Hello Spudgfsh. Welcome to the English version of Wikipedia
Thank you for your participation in this project. We hope that you will stay to contribute and that you will find the collaboration process enjoyable.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that started in 2001 and is free for all to use and edit under certain guidelines and principles that all users should understand and adhere to. These principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information.
	The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project.		Help. How to get help.
	Tutorial. This tutorial is a basic guide to editing.		Your user pages and your sandbox. How to experiment and edit in your user space.
	Mentoring program. Request help in your first steps of editing.		How to start a page. Help on creating your first article.
	Things to avoid. How to avoid common errors and mistakes.		Style Guide. How to write in an acceptable style.
	Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.		Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers.
	Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance		Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.
This is your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss things with them. At the end of your messages you must put your signature by signing with four ~~~~ (just as I have done) or by pressing the button in the editor bar as shown here in the picture. By the way, you don't need to sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted. Another valuable page that may provide information and assistance is User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia. My name is Buster7. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance and contact information. Good Luck editing!

```Buster Seven Talk 13:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello Spudgfsh I want to make it better table Premier Leagie season 2012 2013 188.254.230.210 (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you use the sandbox facility to create the table as a whole and then when it is correct make the updateSpudgfsh (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okey Spudgfsh 188.254.230.210 (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UserJggjghjg765675 Hello Spudgfsh blackburn rouvas relegated from premier league to championship 2012 2013 Jggjghjg765675 (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UserJggjghjg765675 Hello Spidgfsh well Wigan Athletic as they beat blackburn rouvas and Chelsea beat Blackburn fall Wigan Athletic will beat Blackburn Rovers Jggjghjg765675 (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UserJggjghjg765675 Hi Spudgfsh but if you do not lose points Bolton i QPR Jggjghjg765675 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What did this do? --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

background colours--Spudgfsh (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OIC. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought seeing as it was gonna be put there anyway why is it not allowed now?

"Spent 30 min of my life doing something just for someone to delete it in 5 seconds :/"

What is the point of having all of the sections for the statistics for next season when they will provide no useful information for another two months. If you must place them in then you will have to comment them out until later on.Spudgfsh (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. I do not understand why you still think that my edits are not constructive after my explanation in the Talk page of Carl Jenkinson. I have standardized the stats table according to the template. It is not encouraged to cite too much when only one reference can do the job, so why do you think we have to cite every season's stats? All that I am trying to do is just making the table more readable for the readers and that takes effort and time. Why do you think that deserve a "warning"? --Miunouta (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD is for deletions that can reasonably be expected to be noncontroversial. "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected." Your recent rash of prods don't fit. There is no sign of a consensus at the existing AfD that all attendance charts should be deleted. In fact most editors seem to have expressed the opinion that single-sports attendance charts can be encyclopedic. Please take this as my standing objection to your use of PROD for any further deletions you may seek in this area, and use AfD instead. Thank you. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see your removal of this PROD - what do you mean "To delete this requires AfD"? And what do you mean "To delete this requires [...] informing Wikipedia:WikiProject Football"? FYI, it has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves for NINE days - and informing a WikiProject of a proposed deletion has NEVER been a requirement. GiantSnowman 13:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it required a fuller discussion before it was deleted. The match was a non-league team away at the FA Cup runners up from the previous season which would make it notable. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 13:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Newcastle United F.C. 0–1 Crystal Palace F.C. (1907) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newcastle United F.C. 0–1 Crystal Palace F.C. (1907) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. GiantSnowman 14:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Murphy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please be careful with reflinks - it's prone to put junk into the ref. For example, the |author= parameter in this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same again, with this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was paying more attention. It just didn't register. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I mixed up 2013-2014 with 2012-2013 in this edit. Thanks for the remark! Rubiscube (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I noticed that when you edited 2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season you used an incorrect linebreak when adding goals. Instead of using <br/>, that does not work in some wikipedia you should instead use <br /> (or <br>). For more information please read WP:LINEBREAK (and note that they use <br /> in their example). Thank you. QED237 (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing technically wrong with <br/> - the space is optional. Its absence has been known to cause trouble with some versions of Internet Explorer, but Wikipedia pages are put through HTML Tidy before being served, and this adds a space at that position yielding <br />, so IE browsers never actually see the unspaced form.

What is incorrect is </br> with the slash first instead of last. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:LINEBREAK: "Wikipedia currently renders HTML5 where <br> and <br /> are both valid. Normally HTML Tidy will convert a variety of versions of the break tag to <br /> including <br>, </br>, <br/> and <br.>. This conversion does not work in a number of MediaWiki interface pages and can cause invalid HTML and problems rendering the page. Other wikis may not have HTML Tidy enabled, thus exported pages using an incorrect break tags will result in invalid HTML."

Recently I saw the <br/> being remove with a link to a page saying it was wrong, I will see if I can find it. QED237 (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LINEBREAK has recently had a content dispute. There have been several discussions about exactly which variants are fine to leave alone, and which should be altered, on several different pages, sometimes simultaneously. Some of these were on user talk pages, so I don't know just how widespread the discussions have been, but see for example Wikipedia talk:WPCleaner#.3Cbr.3E tag, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 117#Text colour coding breaking down after line breaks in infoboxes and Wikipedia talk:Line-break handling#Line breaks, October 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, I were not aware of those discussions and I will read them when I have rested my eyes. Anyhow to me it seems better to use <br> or <br /> from the start, when editing an article instead of the others. QED237 (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I saw was a bot (I think), making edits according to error no.2 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/List of errors QED237 (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios. I have proposed a conclusion that addresses your concern regarding reliable sources. Would appreciate a comment. Ivan Volodin (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Noticed your addition of the new league table template thingy to 2013–14 Birmingham City F.C. season. Pity you removed the named reference for the original, which was used elsewhere in the article, but don't worry, the bot recovered it. Was wondering if there's any way of restricting the lines of boilerplate underneath to relevant stuff, such as abbreviations actually used in the table section, as-of date and reference?

But what really bothers me, is that the league table section replaced was up-to-date and accurate, according to its heading "as of the date of Birmingham's last game" (which was 21 Dec). The section transcluded, despite the boilerplate claiming "Updated to games played on 21 December 2013", isn't up-to-date and accurate as of that date: it includes some games played on that date, but certainly doesn't include Middlesbrough v Millwall. If the table is being updated piecemeal, but the as-of date is updated as soon as any games are added, it doesn't strike me as much of an improvement for the reader. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the bold assumption that the table included in the season article was correct (which is where I copied the info from). I'll correct it shortly. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 12:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I have not looked at the table in question but if the template is updated but not the article page it could have something to do with the cache of that page. More can be read at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121#Purging pages when updating template. QED237 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, the table was wrong on the season article when I started to create the new template. I spotted the purging thread while wondering why nothing was fixing the errors last night, I now edit my sandbox and keep doing preview. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Spudgfsh, Please read the text Mohamed Salah before you revert Edits (!!!) FC Basel won the Swiss Super League in 2012–13,<sup>[1]</sup> they were Swiss Cup Runner-up 2012–13.<sup>[2]</sup> and won the Uhren Cup 2013. Salah was awarded the CAF Most Promising African Talent of the Year in 2012 CAF Awards.<sup>[3]</sup> How many more refs do you need (???) Bye --Huligan0 (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted your mindless tagging of the lists like List of British films of the 1950s. If you'd read the text at the top you should have realized that the section are not intended to be added too and they function merely as dab pages. If you've done this to other country film lists please self-revert. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for creating Template:2014–15 Premier League table/p and fixing the template.

There is a reason why I had not created the templates on my own in the past and I thought I should mention why, since you have been a bit involved in the past.

First of all there is consensus at WT:FOOTY to remove the years name it only "Premier League table" or "Current Premier League table" so we can use same template season after season without creating new one s every season. Just substitute the template on the pages it is used and then reset it with new teams. This can be read at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 84#Template:2013–14 X league table‎ or Template:Current X league table and this TfD. Already renamed template are for example Template:Current Fußball-Bundesliga table‎.

Secondly this templates use helper templates such as template:PL13 which is used and this template is maybe to be removed. The templates has had a lot of problems with editors not updating the helper template so that is why a new solution is considered. There has been a new solution presented to me at User talk:Qed237#League tables (by an other editor working hard with these templates) where helper template must not be updated. This can currently be seen at {{2014–15 Eredivisie table}} and Template:2014–15 Eredivisie table/layout. I am/was strongly considering implementing that when a few minor "issues" is solved.

Thirdly the template:fb cl team is supposed to be replaced by template:fb cl2 team by WT:FOOTY consensus and a TfD. This since a lot of uneccessary fb team templates should be removed. I have wikilinks to consensus somewhere if you need them.

Just letting you know so that you dont get surprised if the template gets a major overhauling or even gets deleted (via TfD). If you have any questions or thoughts that is very appreciated. For example do I need do go to WT:FOOTY (dont feels like it)? QED237 (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with anything that makes it easier to update. once you have a solution you are happy with take it to WT:FOOTY to tell people about the change. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great, we will keep on working and when I am satisfied go to WT:FOOTY. After that a lot of templates may be modified/created ahead of the upcoming season. QED237 (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spudgfsh! I was just wondering, what do you mean by "the other rows are in alphabetical order." Premier League Golden Boot (FL passed last month) and Premier League Manager of the Season (at least for countries) are sorted chronologically. Thoughts? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I have little opinion on the matter. I'm just tired of the edit war. If you must have an order that is important you need to discuss it, agree it and to document it. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about this, as the table in the previous section (wins by country) does not follow the logic you propose. For me, it's either fix all of it, or leave it alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me both sections should be as they was until some sort of consensus of the order is found. That is chronological for the first table and alhpabetical on the other (before bloom started changing). I dont know what consensus he is refering to as I fail to see one, it is just me and him arguing and no consensus. We have both provided article to support our order, but no consensus. QED237 (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gary Holt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014–15 Norwich City F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gary Holt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of NickGibson3900 -- NickGibson3900 (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of NickGibson3900 -- NickGibson3900 (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of NickGibson3900 -- NickGibson3900 (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spudgfsh, congratulations on the GA. I have nominated it for DYK here. Any alternative hooks are welcome. Thanks, Matty.007 15:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I source the Pirate Bay script torrents ha ha :-)

Orlady (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2014 (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) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spudgfsh.

I am the user who has added the Positions by round section of the 2016–17 Football League Championship, in the same vein as that can be found in similar articles, such as here in the 2016-17 La Liga article and here in the 2016-17 Ligue 1 article. However, in your recent edit on the 30th of August 2016, you seemed to have deleted the entire section, with the justification of "unsourced and WP:notstats".

When I first created the section, I had it sourced to the BBC Sport League Tables; however, if the BBC table is not enough for a verifiable source, then I can add to the table such links as the Newcastle v Brighton game on the 27th of August and the Ipswich Town v Norwich City game on the 21st of August, where on the right side of each article, there is a table that shows the league as is at the end of the week.

Furthermore, I created this article following the prior existence of such a table in other pages as well, not only in the two I mentioned, but also in the 2016-17 Serie A article, the 2016-17 Primeira Liga article, and the 2016-17 Football League Two article, amongst others. If the table in the 2016-17 Football League Championship should be deleted, then with the same justification, shouldn't the same table be deleted in the rest of the articles as well?

Thanks.

Kerl126 (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These sections have been debated endlessly on previous seasons articles. they are considered synthesis unless you can find a source which has the whole positions by round table. The table you were including had some rules you have made up yourself to determine what to happen when teams don't play on a particular matchday. This is considered original research. These articles are not supposed to be stats pages but articles about the season. If you wish to improve these articles start adding sourced text describing the season month by month.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Spudgfsh. I have read the discussion that you've mentioned; however, the consensus seems to be only for the Premier League, and does not apply to the Football League Championship, League One, and League Two. Furthermore, I have done some more digging around on the web and I have found a reputable website that actually shows all the Championship teams' positions by round here. Although it isn't one giant table, it is all from one source, and according to WP:SYNTH this is not a synthesis or original research. The other Positions by round tables from Ligue 1, Serie A, and Primiera Liga are from similar sources that also do not have an entire "positions by round" table, yet they are accepted by the community here. So, this Championship Positions by round table should be fine to be placed in the article. Kerl126 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a case of WP:OSE. There's probably a case for taking to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to discuss the removal of all of these things but I don't have the time at the moment. Generally the regular editors of the english football seasons pages consider it original research and will remove it when it's added. The same goes for the assists tables which periodically appear.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports teams 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports teams until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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, please do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thank you. Spiderone 14:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spudgfsh. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spudgfsh. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spudgfsh, I noticed you took down a section that I added yesterday on the positions of the teams by round. I saw this sort of section on other league articles (La Liga, Serie A, etc.) and was wondering why you removed it because I see no harm in leaving it there. Special:Contributions/Mediocre Legacy (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2017 (EST)

it is the consensus of the premier league season articles that it isn't included. just because WP:OSE it doesn't mean it should be there. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spudgfsh. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spudgfsh. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of National Football League attendance figures 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Football League attendance figures (2nd nomination) 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. – PeeJay 13:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 2021–22 EFL Championship, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster <sub>talk</sub> 15:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spudgfsh, I have some quotions reltd with that page:

1Would you mind to remove from that template: { { historical } }

2This list is very helful in terms of regarding notblity at Afd. Would you mind to create wieder tble which would also include 'seprate column for sources', 'separate column for "best achivement at IFFHS ranking of the leagues"' and separate sections for: 1Proffesioonal leagues at national level 2Lower divisions which are considered as proffesional 3Leagues at national level not considered as proffesional (currently thre is 1st and 3rd option but no 2nd)

What do you think? I would also like to very slightly change/update guidelines for notablity of football players but firstly I would like to correct this xtremally long (453 references) page, would you able to help me? It is very big. Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]