en User talk:SCIAG

Gylfi Sigurdsson

Yes, he does fail WP:ATHLETE (youth caps or squad number mean nothing), hence the deletion - wait till he actually plays and then you can have the article restored. Regarding the other players, Cathcart has played for Royal Antwerp, Lindfield has played for two football league clubs and Woods has played for Chelsea in the FA Cup, so unlike your player, all meet the criteria (but even so, you should not cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cup games between clubs in fully pro leagues count towards notability, ergo Dervite qualifies as he has also made a first team apperance (in the League Cup). Please accept that the article won't be undeleted until he plays for the first team and perhaps concentrate on improving existing articles. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, don't know where you got that from, but it's not a guideline. It sounds very much like a fake claim recently made by a guy trying to keep an article on a Manchester United reserve player... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it's actually the old WP:ATHLETE guideline, which was superceded over a year ago by the current one. Therefore it is not applicable in the slightest. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated at Gylfi Sigurðsson, the proper spelling of his name. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco de Saldanha da Gama

Hi SCIAG, I appreciate your concerns. There was an article on him in the Portuguese Wikipedia, and a cardinal appointed by the Pope as well as a patriarch should satisfy notability guidelines. He was also a member of the Portuguese nobility and was involved in the suppression of the Jesuits. --Polylerus (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Best

Unless you can prove that Best was on a professional contract with Reading, then he should not go in that category. It may be "well known in the Reading area" that Best played in pre-season friendlies for Reading, but I'm afraid gossip and hearsay are not valid as proof of this. – Pee Jay 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Anton Zingarevich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jason Roberts (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) 15:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:BenTels#Anton Zingarevich

Hello, SCIAG. You have new messages at BenTels's talk page.
Message added 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anton Zingarevich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian McDermott (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) 20:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Released table

Hi,

I have restored the released table in the 2012–13 Reading season for now because you removed it without moving it to next season. I was also interested in your rationale behind moving it? To me, the players were released at the end of the 2012–13 season and therefore have nothing to do with the 2013–14 season. That's the way I think of it anyway.

Cheers. T 88 R (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought about it that way before but yeah, keeping all the transfers from one transfer window on the same page does make sense. Cheers. T 88 R (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, SCIAG. 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]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Louie Holzman (May 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Louie Holzman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SCIAG! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kylie,

Thanks for taking the time to review the article I have created, and apparently also to fix some of my formatting errors.

My understanding was that a football player was automatically considered likely to have significant media coverage if they had played 1 professional match, which I focused on demonstrating in this article. I see now that this is outdated, although does seem to still be being followed by most editors. That being said, I have updated the draft with some extra citations from independent, reliable sources. If the article is public then it will give others a chance to add further information. SCIAG (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]