User talk:Fifty7

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! VegaDark 01:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

United States presidential election, 2008
Please comment at Talk:United States presidential election, 2008. -Rrius (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, i'll explain, here is the link, it should say so there.

http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/05/26/cynthia-mckinney-cinches-green-party-nomination/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskchh (talk • contribs) 03:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Do u think i should add the other third party candidates, like the PSL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskchh (talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, should i add Alan Keyes He is still running as a independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sskchh (talk • contribs) 03:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Trust me Fifty7; the current edit disputes over who belongs in the Infobox? is only beginnig. Regretfully, among the editors out there, there's Obama supporters, McCain supporters, Barr supporters etc; who don't mind pushing for their candidates via edits. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If it were entirely up to me? I'd do all the 'United States presidential election' articles over. I'd only have those candidate who received electoral votes in the topinfox. Something I'm sure would be resisted at United States presidential election, 1992 (concerning Perot). PS- Ain't it funny, Perot is at the '92 page; but Nader's image isn't at the 2000 page. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose. Perot & Nader did have strong impacts on the 1992 & 2000 elections. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems with upload of Image:US Electoral College Map.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:US Electoral College Map.PNG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:US Electoral College Map.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:US Electoral College Map.PNG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ref: Image:US_Electoral_College_Map.PNG I think a little pie graph with 3 sectors for Nebraska and two sectors for Maine plus a "+2" in a way that makes it clear that it is different to the overall total (5 or 4) would be good. The circular numbers are not a good solution --Jono4174 (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jono4174 (talk • contribs)

Image:Current 2008 US Electoral College Polling Map.PNG
Hi. Could you please this map figure with one from commons:Category:Blank maps of the United States (with proper attribution?). As is, if the map figure is from 270towin.com, then it is a derivative, and thus a copyright violation. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for updating the map and cleaning up the handling of Nebraska and Maine! --M @ r ē ino 17:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Response
On the map on the Opionion Polling for the 2008 Presidental Election, I strongely suggest that there just be three colors. Red that signifies that the state is currently in the McCain camp, blue that means the state is in Obama's camp, and gray or whatever that means the state is a pure toss-up. I hope you consider this. America69 (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I just don't want a million colors. America69 (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't wait to see it. Let you know what I think later. America69 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do have a question about the map. It looks very good, but why is Florida in the DEM column, when a Rasmussen Reports poll has McCain up by 8%. I am just curious. America69 (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons
Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is, however, another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading your media there instead. That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!--OsamaK 06:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Michigan on state electoral vote map at.
As I type this, based on the average of the last three polls in Michigan which is a six point lead for Obama, that state should be colored medium blue. NOT the light blue that shows as I type this. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I noticed that User talk:The Evil Spartan is the one who has been physically revising the maps, I repeated the above message on his page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

United States Presidential Election 2008 Mediation
Hi, I've accepted the United States Presidential Election 2008 Mediation, and you are listed as one of the participants. Please feel free to comment and participate in the discussion on the mediation page. BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Professional soccer clubs of US and Canada, 2011.PNG
hi, Can you please tell me which one is the base blackmap you use to do that? I want do another version, aniway I like your work--Feroang (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Islanders.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Islanders.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  04:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Islanders.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Islanders.gif. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

US Open Cup
Thank you for having interest in editing US Open Cup pages. However you did make changes without response from a discussion. A short while ago User:Quidster4040 made some needed additions to the US Open Cup however he made some errors so I directed him to this discussion which is quite old and had no other contributors. I waited for Quidster4040 to either respond or take action. He did neither so I went ahead and made the corrections. I am aware of what the ussocer and the archives site say, however this information is not updated and based on limited sources. Some articles that were written in recent times about historical events will refer to say the "1948 Open Cup" for example but this is a retroactive use of the term for the modern reader to relate to. Libro0 (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: US Soccer Champions
Hi Fifty,

It looks like it's coming along well! I remember coming across the article a few months back and it was pretty messy and incomplete! Below are a few suggestions I have:


 * I would suggest that there is a column in each table for a reference tag. If not, maybe a link in the footer showing where you obtained a list of champions in each league.
 * In the MLS section, there should probably be some note in the table stating that the MLS Cup winner is crowned the league champion, whereas the Supporters Shield winner is crowned the regular season champion.
 * If possible, we should have a column listing the number of goals the top scorer tallied in the pre-MLS soccer leagues (i.e. APSL, NASL, ASL, etc.)
 * Evidently citations in the opening paragraph. I widely agree with the credibility of the opening paragraph, but just so there's validity.
 * I would make the present references separate notes using Template:Ref label, and put those notes in a separate "Notes" section, or below the table it's being noted in.
 * Finally, there should be a 'See Also' section, perhaps linking it an article like List of MLS Cup champions or List of U.S. Open Cup winners. That, and any related content which you probably have a better understanding what should go there!

Also, if there's anything I can do to assist, such as using my suggestions, I would be happy to help! Quidster4040 (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

1968 NASL
The reason someone asked you to provide a citation was so that your statement doesn't come off as OR. I had previously mentioned that you have to be careful when using information from the American Soccer archives. When you use someone elses research you run the risk of duplicating the errors if you don't supplement it with additional research or at least double check their sources. Regarding the 1968 NASL you state that the Archive says the early pro soccer was regional. If they say that the ASL was a regional league it is because of the modern point of view and current standards. We cannot change the status of a league because our transportation and communication technology is more advanced. At the time it was one of the earliest national pro leagues in the world. Most other countries at the time only had knockout competitions or non professional regional and city leagues. For a country as large as the US it had a league that covered as much territory as a european country. Either way the ASL was as viable as it could have been for that time. Just because a league does not cover the full geographic area of the country does not preclude it from being the national league. FIFA gave the US a seeded position in the 1930 World Cup over other competitors because of the pro league. FIFA clearly considered the soccer situation in the US to be above nearly all the other competing nations at that time. Therefore at that time FIFA probably considered the ASL to be what you might call a D1 league. The reason you might not consider the ASL to be D1 is that you are trying to compare a 1920s league to a 1970s league. In the early days most 'national' leagues in other sports(MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL) did not span the country. Even the national challenge cup was primarily eastern. The Eastern division was mostly the north east while the western division was really just the great lakes area. It took a few years before St.Louis entered and Dallas joined only shortly before California did in 1954, 40 years after the tournament first started yet it was still the 'national' cup. Libro0 (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to follow up, a league like the ASL II as an immediate offshoot of the ASL I also began in a limited area. But it too, should not really be classified as a regional league seeing as how it eventually spread to the rest of the country at about the same time the NASL came around. When the Archive distinguishes between early regional soccer and recent 'national' soccer it is simply to point out the significance of a top level US soccer league being played in many markets around the country instead of just the traditional 'hotbeds'. I don't think it should be interpreted as a reduction of the caliber of a league because of where they did or did not play. Similarly, a tournament like the American Cup was a national championship. For a tournament to be a regional championship, the organizing body has to declare the region over which the winner is recognized as champion. For example The Fall River Rovers won the Bristol County Cup and therefore were the champions of that County. They did not become national champions until they joined the AFA and entered and won the American Cup. This is because the AFA as organizing body declared their winner to be US champions, no less. The Eastern League to which the FR Rovers also belonged and had also won however, did not declare them any more than Eastern champions. Libro0 (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Major Honors"
The fact is that there was no award for the regular season champion of NASL in 1975. Sure, the Timbers amassed the most points that year but they didn't even play all of the teams. I've seen the trophy, it is for the Western Division regular season championship. There are no sources to back up that the Timbers were regular season league champions in 1975 because that award did not exist. Citing another Wikipedia article is not sufficient for a source. Also, the only reason the other navboxes are formatted that way is because you just changed them to be formatted that way. DemonJuice (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:2012NorthAmericanSoccer.png
Thanks for uploading File:2012NorthAmericanSoccer.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

List of American and Canadian champs (per BigSoccer)
Could we talk about the benefits of listing Canadian and American teams on the same list? I really can't see any and it feels like it muddies up the matter, especially in regards to the USOC (and its predecessors) and the various incarnations of the Voyageurs Cup. Achowat (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MinnesotaStars2012crest.png
 Thanks for uploading File:MinnesotaStars2012crest.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 23:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

DC United
If you are going to edit an article to create an inconsistency with another Wikipedia article that is directly on point, then you either need to make all the articles consistent or explain why the inconsistency you created is preferable. The DC United article does not limit itself to "major" championships but rather lists all of them. Major League Soccer records and statistics apparently does so as well. DC has won 12 of those. If you think that the DC United page should omit lesser titles or honors, then you should begin a discussion on the Talk page to consider whether such titles are unencyclopedic or otherwise inappropriate. Please, don't change it back again without discussing it. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

r/MLS
I just realized that I spoke to you nearly two years ago here! But this is "twwalter" from r/MLS if you remember. Want any assistance with the NY Cosmos seasons? Quidster4040 (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Major League Soccer country
Major League Soccer is not a Canadian league. As I said, it is an American league with Canadian teams in it. The Major League Soccer article says "Sanctioned by the United States Soccer Federation (U.S. Soccer), the league is composed of 19 teams — 16 in the U.S. and 3 in Canada". The situation is, in fact, similar to the English football league system, where some teams are located in Wales, but the league is still English. Cheers. – PeeJay 00:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be a good argument if it were relevant. The MLS All-Stars is a team intended to represent the best players in Major League Soccer – Major League Soccer is an American league, therefore the MLS All-Stars is an American team, organised by the United States Soccer Federation and administrated from America. The fact that some of the players come from teams based in Canada is irrelevant. – PeeJay 01:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, that is irrelevant. As I have said, the situation is the same as in England, where Cardiff and Swansea (Welsh teams) play in the same league as the English teams. If Cardiff or Swansea players were selected for their leagues' team of the year, as a representative team of an English league, the team would be an English team, not English and Welsh. The same can be said of the MLS All-Stars. – PeeJay 02:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

North American Soccer League
If Atlanta is to be given credit for the 1969 premiership due to the NASL's awkward points system, then shouldn't the three other clubs who had the same thing happen, Seattle 1980, Vancouver 1983 and San Diego 1984, all be given recognition for having the best record in their respective years as well? If so, this would also affect their totals (as well as New York and Chicago's) in the previous section of that page titled Overall Totals. As it stands, either Atlanta should be removed and Kansas City given the 1969 premiership -or Seattle, Vancouver and San Diego should all gain premierships -with New York (twice) and Chicago getting stripped of theirs. Or perhaps, both the "most points" and "best record" should be recognized in those 4 seasons' premierships. Personally I have no preference, except that it be consistent throughout. No matter what, something needs to be done to standardize these two tables.

almost forgot:--Creativewill (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been in the process of adding an info-box to all of the old NASL seasons (working backwards). When I came across this fact in the 1980s, you'll see that I listed both teams in the info-box. My logic was that American NASL fans would want to know who had the higher seeding for the playoffs, while the rest of the world would more likely want to know who actually won the most games. In this way everyone gets what the want with a quick glance to the upper right hand corner of the page. How's that for diplomacy? Truth be told, it also seemed easier than getting into a mind-numbing "delete/change" war with a stubborn fan of any particular club.

The tables on the List of American and Canadian soccer champions were a different matter, because the NASL portion is a smaller part of a much bigger project. That was why I was reluctant to make the change myself. If you go with your initial idea (or its exact opposite), I think some kind of notation should be made for the 4 odd men out. Is there no practical way to list both? Think about it; you work that hard at your craft, only to have history ignore you over a technicality that exists in your league only? That's got to suck. I also find it interesting that none of those teams made it to the Finals. The NHL currently faces a similar issue with their wacky points system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativewill (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the rest of the soccer world also finds the NASL scoring title confusing as well. In fact the standardized Association Football infobox for wiki has only a place for "leading goal scorer" so that's what I list as opposed to leading scorer. At least in the NHL scoring races, goals and assists are both worth 1 point. But I sincerely hate the way modern NHL scorekeepers liberally grant unwarranted "second" assists to inflate stats. e.g. On a power play the shorthanded team ices the puck and the pp goalie stops it behind his own net. A teammate takes the puck back up ice and passes to someone. He and that other guy pass it back and forth a few times. Finally, he shoots... he scores. Goalie gets an assist. Huh???? He hasn't touched the puck in 15 seconds or more! Watch a game 35 years ago and there's no way they give the goalie a assist. I'll quit ranting now--Creativewill (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edit looks good, is easy to understand and the rationale is perfectly reasonable.--Creativewill (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As I value your opinion, please go to my talk page and view the section at the bottom titled "Looking for some feedback"
 * Many thanks, Creativewill (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:New York Cosmos

 * Instead of making irrelevant personal comments on the editing pages, you should write a friendly word to a user. It is more appropriate.  Your attachment to the NY Cosmos Template, because you might have done some previous editing, is inappropriate.  These are living documents that are in need of improving, and that is what's done here with the detailed work I have placed with the update and fresh template.  Your reasoning for erratically  undoing work on a continuous basis simply because you feel that something should not belong, is not your job.  I see you have done so to many users before myself.  You don't own the template.  I appreciate your collaboration, but you have to relax and try to work with others instead of narrow mindedly seeing things your way!  Cheers NYCWikiKid (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

best-on-best
this article was deleted in the past, is there something new to add to the discussion to provide a reason for it being on Wikipedia?18abruce (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you had caused a problem, it was an honest question. I noticed that Fasel used the expression best-on-best in his opening address at the IIHF conference so I wondered if there were perhaps other reasons to reopen the discussion that you knew about.18abruce (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

BRD
WP:BRD Be bold and make a change. If it's reverted, discuss. Don't edit war.

And for the record saying "you're wrong" is a lame move regardless of how much respect you offer it with. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Best-on-best listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Best-on-best. Since you had some involvement with the Best-on-best redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.   Ravenswing   11:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)