User talk:Otav347

Yea, that's what I get for getting excited when Nashville was down 1-0 in the third last night, 10 minutes til gametime...we'll see in a couple hours =) scsgoal31 18:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The Running Man Barnstar

		The Running Man Barnstar
		I would like to award The Running Man Barnstar to Otav347 for his excellent work on sports related articles, more specifically his work on American soccer articles. He has shown great persistance in keeping the American Soccer leagues up to date and full of information. This has immensely helped users, especially me, find information on American soccer, a topic that is talked about very little in the American media. I would especially like to draw attention to Otav347's work on the 2006 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, an American tournament that I never would have known if it wasn't for him. Otav347, I appreciate your work and edits. Thank You. Jaysscholar 14:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope I put the star in the right place man. If not, feel free to move it to where you want it. --Jaysscholar 14:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Open Cup

Hi, your edit on the US Open Cup from my reformatting could have been acomplished by a easier process. You could have reverted the edit from when before I messed with it by checking the history of the article and saving the page. Anyway I understand your format, but I'm going to try to mess around with it a little bit. Cheers! Minfo 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice working with you on the Open Cup articles, and thanks for finally putting a template for the different tournaments up. We're getting into the years where info might be hard to find soon ... you going to go pre-MLS? --Jyardley

I suppose this is where I can send you a "message" of sorts on here (I guess I'm still a bit of a wiki noob). My apologies about the US Open Cup thing, I didn't realize I was treading into a minefield that had already been blown up a few times. I still don't agree with it, really, but in the end you were right in undoing my change. Sorry about that. -kj (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		for all you work to the Arena Football League's seasons I, Roastytoast award you the working man's barnstar ROASTYTOAST 03:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Arena Football League

I was just wondering if you would like to join the project above, take a look at the page. If you would like to join just sign your name on the page. --ROASTYTOAST 03:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

PDL Standings

Hey, just a quick question... you edited the PDL standings page after this weekends games, but are you sure you have them correct? For example, you show San Jose Frogs ahead of San Fernando Valley Quakes, and LA Storm ahead of Lancaster in the Southwest table - but how is this possible as both the Quakes and the Rattlers have a better goal difference AND have scored more goals than the Frogs and the Storm? I was under the impression that the table was determined by points, then goal difference, then goals scored, then head-to-head results? The USL website shows it like that... just wondering. --JonBroxton 15:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

MDOT PR Finder

Can you help me with using this resource to get the mileage data to complete the intersection lists on the M-26 and M-28 articles? --Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

MLS Standings

I've started a vote for consensus on the mLS talk page. Kingjeff (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the voting area. Kingjeff (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you know of any redirection template that we could put on the cup competition talk page? Kingjeff (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back to W-L-T because he should have discussed it before he made the change. Kingjeff (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm at the 3 Reverts for all the MLS standings templates. Can you do the watch? Kingjeff (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you revert Template:2008 MLS standings - Eastern, Template:2008 MLS standings - Western and Template:2008 MLS standings - Overall. I'm at my 3^rd revert on each of them and can't make anymore for like the next 22 hours. Kingjeff (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But he has made 3 reverts by reverting my 3 reverts on each of them. He isn't entitled on making anymore reverts on these 3 templates. Kingjeff (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The status quo should remain until after consensus is reached. The article has remained in this format for over a month. Change it back. I would, but I don't want to break the 3RR. You and Jeff are tagteaming to keep this edit war going. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with your final and seriously, thanks for the moral support. The things people will take personally! Anyway I meant what I said about looking forward to constructively editing the US Soccer articles after this is over. Have a good one. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, what do you want to do. Also, let's figure out a system by which we can figure out how to change everything over to the American format. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so USMNT and USWNT and youth teams should stay in international format because they, by definition, play in international competitions, right? -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

US and Canada are covered under the same footy task forse, so I'd go for it. Also, make sure that all the club teams that have first game, biggest win, and biggest loss area all changed to Away-Home. But we're also leaving the US MNT, WNT, and all YNTs (though they don't usually have articles) should remain on the international format because they only play internationally, right? -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, are the home-neutral-away and w-d-l-t discussions done? I did not know about these until now. Those of us that do the historical stuff tend not to hear about things until they are ancient history. Anyway it was a long talk and I did not read it all (sorry) but I don't want to make anything else unless I am clear on how it has to be. There are a lot of old open cup pages done that will be a lot of rework. Shouldn't formats also reflect the time period they were used in? Well I can try an help with the pre-1992 open cups. Let me know. Libro0 (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened was that yesterday I made 1932 National Challenge Cup and didn't know about the format change until I was done. My concern was not just for time period but also for the source information. I make the articles based on the format of the source. In general the old Open Cups show home team first. I think the discussion was related to region but not to era. Either way I am not trying to go against the grain. Libro0 (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a box score from the 1914 open cup and lists the home team on the left. Libro0 (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to find more online examples to show but all I have are my notes from microfilm. Anyway even the tournament draws will usually say 'on the grounds of the first named team' therefore it is listed home-away for draws and results. So that is basically the way I report them here. Libro0 (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Libro0 (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I read your comment on greecepwns talk page and I must say that I wholeheartedly disagree with the fact that the Canadian Championship is being treated the same as the MLS in terms of how data is presented. If you look here http://www.canadasoccer.com/tourney/FIFA_Clubs/national.asp?sub=5 you will see that the CSA (which is the governing body that is running the tournament) is present the data in W-D-L format. I understand that the logic being used to present the MLS and USL in W-L-T is the fact that MLS and USL do so themselves, well according to that logic wiki should NOT be presenting the Canadian Championship in the W-L-T format as that is clearly not the format that the governing body is using. I apprciate the fact that Canadian teams playin in American leagues should present their infobox the same as the American MLS teams do. However, I think it's clear that there is a different method being used by the CSA for the Canadian Championship, and this method should be used as the Canadian Championsip is a seperate competition that the MLS, USL or other competitions governed by the USSF. The fact that there is a joint Canadian and American football task force should not have more priority than the way that CSA is presenting the info for the tournament. NeilCanada (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Hey I just wanted to say that apologizing like that was very big of you and I really appreciate it. I still disagree with you, but I'm glad it looks like we can discuss this with a good amount of civility. Cheers! -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

USASA

Right, and so in the article about the USASA tournaments (which presumably doesn't exist) we can use those titles, but in the article about the USOC, the labels I used are more appropriate. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Supporters' Shield

Hey I was wondering what your thoughts about the Supporters' Shield in the Major League Soccer article. I added it to the infobox many months ago because it is the regular season champion, yadda yadda. I had also added it to the table of MLS Cup winners because if it belongs in the infobox it belongs in the main article. I realize that in North American sports we don't necessarily do it that way, but the fact remains it is a major trophy determined entirely by MLS play and if you look at the A-League article you'll see the same thing (note they call it the Premiership with the playoff champion being called the Championship proper). I really think that this belongs in the MLS article, not because it is the single table or whatever, but because it is a major trophy. Thoughts? -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So do you mind joining the discussion on the talk page about it. I gave up on it when three or four guys came out against me. I think if it's in the infobox it should be in the article, and they're like "fine well remove it from the infobox then." -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me out a bit on this? -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has started up again on talk:Major League Soccer, so if you'd care to weigh in I'd appreciate it. The Supporters' Shield is a major trophy given out by MLS. D.C. United included it in their major trophy count, as does every other team in MLS that has won it. The simple fact is that MLS awards two trophies, the MLS Cup and the Supporters' Shield, and the histories of both trophies should be included in the article's infobox and the article itself. Either way, please involve yourself in the discussion. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with an anonymous editor

Hey, Otav, I have a question for you... in my recent updates of the Austin Aztex U23 roster, I noticed that the player Jamie Watson (soccer) is playing for them this year... so, naturally I added his details to his bio page. However, some anonymous user persists in deleting all references to the Aztex on Watson's bio. Now I KNOW I am in the right here... he is shown on the USL website (http://www.uslsoccer.com/teams/2008/roster/8969453.html), and the Aztex website confirms that this Jamie Watson is the same Jamie Watson that used to play for Real Salt Lake (http://www.austinaztex.com/u23/roster/index_E.html - he's #23, second row from the bottom)... but as this person is an anonymous user I can't contact him to tell him not to keep deleting the Aztex stats... so, basically, it's descended into an edit war where I keep undoing his deletion, then he undoes my deletion, and so on... Have you got any ideas on what I can do? --JonBroxton (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, thank you at least for confirming I'm not going insane. It's just totally baffling to me. The reason I asked you is because I thought you might know of someone I could report it to - I really don't want to have to spend my free time continually undoing his changes. Thanks anyway! --JonBroxton (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for admin help offer. I posted something on the US Soccer WikiProject page in the hope that they can offer some advice too. It's just so frustrating, because you and I and all the others work so hard to keep the stats up to date and make it all correct - I know, in the bigger scheme of things, having an accurate Wikipedia bio for Jamie Watson is completely inconsequential, but I just want to get to the bottom of things! I'm sure you're right about him hanging around to go to Aztex in USL1 year. Wynalda signed for Bakersfield because he's a buddy of Francisco Gomez. But there's a few ex-MLSers in the PDL this year, especially in the Western conference: Benjamin Benditson, Rodrigo Lopez, Esteban Arias, Bryan Byrne, for example. --JonBroxton (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Jamie Watson guy is back again. --JonBroxton (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews invitation

Would you like to join Wikinews? We need more football writers. Kingjeff (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Championship

IMHO, what the league uses doesn't matter in the slightest. That was never a good reason to use one format or the other. I think we should stick to some vague definition of North American and International formats and use the North American (by which of course we mean US-Canada) format for all US-Canadian competitions, and use international for everything else. So use the North American format for MLS, USL, CSL, USOC, Canadian Championship, etc. and use the International format for CONCACAF tourneys (and SuperLiga) and all national team related articles. I think this is what we should stick to. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But why must we put Canada and USA under the same umbrella in terms of this? The respective soccer associations have shown that they do things differently, so they should not be treated as equal. USA is the abberation of the norm, not USA and Canada. The rule is WDL, and the exception to the rule is anything that involves American competitions. Canada is a unique entity and should not be paired up with USA like this. NeilCanada (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Otav, the problem is that the CSA itself presents it in Away-Home on one part of their site. And then on the matchtracker they publish they do it Home-Away. http://www.canadasoccer.com/documents/Match_trackers/20080625_NCC_VANC_MONT_match.pdf I would think that the Match report is the most official thing there is. But then again, on the main page of the tournament http://www.canadasoccer.com/tourney/FIFA_Clubs/national.asp?sub=5 they do away-home. So it's a question of what is more official. The official match report, or a CSA quality webpage. I would say that the official match report is more indicative of how the CSA does things. Further, CBC during the broadcast of the game displayed the info as Home-Away; so that indicates that the Canadian media portray it home-away. (you can check this in a few hours once cbc.ca/sports archives the game. Even further to this, this tournament was created by the CSA in conjunction with CONCACAF as indicated in the first paragraph of this article http://concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4132 So, it seems like there is 3 things that point to the validity of using home-away. 1. Official match reports use it. 2. Canadian media covering the ganes use it. 3. It's a tournament jointly adminstered by CSA and Concacaf. Only thing showing it as away-home is the incompetant CSA website which is pretty much meaningless.

As an aside, I think the fact that CBC has displayed the game info using the home-away format just shows that the W-L-T business is an american soccer issue. And any time you see teams such as Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal using W-L-T format it is only for conveniance sake as they play in leagues that use that format. NeilCanada (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

RBNY

Okay, so in the standings we'll use New York Red Bulls, but anything referring to the club (staff/player changes, etc.) should be to Red Bull New York. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

USL 2008 Season Page

Hopefully you don't mind me jumping on and updating the standings with the PDL and W-League seasons winding up. I've got the past two days (August 1st and 2nd) updated and double-checked with the USL site. Mtndrums (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's understandable... good luck to you all in getting an MLS team there! Mtndrums (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Well, in the spirit of compromise, holders should remain in this sentence since I gave up on the other instance earlier in the section. He is the one that is constantly pushing for his version of the article with, I might add, little to no justification for his changes. I think that compromise is great, as long as both parties are conceding something, which unless he gets his way again, won't happen. And just for the record, I think it is me who made the biggest concession for the sake of the article in giving up on the W-D-L format. The reason I labelled this vandalism is because it was a blatent disregard of the compromise I thought we had agreed to a few days ago. I made a concession in one sentence in favor of a concession on his part in the later sentence. There is no reason why holders can't be used in this context. None at all. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

SFV Quakes

Thanks, man. It's been a frantic couple of weeks, but time just got too short to find a sponsor with our first game on May 1st. We originally had a couple of buyers interested (including a multi-millionaire Korean property developer who backed out at the last minute), but nothing came to fruition. That, plus the general state of the economy, plus the fact that our attendances were under 200 for the last couple of home games, it just got unsustainable.

Having said that, there still might be a team taking our place - Hollywood United and the Pali Blues have talked about coming together to enter a team THIS YEAR (yes, at such short notice), but I don't know what the name of the team might be, or where they will play, or whether any ex-Quakes staff or players will be involved... watch this space.

And I've always been a sort of Bucks fan... any team which can have a "famous former players" list as impressive as your must be doing plenty right! --JonBroxton (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood United

I'm not sure what I'm going to do with them yet. I'm going to go down to their inaugural home game next weekend and see what's going on with them - it's only a 30 min drive from my house, and I get to hang around in Malibu for a while! If they have some ex-Quakes players on the team then I'll definitely support them (I haven't seen their roster yet), and I'll definitely offer my services for website maintainance, article writing, publicity, or whatever else they need. God knows I won't be supporting Ventura County Fusion (even though they are actually my "local" team)! --JonBroxton (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinion sought

Hey Otav - I have a question for you, and as a regular contributor to PDL pages I thought you might have an opinion. Can you please have a look at the roster of Bakersfield Brigade... you see what I've done there, with adding links to each player's college bio? Do you think this is something we should do for all the players who don't qualify for full Wiki articles? Do you think the links are useful, or is it overkill? Let me know. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Austin/El Paso

Thanks for clearing that up - confusing situation! Shame the Bucks didn't make the postseason. Much doubly galling to see Kalamazoo win the division! --JonBroxton (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MLS Central.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MLS Central.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Major League Soccer post-season appearance streaks

The article List of Major League Soccer post-season appearance streaks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced WP:LISTCRUFT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Okanagan Predators for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Okanagan Predators 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/Okanagan Predators 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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Northeast Division page proposed for deletion

Hi Otav347,

I nominated the Northeast Division page for deletion because it no longer needs a separate page. I moved all its content to the Atlantic Division page, and of course detailed the history of the division since 2013. Trust me, none of your work would be lost. It would just be moved to another page, while this one gets deleted. Please feel free to check out the changes I made to the Atlantic Division page, so that you know all your work (along with others' work on this page) will not be deleted, just moved. Have a good one! Jewel15 (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Otav347. 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)

Concern regarding Draft:Template:2021 Rust Belt Derby

Hello, Otav347. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Template:2021 Rust Belt Derby, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chicago Eagles Select

The article Chicago Eagles Select has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Can not find any reliable sources that prove this article's notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Colorado Springs Ascent for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Colorado Springs Ascent 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/Colorado Springs Ascent 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 until the discussion has finished.

Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Denver Cougars for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Denver Cougars 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/Denver Cougars 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 until the discussion has finished.

Chidgk1 (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)