User talk:Madshurtie/Archive 1

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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Speedy deletion of LSAT caseless ammunition
A tag has been placed on LSAT caseless ammunition requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d  ( Suggestion? | wanna chat? ) 12:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Spam in LSAT polymer-cased ammunition
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on LSAT polymer-cased ammunition, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because LSAT polymer-cased ammunition is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting LSAT polymer-cased ammunition, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Arsenal
Should you wish to make big changes to Arsenal F.C.'s led, comment on WP:FOOTY or on the article's talkpage. Do not revert, as the article is FA standard. "...since the 16 match-shorter inaugural Football League season saw Preston North End do it 115 years before", awful grammar. It reads clunky, which means the article falls in line of WP:FAR. Wikipedia's style guide doesn't accept clubs as collective nouns -- that's the team. If you want to change it, you may as well tidy up Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester City, Liverpool, because they all use 'is'. Footballistically (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "most notably claiming the third most Twitter followers", is WP:POINTLESS and doesn't need to be in the lead. Most notably to whom?
 * "second highest earning stadium", what does that mean? It should be hypenated too.
 * ". WWII ended the run of this Arsenal team", World War Two
 * "...FA Cup and 2 more Championships after the" spell two out
 * "and a season of Invincibles", what?
 * Oh and your "just worsened the history section" is borderline WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballistically (talk • contribs) 10:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I moved all this to the talk page. I hope everything is clarified there. Thanks for your scrutiny; hopefully we can make a better article out of this.

Madshurtie (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C. records and statistics
Hi again. The whole point of citing 'Arsenal's honours and achievements include the following', is to prevent the need to cite every honour individually. Of course, some aren't covered by the general sources, hence why I've kept them. Not discouraging you from sourcing, but it doesn't need to be excessive as it's not the main article. My other issue is I don't see the point of including 'The 2003–04 season was the only 38-match season unbeaten in English football history,' as that information is already given via the above text, and signifies nothing on its own. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Joy's book is already cited here. Overlooked 'London Wartime League', 'South Regional Wartime League A', 'United Bank International Soccer Festival' -- they need citations. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking, based on WP:INTEGRITY, that having no inline citation might make it unclear to the reader where to look for the tournament, especially when it comes to some of the more minor ones they might be suspicious about. I think every tournament listed is actually included here, so I guess you could cut the citations to leave just that. Since that's such a comprehensive resource, it seems worth listing with the 'Arsenal's honours and achievements include the following' bit? Madshurtie (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from List of Arsenal F.C. records and statistics with this edit, without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Jim. I did explain it in the edit summary, just didn't make myself clear enough. When Hashim-afc updated the page with text the main club page, he brought with it a sentence about the Invincibles season. As such, it duplicated the one only a few sentences before, so I had to remove one of them. Madshurtie (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I thought you removed a footnote which I did not see any immediate duplicate. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I did also remove the footnote, but only because it was pretty old and the new wikilinks basically covered it. You can put it back if you think necessary. Madshurtie (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that up to you. CHeers Jim1138 (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

DTsma article
Hello,

I cast the first vote on the "Jane Doe" issue at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations after having created a section entitled Votes. Mandruss has not been online in a bit. If that's not the correct protocol for where votes go, do you mind making the change?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice
Soham321 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Edits to List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won Comment
Hi there, your recent major edit is largely good but you have removed quite a few honours for the Sheriff of London Charity Shield, I can quickly see that Villa (2) and Liverpool (1) have both lost trophies. Mountain cirque 15:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added the SLCS on now. I assume it was accidental on Madshurtie's behalf. Hashim-afc (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There had been back and forth over that, so I just didn't bother to re-add SLCS out out of convenience. The RSSSF document doesn't include SLCSs in the total at the bottom either, though they are listed individually at the top. I don't really mind whether we include them or not, maybe it should be discussed on the talk page? Madshurtie (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Madshurtie, I'd also like to make a comment - I like the edits you have made to the page but I'm wondering how are teams that have the same number of honours ranked? E.g. Everton/Villa/Spurs all have 24 trophies but seem to be ranked randomly rather than by alphabet or by domestic honours or something like that. Hashim-afc (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The teams with the exact same trophies won (mostly the ones with one trophy) should be sorted alphabetically (though just noticed Reading and Crystal Palace are wrong). In general, they're listed by the rightmost total. When that total's the same, it should be national honours, then league champions. Hopefully there aren't too many inconsistencies. Madshurtie (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It used to be based on 'most recent honour', I have no preference for the ordering myself and would suggest alphabetical or most recent would be the least controversial. Major changes to the page should really be discussed on the talk page to avoid any conflicts with other editors. Mountain cirque 16:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I got WP:BOLD, though possibly too bold. I wanted to salvage the best bits from the recently deleted duplicate table, which I felt had several organizational advantages. The deletion was sensible to avoid WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and that was the certainly the worse location for the table, but I would have recommended a merge. I also have no preference on the ordering, and am happy for anyone to change it. Madshurtie (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point and would have been a good idea in retrospect, at the time I judged the previous table to be an out of date version of the more regularly updated version at "List of..." and more importantly not a 'record' in the context of the page. I think that with an added proviso sentence 'teams are ordered by most recent win' ahead of the table we will have ended up with a table that is much improved from where we started off and merges the previous approach. One minor point on honours rather than format, I'm a little uneasy about the Centenary Trophy being added and not the Football League Centenary Tournament which was organised by the same committee, in the same year, was competitive and had mostly teams from the elite level competing. Mountain cirque 09:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's because it was a friendly tournament and not competitive. The matches were not full 90 minutes, they were 40 minutes or 60 minutes played over the space of 2 days. So I don't think it would be a "competitive honour" and there also did not seem to be any inclusion criteria. On the other hand the Centenary Trophy was for the top 8 teams in England played during the season (not pre-season) over the course of 2 months with full 90 minute matches, so that one should definitely be on the page. That's my opinion, Hashim-afc (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Good job on the List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won
I'm happy to support what you've done and agree on excluding the FLCT based on the 60 minute matches. My only miniscule gripe is the use of 'defunct' in the key and 'Obs.' in the table, I'd just keep it to one or the other. Mountain cirque · Join the Karate Task Force? 10:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought defunct was a more suitable word, but the seven character word was using up too much space in the cells, and I thought obsolete had a more widely recognized abbreviation. Feel free to change it if you think one way is better. Madshurtie (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Professional Honours
I don't agree with your 'professional' addition to the lead today. Lots of early winner of the FA Cup and Charity Shields were not professional so you are creating a bit of a hole there, you would have to remove sides from the table such as Old Carthusians FC, Corinthian F.C. and Oxford University A.F.C....which would mean we were not listing every competitive honour awarded in English football. I think that competitive and national level should be the main criteria. Mountain cirque · Join the Karate Task Force? 10:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, hadn't thought about that. I added professional to have an explicit statement that semi-professional cups like the Inter-League Cup and FA Vase are excluded, but looks like you're right. Unfortunately, I don't think competitive or national exclude those cups, but I can't think of a better criterion right now. Madshurtie (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think elite is a good word to use, as then you exclude second/third division titles and FA Vase etc. as you mention. Mountain cirque ·  Join the Karate Task Force? 09:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it helps, my only problems are it's a bit vague, and the Europa League clearly isn't the elite competition under that body, so it seems inconsistent. Madshurtie (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1899 Sheriff of London Charity Shield
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Madshurtie, thanks for creating 1899 Sheriff of London Charity Shield!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 3 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1904 Sheriff of London Charity Shield
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Madshurtie, thanks for creating 1904 Sheriff of London Charity Shield!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 3 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1907 Sheriff of London Charity Shield
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Madshurtie, thanks for creating 1907 Sheriff of London Charity Shield!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 3 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Competitive Honours Football Page
Dont wanna keep replying there because there has been so much discussion that you can get lost! Basically its a similar issue to the one on the FA honours one. Article is generally good, but some minor points. Kept most of your edits, changed the word 'honour' to 'tournaments' as they pertain to friendlies since friendlies are not pro honours. Added a phrase to the county sentence to make it more accurate and removed the part about the full list not being shown. The lead as you highlighted is meant to describe the article and the mention of county games accurately reflects the content. There is no need to be too specific, and anyone can infer they arent included from the table complete with key below. Obs reserve and semi pro games arent gonna compare with pro honours. It is also not about what you may or may not be aware of, its about what sources show and the county sources all indicate the same stucture and historical signifance of them, so that is what is reflected. Nothing major, just went back to the other phrasing you yourself had used.

General point is you have to accept you can't group friendly, reserve, etc games with professional senior honours. If you want to mention them then fine, I wasnt too hot on it but went with it. But then like with football club pages where lower-level stuff like friendlies and reserve games are noted in different sections, since we cannot do that with actual tables, they must be described seperately and accurately below.

IN FACT, that could be a potential solution on the dilemma with the FA honours page. If you want to include anything the FA or EFL ever introduced, dont do it in the table with the professional, competitive honours but instead have a section below like with the county honours and lower-qualifying games on the competitive honours page and title it 'others' or 'friendly' or 'uncompetitive' or something and then detail the games like the Centenary Match and Barclays Asia Trophy (while giving appropriate mention to their status).

I hope this works both pages out. Davefelmer (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure this is the best place to discuss this, since the dispute on the domestic official honours page (whether friendly official honours should be excluded) is a different issue from the competitive honours page (a bunch of mostly wording issues).
 * On the competitive honours page:
 * It looks like you didn't? The only text you seem to have kept is the "in the years when league football was unavailable or only available to northern and midlands clubs" text (glad you kept that because it seems to be more accurate wording).
 * I did mention in the edit summary that the problem with "tournaments" is that it's widely used to refer to multi-round competitions, whereas some friendlies are single-match competitions. However if you don't like the word honour, is "competition" OK with you?
 * If you can find me a source that says every single senior cup either has reserve/youth teams or non-league clubs, then that's fine, but there's over 50 associations, so there may well be an exception neither of us has encountered. That's why I prefer the wording "in some cases ... in other cases ..." over the wording "these involve either ... or", because the latter wording may be wrong. Also "lower-division or regional-division clubs" is more precise than "semi-professional clubs" because the FA abolished the amateur/professional distinction in 1974.
 * You removed the Kent/Middlesex text, even though I found good sources for those competitions, and replaced it with the London text, even though we don't have a specific source for it. This seems to lower the quality of the County FA section, so if it's OK with you, I'll revert that back.
 * You're removing the text, "a full list of their honours is not provided in this article", but leaving the text "Friendly tournaments and matches organized between clubs are not included". This seems inconsistent, and the Manual of Style says the intro of a list is meant to state what is not included. I understand what you're saying about not needing to be specific, but there is official wikipedia policy on this.
 * You removed the Liverpool Europa League record from the intro, even though it's arguably a more notable competition than the Community Shield or League Cup. I don't see any reason for this?
 * "Manchester United also hold the record here, with 21 wins" seems a much less wordy version of the sentence you added?
 * The very minor verb you keep reverting: "The Football Association, and its mostly self-governing subsidiary bodies the English Football League and Premier League, runs national competitions" is not standard grammar. See here, here, and here.
 * You took text from the County FA section and put it in the intro, which seems unnecessary repetition. It's more wordy too, when the intro is meant to be a briefer summary.
 * The stuff on this page is generally very minor wording stuff and it's a shame we have to keep going back and forth over this. Hopefully I've now better justified my reverts if my edit summaries were unclear.
 * On the domestic official honours page:
 * You suggestion could work of separating friendly honours from other honours by creating a separate section at the bottom, and I had actually thought of doing it. I have two concerns though. Firstly, I've seen no source saying the FLCC is a friendly (considering it was kind of a 100th season final, it probably wasn't), so putting it in a section called "friendly competitions" is telling the reader unverified information. Secondly, there's only one likely friendly (the PLAT), at most two, which isn't really enough competitions to justify its own section. Certainly it would be strange to make a table.
 * Madshurtie (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * For the Competitive Honours page, yes, friendly competitions is better.


 * Look, I dont think they should be mentioned at all, as they are clearly not first team honour nor have they been for the vast majority of their history. Looking through all the counties, it appears that all of the formats generally follow one of those rules. Check it yourself if you want. On top of that, the sources we have on the matter clearly describe them in that manner such as the Birmingham Senior Cup source and the Arsenal one you provided. I also think its fine to use semi-pro sides because that is what they are. I dont know what the FA abolishing the distinction even means but there are evidently non-professional clubs outside the Football League (where people dont have football as a full time job) and pro clubs within the FL. This is just a fact, and the term "semi-pro" i.e. not fully professional would be far more familiar with an average reader than 'regional-division', as a lot of people wont have heard the term and might not know what it means. In terms of their presence on the intro, I dont think friendlies or county honours should be included at all. Neither are described in the lists, and neither are official first team honours. The lead doesnt have to describe every section of every article, only the main parts, which it does without the county stuff. I dont see Guardiola's personal life briefed in his intro despite that being a small section in his page, for instance. Describing county games as honours at all doesnt sit well with me either as they are not professional honours by definition.


 * The Kent and Middlesex texts added nothing to the article, they were just lists. The ones previously inserted added depth to the purpose of County matches and had more detail. There is no reason to insert sources for the sake of it when there were already enough.


 * I didnt mean to revert the Liverpool EL record or change 'runs' back to 'run'. Thats my mistake, my apologies.


 * Finally, as for the FA Honours page, it doesnt matter whether its one, two, three or 50 extra competitions. That is how you would distinguish them in actual honours sections on a page, as mentioned in your Arsenal consensus page you keep linking. You would never group them together with pro honours in the same table, which is what you've done. And stop saying they arent friendlies, they clearly are and you would need a source to prove either's competitiveness, since neither are included in any trophy table or on the club's honours board. You cant just see that something took place and add it into an honours board with no sources. It appears we've reached an impasse on whether they are friendly or not though, so I will let wiki football decide on that front. Davefelmer (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If you want to state that every county cup follows those formats, then you need a source for every county cup.
 * To me, regional-division is more clear, especially in sentences already talking about "regional governing bodies" and "County Football Associations".
 * The official policy I pointed you to says "If the title does not make clear what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused about the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing as to what may be added to the list." So yes, we are expected to mention in the lead if the article isn't including stuff.
 * The London text didn't have a specific reference for the claims "have a Senior Cup, such as the London Senior Cup, as their premier competition for men's clubs. These involve either the senior first-teams of lower-division and semi-professional clubs". The Kent and Middlesex references are official sources specifically stating "This competition is the most prestigious in Kent Football, and is for the top flight football clubs in Kent" and "The Middlesex FA Senior Challenge Cup is contested by the most Senior clubs in the County and is considered by many as the most prestigious competition in Middlesex".
 * No worries on the accidental changes.
 * I'll leave the other page here because it's being addressed on the project and I've responded to some of that on the article's talk page. Madshurtie (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I mean, you can hardly list 40 sources or however many there are county cups in that small section. But a quick glance over them shows it to be the case and I would assume maybe 4-5 sources would do the trick (as you dont wanna clutter the article). I guess we can seek consensus on wiki football for that if we need a larger pool to decide. But it really is the case, look through them if you dont believe me, so implying there are other formats than the ones we have mentioned isnt actually accurate.


 * If you wanna use 'regional division' and 'regional governing bodies' then ok lets go with that, but there should be a note that these are lower division games. We could simply add it to the front of the phrase, so it is "lower division regional competitions", which gives a clearer picture. Also the word 'honour' has to be removed in reference to regional games, as they are not honours akin to the actual professional honours we are listing as is defined by the page title. Something like "but their full list of fixtures" could be used instead. Or "their full list of matches".


 * The sources for the middlesex and kent cups you have added dont bring any new info to the table because they dont change anything that was already said. So what that its the "most prestigious cup in Kent" when no team from Kent or Middlesex are even professional? Its all just a bunch of semi pro, lower division sides, which lends more credibility if anything to the prior wording. The Arsenal and Birmingham sources at least explain the history a bit with both alluding to the fact that when they became pro, they no longer could play the county cups (at first team level). Its the clearest adaptation of the sources, while right now you are alluding to 'other formats' that dont exist. Davefelmer (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Normally if you want to list an absurd number of sources, you bundle them in a footnote, but I agree it's a lot of work for little benefit. Not sure using sources for 4-5 competitions to induce general claims about the other 50 or whatever competitions is the best practice, which was why it just seemed easier to say "in some cases ... in other cases" so the reader knows these formats are common but isn't told there are definitely no other formats. I think it's fairly minor either way to be honest.
 * Your phrase suggestion is good, but it's already in the article? The intro says "now contested by lower or regional division clubs"; the section says "In some cases ... these involve the senior first-teams of lower-division or regional-division clubs." The cups themselves aren't lower division because cups don't have divisions.
 * I don't agree county cups can't be called honours, because there can be loads of different types of honours (youth, reserve, friendly, etc). The word honour just means an award for something, which could be any competition with a cup or medal really. I've met multiple editors on the project who are adamant county cups are important historical honours, and I'm guessing you have too. I think "fixtures" or "matches" would be misleading because they describe parts of a cup competition rather than the competition overall.
 * The Arsenal and Birmingham sources are still in the section, but they only really verify the early history of those cups (and, like you say, they explain why big clubs stopped playing in them). The Kent and Middlesex ones aren't meant to show much, just to verify that for that type of county cup, it's the main regional competition and gets first team participants from lower clubs. I couldn't find a source directly saying that for the London cup. I'm not sure why you would want to leave those statements unsourced? Madshurtie (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the wording is valid because it implies there are other formats which isnt accurate, if you want to stick to the various formats phrasing we can do that but without implying there are formats that arent there. Perhaps by saying 'in some formats'...'while in others'....


 * It only says that in one place, not in the top of the intro or the main subsection. And the phrasing is wrong because it says lower AND regional sides which implies lower and regional divisions are seperate things, when regional divisions are lower divisions. These clubs are just lower regional division teams, or semi-pro which is their official status as it relates to professionalism. Cups dont have divisions but being exclusively contested by non-league regional clubs absolutely must be stated.


 * So now we finally get to the jist of it all. You think friendlies and regional games in particular are 'honours' and important historical games. But thats just not true. A friendly is not an honour, neither is a reserve or youth team game, most certainly not in the context of football at least. You have just had numerous editors on the project page say just that to you. As for regionals, while they may have been important at the start of football, they have been reserve, youth and semi-pro club games for the vast majority of their history, making them insignificant to professional club trophy hauls, which this page is about. You are trying to subtly word the article to make such events seem far bigger than they were. There's nothing wrong with matches or fixtures because all cups and all league games have 'matches' and 'fixtures'.


 * I think the wording suggestions are fair, considering their status and the fact that because of their status regional games likely should not be covered on the page anyways. If we can't come to an agreement on that here, I'm gonna have to take the idea of regional games being important club honours to the project page for discussion because from what I recall, its been brought up once or twice and met with the same explanation I have provided. Matches that for the vast duration of their history are played with reserve, youth and between semi-pro sides should not be mentioned equally with pro honours. Davefelmer (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It doesn't imply there are other formats, it makes no statement on it. "In some formats ... while in others" seems to have exactly the same meaning as "in some cases ... in other cases", so is this really worth arguing over?
 * It says lower or regional division in both the places where participating clubs are mentioned.
 * . No it doesn't, it says "or", read it properly.
 * . As I've already said, there is no official amateur/semi-pro/pro status, because the FA officially abolished it. Their official status is their current division.
 * As if that's your gotcha. We've just spent days arguing over whether friendly honours are honours, so that first bit was obvious from the start. However, I did not make the statement that friendlies and regional games are important historical games, please don't lie. I said there are other editors who insist county honours are important historical games. You have met several of them, but I notice you ignored that point. Apparently you only mention the positions of other editors when they agree with you.
 * . No other editor in that discussion took that position, but two (!) said they shouldn't be included, which is different (and of course two opposed that). Indeed the only editor who made a statement on whether they are honours was Govvy, who explicitly said, "there are different level of honours, major, minor and friendly competitions, those summer competitions come under friendly honours." Anyway, we can let the dictionary decide. Google/Oxford honour definition: "a thing conferred as a distinction, especially an official award for bravery or achievement". Merriam-Webster: "an award in a contest or field of competition". Are you trying to say neither of these competitions conferred a thing for winning them or an award? Liverpool keep the cup from the 100th Championship Challenge in their trophy room.
 * Let me jog your memory. Here's four discussions on the project (1, 2, 3, 4) you've been a part of where other editors have told you county honours are important honours and/or shouldn't be removed. By my count, nine different editors opposed your position.
 * Again, they aren't mentioned equally with the other honours. They aren't individually listed and are only given a separate summary section with a main article link. Madshurtie (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, for the 100th Championship Challenge page, stop writing stuff there that isnt sourced. The project is about sources, not personal research. And your inclusion of Liverpool's titles at the time is pointless, it already says at the top that the game was played between the champions of the second division and the record first division holders. You've just cited a list of english football winners, its meaningless in context. Davefelmer (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C. Featured article review
I have nominated Arsenal F.C. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)