User talk:Lckystrke

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave your comments, opinions and messages. I have only three rules:

1. Be polite. I encourage discussion and debate, but keep it civilized. Otherwise, you will be reported.

2. Your post will be edited if it contains spelling or grammar mistakes, or if it contains profanity. Similarly, your post may be edited/moved to a different section to keep things organized and neat.

3. Don't forget to sign your name using four tildes (~) and to separate replies in a discussion with (---) and one space above and below this divider.

Image copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:Personal_Emblem_02.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I am the creator of the image along with another first version entitled Image:Personal_Emblem_01.JPG but you may delete these as they are outdated versions. Only Image:Personal_Emblem_03.JPG which is licensed to me is current and being used in my personal page. Lucky Strike (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

Rookie Signings
I would go with what the TFC website says about their roster. Kingjeff (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the clarification, I had completely forgotten to check the roster page at TFC for confirmation. I guess it's probably that it is so infrequently updated. Lucky Strike (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

Columbian Players
There are the sources about the colombian players at Toronto FC.

http://www.studiofutbol.com/noticias.php?codigo=2646

http://www.studiofutbol.com/noticias.php?codigo=2679

Greetings. 190.25.32.196 (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I posted the links in this forum I belong to and we worked through it and found the relevant information. But thanks for taking the time to message me. Lucky Strike (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

TFC Changes List
This is mainly for the off-season when they are actually making these moves. Kingjeff (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Wikinews articles can be linked to the TFC article to serve the same purpose. Kingjeff (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

---

How about the signings of Laurent Robert and Amado Guevara? These were made in-season; what's your take on those? In your opinion, should there be a list for them (and other potential roster moves during the season)? Lucky Strike (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

---

I was thinking more along the lines of the Wikinews template I added to the roster section. Kingjeff (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I just saw and it works for me. Very nice, good work! Lucky Strike (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Lckystrke

---

Of course next off-season there will be more along the side there. Kingjeff (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rohan Ricketts's number
His jersey number is given on the press release announcing his signing from TFC's official website. Just scroll to the bottom, and it's there:

TFC Press Release

---

Yeah, I noticed shortly after I sent you the question. Thanks for the quick reply. Lucky Strike (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

Roster Regulations
I'm sure I just am a bit confused because... well, that's how I am. The wording of "Toronto FC is required to field fewer domestic players than its American counterparts" leaves me confused, specifically the italicized word. I understand that because they are a Canadian-based team, they are allowed to select more Americans as international players because the talent is better than in Canada. But my interpretation of that quote is (and this may be what that line is meant to say) that Toronto FC is required to have fewer Canadian players on their team than the amount of American players other teams are allowed to have on their team. This is where the confusion comes in. Is there anything that says that Toronto FC has a maximum amount of Canadian players they can have on their team? I know that they are allowed to have more Americans on their team, but are they absolutely required to? That's pretty much what I don't understand. Could you clarify for me please?  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 06:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Trust me, you wouldn't the first one to be mixed up by MLS rules. I belong to a forum where we're not even completely sure of everything. The phrase you're referring to is, in my view, better understood in the context of the entire paragraph. Explaining roster regulations into comprehensible words fit for an encyclopedia is actually extremely hard in practice. I'll go point-by-point as I find it helps me explain things better.

1. MLS teams (Canadian or American) have a fixed number of roster spots which stands at 28.

2. Those 28 spots are divided into senior (18) and developmental (10) types. This, however doesn't really impact on your question. This is just so my explanation is complete.

3. American teams have 8 international slots for players who are not American (this includes Canadians). Essentially, for American MLS teams, they must have 20 American players on their roster but only because of the limited nature of international slots. Thus, it's not a quota of American players but rather a cap on non-Americans.

4. Toronto FC is a special case because it is a Canadian team. MLS recognizes that we have less population and so the talent pool is not as deep as in the United States.

5. This means that different roster rules are required to keep TFC competitive in the league. This is done by allowing TFC to have more international players on its 28-man roster.

6. But #5 is more complicated than just giving TFC more international slots (MLS gave TFC 16 slots). Because the MLS is American-based, it naturally wants to encourage the growth of American players (because that was the point of the league when it was established in 1994).

7. Thus, of the 16 international slots given to TFC, at least 5 of those must necessarily be used on Americans. To muddy the waters further, the classification of a player is done on the basis of citizenship rather than the place of birth. For instance, Amado Guevara is considered American though he is from Honduras because he has a green card.

8. As if that's not complicated enough, international slots can be traded between teams.

9. Lastly, the rule change from 2007 to 2008 (giving TFC two extra international slots) mentioned in the article itself is subject to review following the 2009 season. MLS wants to make sure that it doesn't give TFC a leg-up on the American teams.

That's about it for the rules. To answer your questions directly:

1. Everything you have said in your message to me is correct up to where you say that "this is where the confusion comes in" (obviously, otherwise you wouldn't be confused).

2. TFC does not have a cap on Canadian players, they could fill their entire team with Canadians and leave the allowed international slots unused, if they so desired.

3. TFC will never have more Americans on their team than American-based MLS teams. If TFC used all 16 of its international slots for Americans, that number would still be less than the 20 Americans will have (because of their 8 international slot limit --> 28 minus 8 equals 20).

4. What I think mixes you up is the 11+5 clause. TFC is under no obligation to use any of its 16 international slots (for anyone who is not Canadian). Within those 16 internationals, there is a limit of 11 who can be non-Americans. Beyond those 11, any further internationals must be American. But again, there is no obligation to use them. Finally, the 11+5 rule doesn't apply in reverse. More precisely, if TFC has 5 American players on its roster and wants more, that's fine so long as it doesn't exceed the original 16-player limit on non-Canadians.

Hope it makes some sense. Lucky Strike (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

What's up with the TFC page?
What's up with the TFC entry being protected? I went to add Guevara to the roster and couldn't get in. If anything, I would suggest it's protected such that only registered users can edit it. I'm not sure if you have anything to do with it, but you can trust me with editing privileges, if only for the work I've been doing on the records page! - themodelcitizen (on a different comp at the mo) 74.210.117.149 (talk)

---

Yeah, I was the one who requested it be protected from editing because of an edit war on the subject of the nickname "Redcoats". However, I wasn't the one who chose to fully protect it, that was the moderator's decision, given that it's an edit war which was getting pretty nasty. Further, he protected it for 72 hours so it will be automatically unprotected at 1144 hrs (UTC) on Friday. That too was his decision. I intend to update the page with the latest information when it comes unlocked. If you get there before me to edit it, that's fine, but I'll be swinging by to take care of it so you don't have to worry about it. Lucky Strike (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Lckystrke

---

Ah, makes sense. Some of the fans are a little too overzealous with the littlest things... I don't think Redcoats is really an accurate nickname anyways. Now Biancorossi or Grigiorossi I like... Themodelcitizen (talk)

"Redcoats"
This is a friendly warning: The edit you made is risking reigniting an edit war. Essentially, this is the breakdown of the debate (if you can call it that, more like a screaming match):

1. 75% (several polls have been conducted) do not believe "Redcoats" to be a nickname because it is not used by the majority of fans nor the media. 25% like the nickname.

2. The majority says that the minority is trying to force the nickname on everyone and is selfish for not accepting the majority rule. The minority believe that 25% is still a significant minority.

3. Because of these two viewpoints which were thoroughly discussed/argued/yelled about on the various forums, it sparked an edit war which had to be stopped by a page protection. We've come to a compromise that "Redcoats" should be left out of the title box (because it is not used as extensively as "Reds" or "TFC") but that it should mentioned that "Redcoats" has been accepted by some in the body of the article.

4. Although I disagree with using "Redcoats" as you do (and I do think it is an arrogant minority trying to force this artifical sounding name on everyone), Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic in that it should reflect the subject as much as possible. To avoid sparking another edit war, I'd like to ask you a favour: can you yourself revert the edit you made? This is not meant to be bossy or insulting, it's just that if you do it (as opposed to someone else), it avoids the appearance that each side is arrogantly trying to impose its opinion by overwriting the previous edit. We've reached a consensus, but only after ugly debates and we're hoping to avoid a repeat. I hope you understand what I'm getting at, and I know this was a good faith edit. Lucky Strike (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Lckystrke

---

The page was locked for 3 days last week. Talk:Toronto_FC - and no coherent discussion on the talk page. If people want to debate it, that is the place. What I removed didn't even make sense - it implied that this nickname had occurred during a 10-day period? That's hardly encylopeadic - perhaps it was just badly written. If this is a valid nickname for the fans (and not the team), shouldn't it be in the Toronto FC fans section (and/or on Toronto FC fans) rather than the Naming section. And it should also really have a reference. Though given the poorly referenced state of the article, I could live with just moving it to the correct section, if others thought appropriate. Nfitz (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Yes, I was the one who requested the page protection because of the issue and I probably should have mentioned that the discussion was done on a separate forums, which of course you wouldn't have known, but that's my mistake, I should have mentioned it. As for referencing, you've got a point, it's not but neither are the other two (Reds and TFC) so nobody bothered with it. Further, "Redcoats" references the team as opposed to any group of fans of Toronto FC, thus its placement. Finally, the "Redcoats" nickname didn't just come out of nowhere in the last ten days but was often discussed during the off-season, as early as January, if I recall correctly. Again, this was done on the forums so those who don't read them wouldn't know this. Like I said earlier, I am opposed to the "Redcoats" because it's pretty artificial being shoved in our faces by a select few so I won't be upset if it's not reinstated. Anyway, the point of my contacting you was not to discredit your work, just a heads-up that it's a touchy situation. Hope this clears up some of your concerns. Lucky Strike (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Lckystrke

---

That would be part of the problem - the text I deleted, said the fans were called Redcoats - not the team! I watch the team, and I've been to games. I've never heard or seen the team called Redcoats. So I'm loathe to restore the text, unless there is something that can be referenced. I don't even understand what was written on the talk page - I can't parse it. I'll let others change ... perhaps this time they'll say what they mean. Thanks for the heads up. Nfitz (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

MLS Standings Debate
Thanks for joining the discussion and the joke on the 2008 MLS season talk page. It looks like it's a deadlock in both the discussion and vote. Kingjeff (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the appreciation. Part of why I got into this article is because the MLS does such a crappy job at applying their own tie-breakers, even though they take a day longer than we do to get the standings up on their site. It really is a pet peeve of mine, and I'm glad to know that someone else is annoyed as well. Have a good one. --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sidorkst
I see you have many violations as well. What makes you so special to tell me to stop using Wikipedia? Don't tell me what to do because it is really anoying and I'm sure you dont like people telling you what to do. Sidorkst (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

---

1. Please don't make up stories about me.

2. I never told you to stop using Wikipedia, merely to cease vandalizing.

3. Rules are rules.

4. I don't appreciate that you edited my post to make it seem like I insulted you.

Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASidorkst&diff=215059738&oldid=215057007

Lucky Strike (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

---

I'm sorry. Sidorkst (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Texas Fest
Lol, didn't like my edit listing third in the Texas Pro Soccer Festival as an honour? Originally my idea was to include 1st to 3rd ("medalling") in any competition, but I'm not so sure. Once we get the Canada Cup under our belt I think maybe we should take out the Runners up spot from the CCC as well, to be honest it's more of a space-filler. - Themodelcitizen (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Hope you weren't offended. Normally, I'd agree with medalling but 3rd of 4 doesn't seem like that great of an accomplishment. I also concur on the CCC, and I'd add that in the future (once the Canadian Championship is done with) we should probably only stick to "real" matches, excluding friendly tournaments and/or pre-season ones. Lucky Strike (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Lckystrke

TFC Page: "Other Matches" Category
Other matches is a very ambiguous line. There has to be one for each competition. Kingjeff (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I see where you're coming from but with a separate column/total for the Canadian Championship AND the SuperLiga AND the CONCACAF Champions League, the table gets to be pretty unwieldy. Ideally, people should be able to have a quick glance and instantly know what's what. Lucky Strike (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

---

I know this is crystal balling to a certain extent, but the Canadian Championship will be a yearly competition with Toronto FC, Montreal Impact and Vancouver Whitecaps along with any other team pending future expansion to the competition. The three previously mentioned clubs are guaranteed to participate. Participation in the Superliga and CONCACAF Champions League is not guaranteed every year. Therefore, Canadian Championship should have it's own line. Other matches should not be included unless there are other matches. Kingjeff (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

---

It makes sense but your reasoning is exactly why I believe there should be a catchall category. Because participation in Superliga and CONCACAF Champions League is not guaranteed, we may end up seeing a ton of zeroes or dashes indicating that no games have been played. It would make the separated categories redundant. Lucky Strike (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

---

Simply don't put other matches unless there are other matches. Lets take out the playoffs category too and only have Regular Season and Canadian Championship. Kingjeff (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've taken out the playoffs and changed Other Matches to Canadian Championship. There is no reason to call it other matches since the Canadian Championship is the only other matches being played this season. Your "catchall category" can be used for Superliga and CONCACAF Champions League. Kingjeff (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

---

But that's just the thing, there WILL be other matches and a good records table should take that into account. But even setting that aside, why remove the playoff portion? They're an integral part of the MLS. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't follow why the table shouldn't be comprehensive and complete. I understand it when you say that there haven't been playoff matches or Superliga and Champions League matches, but it seems that people who read the article should know that the potential for these matches exists. Lucky Strike (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Lckystrke

---

Use other matches when they actually happen. You were complaining about a ton of zeros. Therfore, you take out the categories that would have a ton of zeros. Kingjeff (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I was saying that with separate sections for all three tournaments we would get a ton of zeroes until some matches are played. With all three competitions rolled into one, we avoid that.

P.S. Somehow the table got all messed up by an edit - I restored it to the previous format because I wanted to include the most recent 0-0 draw into it. I didn't do it out of disrespect for your opinion, it's just that I'm familiar with this format and wanted to keep the table up-to-date. It would have taken me longer to de-bug the table and include the new results. I do indeed want to continue the discussion. Lucky Strike (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

---

Why can't it just be two competitions in the other matches? With MLS Regular Season and Canadian Championship being the competiitos guaranteed to be in the table? By the way some other peole have join the conversation on TFC's talk page. Kingjeff (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sanctuary 1x03 - Fata Morgana.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sanctuary 1x03 - Fata Morgana.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

October 2009
(Removed warning, error.)

---

@Jusdafax: The edit was actually removing an act of vandalism (someone had inserted a reference to either themselves or someone they know which did not belong). After viewing the preview of this removal and clicking "save page", someone had vandalised the page with obscenities in the mean time and therefore when I clicked "save" it appeared as though I endorsed the vandalism. Usually, when someone has modified a page while someone else had been editing, a message comes up indicating this but there was no such message this time. A glitch perhaps? Anyway, long story short, I do not wish to be labelled a vandal as I've done nothing wrong. Lucky Strike (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Lckystrke

---

Noted, and agreed. The changes were flying so fast and furious on that page with the vandalism that you got wrongfully tagged. Removing the notice, with my apologies. Jusda fax  15:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Thank you! Lucky Strike (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Lckystrke

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 HFX Wanderers FC season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Bradley and Mohamed Kourouma ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2019_HFX_Wanderers_FC_season check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2019_HFX_Wanderers_FC_season?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of HFX Wanderers FC chronicle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HFX Wanderers FC chronicle 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 Articles for deletion/HFX Wanderers FC chronicle 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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)