F.M.

• That never was explicitly answered but I eventually just came to that assumption. Thanks for clarifying though.
• At this point, if an MLS player who hasn't played comes up on AfD, he's very, very likely to be deleted. There's usually an American/Euro split on the AfD arguments. The problem is that the the current WP:FOOTYN suggestions (not official policy) are designed with the Euro academy system in mind. It's meant to weed out youth academy players who happen to be issued a very high squad number one year, but never play. MLS has stricter roster regulations, so I'd argue that it's different, but MLS isn't an important enough league for anyone to care to make an exception. So,

1)That clause is subject to a lot of debate. I think it's meant more for pole vaulting, Olympics type stuff, etc, although people have tried to apply that to college sports. It's very debatable.

2)Yes. There haven't been too many deletion drives lately fortunately.

• Yeah, maybe. Players like Barros Schelotto and van den Bergh could really go either way, I'm not sure what would be appropriate. However, I do think we should ignore the "hidden" last names of Portuguese and Brazilian players. They choose not to go by "da Silva" so why throw them into the list like that? I think it makes more sense to list them by their most commonly known names.

Cheers. --Balerion (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've commented out that bit in Olivier Tébily's article again. I actually did add it (diff), because I thought it was funny, but I added it commented-out, because Wikipedia articles aren't the right place for messageboard humour. If that makes me a prig, then so be it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your response on the BLP AFD proposal was beyond excellent. So much so, that I request to write a full rebuttal to Doc's absurd essay. It is essential that the opposition's argument be centralized into something coherent before the whole BLP thing spins out of control. The fact that Doc's essay is not formally rebutted allows it to stand alone in the arena, giving it undue gravitas. The forces of censorship are really pushing hard here, so this is urgent. If you really can't do it, I'll see what I can do, but I just thought you had it spot on in terms of understanding the condition of the BLP extremists. Plus, couldn't you tell how frothing at the mouth he was? He sounded like he was going to burst a vein or something. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]