle Sounders – Portland Timbers rivalry LarryJeff (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]