User talk:Jlsa

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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 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. Raymond Giggs 17:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, what is your rationale for removing yellow card () from the football box? Nuβiατεch ^Talk 18:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically yellow cards are not put into these types of summaries - yellow card information is usually used in the more detailed full summaries where entire squads are listed (and more commonly only for finals tournaments for major international competition. Because there is little consistency in the reporting of them (heaven knows, it's hard enough to find goal scorer information) it can tend to give spurious comparisons between the teams. Jlsa (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jlsa,

As French citizens, only holding a French passport undistinctive of any other French passports, all citizens from the French overseas departments of Guadeloupe, Martinique, Reunion and French Guiana are eligible to join the French national football team. We don't talk about a hypothetical situation :

The only football federation which is recognized by the FIFA as representing those overseas departments is the French Football Federation. The regional leagues governing those four departments are all local branches of the F.F.F., similarly to any other French regional league. However, according to the status of the FFF (article 34, paragraph 6): "[...] Under the control of related continental confederations, and with the agreement of the FFF, those leagues can organize international sport events at a regional level or set up teams in order to partipate to them.". This probably explains why you believed I had an agenda.

However, those are made only with the agreement of the F.F.F and at a regional level, not at a worldwide level. The problem here is legal. French law doesn't recognize any distinction between French citizens from mainland Europe and French citizens from overseas departments. This is not the case for instance in Great Britain where citizens are recognized Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or English by census (and obviously the fact that four fully independent football federations govern those four entities). Because of this, FIFA cannot allow France team and French overseas departments teams to compete in the same competition, as that would mean recognizing teams in which players are eligible to play in based on the exact same criteria. The risk here is to change for instance the Guadeloupean team into a French B team no matter if players have any tie with Guadeloupe or not (and this because France refuses to distinguish its citizens in a way or another).

This problem is even more likely to happen considering any player of overseas departments squads are eligible for the French football team with no time restriction. For instance, any of the Guadeloupean players who reached the semis at last CONCACAF Gold Cup can join the French football team at anytime.

I hope you understand things more clearly. The only way to change this would be if overseas departments get rid of their current legal status and become autonomous collectivities similar to French Polynesia or Tahiti. As long as it's not the case, the only team eligible to represent French Guiana during FIFA World Cup is the French football team. This is, objectively, how things are.

Now of course, you can consider that French Guiana does not participate to the World qualifying round, and that when Florent Malouda plays during the World Cup 2010 qualifiers for France, he's only stolen by the evil colonists. However, if you think so, then you are the guy with an agenda, not me. No matter how silly this may sound to you, Bernard Lama's French Guiana is as much 1998 World Champion as is Bixente Lizarazu's French Basque country. Metropolitan, May 12th 2009, 00:21 (GMT).

Please don't bore me with such pointless drivel (I haven't read it all - I don't think an actual human being could be so immune from pain to make it physically possible). I have no doubt that (if you define it the correct way) French Guiana is part of France politically, and France gives players from French Guiana a possibility to play for France by this means - which I am sure they enjoy. I am not sure what "evil colonists" have to do with anything, but hey - whatever gets you through the night. But lots of other players from small islands/zones freely take up these options - because there are lots of loopholes in FIFA rules. Christian Karembeu, Edgar Davids etc all come from places where the "rules" can be flexible - and hence they play for top countries because they can (and why wouldn't they). But, at the end of the day, French Guiana is part of Concacaf - as their website clearly states, and there is a French Guiana football association (as weak and pathetic as it may well be) which someone in a position of responsibility (and not some mental facility) has placed in a list including Mexico and Jamaica et al. Colouring in FG the same as France may make you feel better, it may even give you a smug feeling of satisfaction that you are so much smarter than everybody else, but - as is so often the case - it is knowledge without context (and the context here is football) and just a bit of mental masturbation. (NTTAWWT) Jlsa (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously fails to see the point. Anyone holding a French passport can play for Guadeloupe, and the morning after play for France. The citizenship is the same and the football federation is the same. It's like having a Hawaii national team. FIFA cannot recognize two national teams sharing a single national association. Metropolitan, May 12th 2009, 03:44 (GMT).

And yet CONCACAF lists a "French Guiana" as a member, but no Hawaii. You should probably contact them to voice your complaint, I'm not really interested. Jlsa (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the World Cup is organized by FIFA, not CONCACAF. If the French football federation allows a regional team to play in CONCACAF for fun, it doesn't mean anything about its national representation. Check the article about the regions of France: Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana and Reunion are all part of them.

In 2005, France played a friendly at home against Costa Rica, and they played it in Guadeloupe. FIFA recognized that game as being played in France, not in Guadeloupe, no matter if Guadeloupe was member of CONCACAF or not. Considering World Cup competition, what matters is FIFA's point of view, not yours or CONCACAF or whatever. And according to FIFA, Guadeloupe is France. Metropolitan, May 12th 2009, 04:13 (GMT).

How interesting you should mentioned Reunion. Apparently FIFA don't regard Reunion as part of France, indeed, they even break out their referees (see Link). So, apparently not all parts of France according to you are worthy of being parts of France according to FIFA. So, there is nothing to suggest that French Guiana (member of Concacaf) is part of France in footballing terms either. If it's so clear cut, why have FIFA made such a monstrous error? (call SuperSarkozy, call the other Nicolas, that fat kid Alceste, and Rufus' dad too) Jlsa (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? You base all your arguments on an irrelevant lost page on the FIFA website? What does Sarkozy has to do with this?? I thought I was talking to an adult here. Wikipedia is supposed to be factual, not to rely on Jlsa's opinion about how things should be. Metropolitan, May 12th 2009, 8:56 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.118.167.10 (talk)

How weird - I was far more offensive above and you had no problems. I can only assume you've just realised you haven't got a leg to stand on - nothing gets people angrier than finding out they are wrong ("lost page" - it's the current referee's list for FIFA - you can get there from here - a little place called "Réunion" appears on the list of "Country", which again appears to demolish your point that all these DOMMY/TOMMY things can never be considered separately from France). But, seriously, thank you for making my day. Jlsa (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I updated your user page on this, i'm pretty sure the calculations are correct, if one happens to be wrong it will only be the case that the elimination level is higher than stated, so it will not affect the estimated level.

The current eliminated level is:

Group 1 = 9pts

• Hungary Currently have 7 Adjusted points and Portugal Currently have 6 Adjusted points. Both still have to play one another twice.
  • A Win in either match to either team would bring the lowest Adjusted points total to at least 10pts.
  • Two draws would limit points gained by either team. The lowest a 2nd place team can finish on is 9 Adjusted points

Group 2 = 7pts

Group 3 = 8pts

• Northern Ireland Currently has 7 Adjusted points, and Poland has 4 Adjusted points. Both still have to play one another.

• • If Poland beat NI, both team will have 7 Adjusted points. And with Czech Republic on 2 Adjusted pts and still having to play both. the lowest a 2nd place team can finish on is 8 Adjusted points.
  • If Poland Fail to beat NI, NI will have 8(draw) or 10(Win)Adjusted points.

Group 4 = 10pts

Group 5 = 6pts

Group 6 = 7pts

Group 7 = 7pts

Group 8 = 7pts

Group 9 = 8pts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gero13 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to b a lot easier soon. I've got full info for G1,8,9 and the other in train.

(Note. It's fine to put these things here, but you really shouldn't edit other people's user pages without asking) Jlsa (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, in future i'll just post the info here.Gero13 (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That thing again at

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Group Stage (2nd place). I informed the IP about the 6th team rule on User talk:24.226.65.96. Instead of admitting the mistake, the IP made the edit again and removed the rule! I already have 3 reverts and risk violating 3RR. Sigh. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Have done a revert here. Only possible suggestion is to get a block on not registered users editing the page. That would stop the problems and there are enough people to cope with editing the page properly. BTW - thanks for helping on covering these problems. Jlsa (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think semiprotection would be within normal protection policy when the template is low use and rarely edited. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a case for a temporary block for (say) 1 day prior and 7 days afters the matches (11-19 August, 4-16 September etc) when there may be significant problems develop (especially as the qualification is reaching its end) Jlsa (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request could be made at

WP:RPP if it becomes a problem then. I'm an admin but too involved to protect it myself. Maybe my edit notice is enough to stop most users. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

As for what constitutes as a matchday, I think when for some competitions they allow a choice of several days over, then I consider these the same matchday. Also I think a separator between each match is excessive. Contrast this and this, and please tell me which do you think is better-looking? Chanheigeorge (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, many do categorise by round (regardless of date). This is quite common in Europe - once a round-by-round schedule is produced the round-by-round nature is maintained regardless of postponements. An example can be found here and you also will find many examples on RSSSF. I find it weird myself, but that's not relevant.

Again "what I think is better looking" is not particularly relevant, but personally, neither fills me with joy. I agree that all the lines are probably excessive and I like a cleaner set of results, but the splits otherwise may have little sense to them - if someone splits (in the CAF context) matches played on 5 and 7 September with a line (even though they are obviously the same "round") how do you justify not doing so, they aren't on the same date, so it's separate isn't it. At least in the Hex and CONMEBOL each round is a separate section with a clearly defined reason for the grouping. In the CAF context, how do you deal with the fact that the matches on 5 September in one group include matches from the originally scheduled Matchdays 3 and 4 on the same day, with a postponed Matchday 4 match 4 days later? Jlsa (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the competitions seem to have a rather precise idea of what a matchday is, which may be over a weekend or midweek; of course not necessarily a full round is played on every matchday, such as in UEFA WCQ. By grouping all the matches of the same matchday, the biggest advantage is for upcoming fixtures, people can easily see say what are the last round of matches. Anyway, I think you're worrying a bit too much about nothing. If people eventually do not like my edits they can revert and go back to to the original ways; it's just adding a line here or there. Chanheigeorge (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody short of some psycho wanting to pad their edits stats out could be bothered to reverse this rubbish. Your arguments are not thought out, the edits inconsistent (CAF Group 1 is now not grouped by either the date played or the date scheduled). You have basically changed a whole set of pages on personal whim. Frankly, I find it highly offensive to all those who contribute to improve the pages gradually to just rework them without consultation. Jlsa (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the schedule changes have been duly noted in footnotes, explaining why games are moved around and when are they originally scheduled. I'm not even putting in some new radical formatting, I just remove a few lines so that the whole results/fixtures read better, and your response shocked me. I adhere to

WP:BOLD, and I've made my points clearly. So that's the end of the discussion for me. Chanheigeorge (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm Indonesian, so some time I use in Indonesian language, that's naturally. Kbg means kembangkan in Indonesian or we use "+" in English version. Can you help me make format of template so the result is: on this page. Please help. Thx. Albert (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, there is template that does that - namely the "4TeamBracket" template. It looks like this:

See also here

Hope this helps. Jlsa (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JLSA, you keep changing a fact that teams were withdrawn from qualification. They have not been withdrawn as they are playign in the AFC Challenge Cup, which itself can be considered as a qualification phase. To say nations have been withdrawn would mean to say that they do not wish to take part.Druryfire (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually asked for some source of the claim they were moved. This seems not to match with the following facts. 1) Why the AFC let them enter initially (and place them in the official seeding ranks) if the AFC did not want them in the competition? 2) Why did India (who were also playing in the AFC Challenge Cup) not also get "moved" out of the tournament before the group draw? - they were only removed a year later (after the LIB/MDV playoff was completed) after they won the AFC Challenge Cup 2008 - if teams were "moved" to this tournament, why did India not also get moved? Your claim does not match with these two facts. The teams that withdrew may have done so in part because they knew they had another possible route to the finals, but that is a point of conjecture rather than fact. The fact is they entered this tournament via this stage of the seeding (as shown on the table) and then withdrew from this stage of the tournament (as noted on the table).

Note also on your point on the talk page, the LIB and MDV are clearly the two lowest seeds that did not withdraw prior to the actually group stage draw - so the page as it stands is completely correct. Jlsa (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't got any source to state that the teams were withdrawn have you?? When did they withdraw? All at the same time or of a period of time??. Initally they were put into the seed list, as these were the only nations that entered the tournament. AFC then revised the procedure which forced the aforementioned clubs to be moved. If they withdrew, like you state, then we shouldn't see any of these nations have a cat in hells chance of making the finals.

Stupid argument. What does their chance of making the finals have to do with whether they enter it. Lots of teams enter qualifying tournaments they know they can't get through. Again, if teams are on initial seeding lists as entrants and then do not appear on later lists the usual assumption would be that they have withdrawn - as this is hardly unusual. To claim something quite different would need some evidence - especially when the argument seems not to cover all the possible teams.

India did not get moved because the seed list was previously brought out in 2007 before the 2008 AFC Challenge Cup was even played, hence, when they won the god damm thing, they didn't need to play another qualifying round.

You ignore the point of why, whether all the other teams entered in both the normal comp and the Challenge Cup were "moved" India were not, and why weren't the Maldives moved either? Apparently (according to your argument above) it's becuase they were incredibly likely to qualify. IF the AFC were looking to move teams you would think they would do so in such a way as to not leave a weird single playoff on its own.

Your whole point of saying they were withdrawn leads to say the nations will not compete at all. Druryfire (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this context. The context of the page is the Asian Cup qualification group phase draw. They certainly withdrew from that. It would be as if a team withdrew from the tournament and then were drafted in as a last minute replacement when a real qualifier is suspended or something. They may have a different way of qualifying for the finals - but it doesn't mean that they didn't withdraw from the groups. Jlsa (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I give up, you ask me to reference something, yet you don't reference it yourself?? Do you find it strange that all the nations withdrew at the same time?? Normally this would happen over a period, not all on the same day that the AFC Challenge Cup was announced Druryfire (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check what I've posted on the

I am extremely annoyed now. My little calculation spreadsheet already had that on there (ROU - Worst Case - 9 pts and runner-up). That naturally means Norway can advance on 10 October. There's a lot of extra stuff there now. Jlsa (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You sure that means Norway can advance? Romania can't clinch second at that point, it just means that if they do finish second they'll be the worst of the runners-up. After all, France could still win on the last day and get enough points to be second in the group and ahead of Norway. PiGuy314 (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought about that on the way home. Glad I didn't update too quickly.

Jlsa (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more similar scenarios in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 5 (for Portugal, Israel, Czech Republic, Poland, and Turkey, who can all have best-case scenarios after some combination of results that lead to them as runner-up either with 9 adjusted points or with 10 and goal difference +1 or worse). Think these are all such scenarios for this weekend; you may want to check. PiGuy314 (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put them on my complete list (which I'm happy with apart from the options for Colombia to be not eliminated but unable to qualify directly. That's a lot of work you've done there. Jlsa (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since FIFA rank plays a role in the pots, according to the Wikipedia article, I put it back in, but left it blank as it's based on the rankings for Fri 16 October. That OK? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It plays a fact in determining how these eight teams are ranked in a different context to this table. This table determines which 8 teams are in the draw - a completely different table would be required to determine who are the four seeded teams in that draw. That is the difference. Adding ranks to this table is silly because - a) they don't affect the order in this table and b) the order of the rankings is not reflected in this table (and that ranking is important in its own context). Jlsa (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are alone in believing that rank is unimportant. It has been in the table for weeks before you nixed it, which is why I had to put it back. The world ranking determines the pots in the second round, not the number of points teams earned in the first round. That's why ranking should be there. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've asked everybody - my internet's been on the blink so obviously their personal messages to me haven't been getting through. Surprisingly, the claim that Schumpeter shot Kennedy was on wikipedia for weeks too, but it didn't make it valid, useful or true. The key point here is that these are SEPARATE rankings to do SEPARATE things - so they should be in SEPARATE tables. It is EXACTLY like what happened in the CAF Second Round - where 8 of the 12 runners-up advanced to the third and then were seeded by FIFA ranks. You have a table to say who got through - because that is part of the first round analysis, and then you have a different table seeding those teams - because that is part of the second round analysis. Simple really. Jlsa (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should be in the same table, because that's what the consensus was for. You edited against consensus, and deserve to be reverted. Your comparing my comments to somebody who isn't Oswald shooting Kennedy is libelous Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, sorry man. All I could find on the UEFA site was references to the play-off round, so I figured that that was the name for the round. There were even a few references to the "play-off round" on FIFA.com, but if the official regulations state the name as Round 2, then that's what it should be. –

]

2011 AFC Asian Cup qualification Group A

If HKG draws with JPN while YEM draws with BHR,

Team	Pld	W	D	L	Pts
Bahrain	3	2	1	0	7
Japan	4	2	1	1	7
Yemen	3	1	1	1	4
Hong Kong	4	0	0	3	1

If HKG wins remaining 2 matches against BHR and YEM, while BHR loses all 3 and YEM beats BHR at their home game and loses HKG & JPN,

Team	Pld	W	D	L	Pts
Japan	6	4	1	1	13
Bahrain	6	2	1	3	7
Hong Kong	6	2	1	3	7
Yemen	6	2	1	3	7

Although HKG has lost against BHR by 1-3 and YEM by 0-1, HKG still have a chance to surpass both countries as long as they beat BHR by 2-0 or 3 more score differences and simply beats YEM.--Belle Equipe (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First tie breaker is head to head, comparing the 3 teams on 7 points gives Yemen 7 pts (drop 2 loses against JPN), Hong Kong 6 pts (drop assumed draw against Japan plus previous 6-0 loss) and Bahrain 4 pts (drop previous draw and assumed win against Japan). Therefore Hong Kong is eliminated under these assumptions as they finish 3rd in the group. Jlsa (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In above case, if making comparison with each two nations among three

BHR vs HKG - 1W 1L each (depends on the score)

HKG vs YEM - 1W 1L each (depends on the score)

YEM vs BHR - YEM 1W 1D

If HKG beats both BHR & YEM by scores, it seems they surpass those two nations, while YEM only beats BHR.--Belle Equipe (talk)

What the? That is not how head-to-head works. You compare ALL the level teams (3 of them) and get YEM 2W+1D+1L=7pts, HKG 2W+2L=6pts, BHR 1W+1D+2L=4pts. And Hong Kong are eliminated. See the regulations (specifically the overly complicated reference 10 i ii A ) Jlsa (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're probably not going to pay any attention to facts. But those reverting the edits (Digrami and me) have consistently given a reason for leaving information in - while the other just reverts. You (consistent with the "wrong version" law) have left the information off the protected version (of course). I suppose checking the edit logs would have been too difficult for you. In addition, the edit comment ("a sock") is abusive (but that wouldn't worry you either I suppose). Jlsa (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The protection of the page is not an endorsement of its current version. I have seen your edit summaries in the page history, but true

third opinion

(or in this case a fourth opinion).

I am aware that Jamen Somasu referred to your account as a sockpuppet as well as calling Digirami an "ignorant fool," but I do not believe that these are severe enough breaches of civility to warrant a block or other disciplinary action. If any further incivility occurs on his part, let me know and I will take a look at it. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know about the discussions, feel free to revert the color change. But here is my reasoning for the color change: I went to the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)#Draw and see that the green signifies qualified for the World Cup while the purple signifies advancing to the second round (play-offs). Then I went to the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF) trying to add the color legend for the Second Round, which is 'green signifies going to the Third Round', because the old templates have green highlight to signifies going to the Third Round. But below in the Third Round section, the legend has green signifies going the World Cup. I think having two legends in the same page with same color but different meaning would confuse some reader, although they were in different sections. Therefore I changed the templates color into purple, similar to the UEFA page. But I won't force my issue here, feel free to revert if you like. :) — NKRI1945 (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The report by JFA is not only for multiple language. Since the JFA is organizing association and EAFF is the host. Two versions are different references for the match, but reports official. Hoising (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No they are EAFF documents. The Japanese one is released through the Japanese Federation becuase people IN JAPAN (ie, reading jp.wikipedia or whatever) would probably prefer the report written in Japanese. Jlsa (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Why you can said that two documents were sent by two different organizations are same? The matter are the same in first match, but the documents can be different. We should respect these two independent organizations. Hoising (talk)

What was this in aid of? "Seriously weird" is not a constructive piece of feedback. I shouldn't be expected to read minds when trying to figure out what edit summaries mean. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually still trying to decipher what you did to be honest. From what I can tell it changes the font size strangely in some presentations (making it much larger than before). Currently I see the last bloc (venue, referee and attendance) in smaller font than the rest but your changes made it look quite different (and, "seriously weird"). Jlsa (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also wish to note that your edit summaries make it difficult to know what you are trying to achieve. Jlsa (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the changes were simple code cleanup, changing from using deprecated HTML attributes for the styling to use CSS. There was a change to the columns to give them sensible, even widths (which means that the score is horizontally centered across the table width as a whole) and a change of the itty-bitty fonts from 85% to 88%. The reason for that is because 85% looks different sizes in different browsers, while 88% looks the same across the common ones. What "presentations" caused unwanted font changes? Test cases are helpful. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't see any problems which would require a revert; I'm going to re-apply these changes tomorrow. If you want to fix the font sizes after that then be my guest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t Bhutan be purple? Or did I miss something? — Muckapedia (talk) 17^e avr. 2010 2h47 (−4h)

Their withdrawal?? Jlsa (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've read your correction about the Atletico "no-next-EL" and I would believe you have reason. Then, I have another question in the rules, if Seville wons the Copa del Rey, Atlético wons the 2009-10 Europa League and Seville will finish 5th in La Liga, what happens with the 5th and winner Copa pots both wins by Seville? Atletico will be in group stage as winner last Europa League, and it will be another club for some pot of the two acquired by Seville? thank you 81.44.95.47 (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it wasn't me :-0. However, as I understand the rules, if this is the case then Sevilla takes the Group Stage spot (as Title Holder). The Copa winner (Atlético) and the best Spanish League side left would take the next two Europa league spots - both entering in QR4. There would be NO Spanish side entering in the QR3 - other countries would filter up to make up the different. Hope that helps (and I hope it is correct). Jlsa (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you! i was wrong on your user talk and thank you very much to help me, so i've trying to talk for the user who last modificated the Europa League and i was wrong when open your user talk from the last modification of Champions League page. Another question, you said Seville takes the group stage pot (Atletico is in the final) and my case i was saying were that Atlético wins Europa League and Seville the Copa del Rey, However I think that at the same case, there's no more spanish clubs entering in Europa League. Excuse me my bad english 81.44.95.47 (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the regulations I have completely misled you. Sorry about that. It seems odd to have different rules for the CL and EL, but that is apparently how it is. Jlsa (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. The guy (from Madrid) on my football team who supports Atlético will be most disappointed that I got those the wrong way round. Jlsa (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you make the maps with qualified nations? I am trying to do the same here. Slaja (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel that. How do I source this properly: [2]? Slaja (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how do you manage to create maps for qualification status to world cup.--Samah10 (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best way is to find one that's already made, copy it and blank out all the colours. You can use a simple image program (GIMP or MSPaint or anything) to then edit as required. You will also need an account on commons.wikipedia (because these images tend to get moved there). I would advise doing that first, because you need to wait 3 days to edit and that can be annoying. Jlsa (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your MoS-violating way then, kiddo. --84.44.236.56 (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should have the courage of your convictions. If you actually do think it's wrong, then start changing these links - there's the 11 groups matches so far to start you off, then the 800-odd qualifiers. Then there's the 2006 finals and qualifiers. When you've done all that, then get back to me and I can assign you some more. Otherwise, stop wasting everybody's time by making claims you don't have the guts to back up. HTH HAND. Jlsa (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at what we've been doing on the talk page since you started that thread. Purplebackpack89 18:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except most of the additional verbiage is unnecessary and adds nothing. For instance

• Germany will advance if Australia does not score seven or more goals than German in the final match.

is correct

• Germany will advance if Australia win by six goals or fewer, or if Australia win by seven goals but score at most three more goals than Germany.

Is incorrect and adds unnecessary information. Germany is up by seven points, therefore for Australia to win under that scenario, they must score seven or more goals than Germany. Period. Six is not enough to put Australia ahead. Seven will not do it either since German defeated Australia and the GD will then place them on even ground. They must have a GD of more than +7 to place first. Useless verbiage. I'm really tired of all the speculation in all of the groups. I would rather just see the table and be done with it. I suppose it will all be over in a week. I suggest you fix the mistakes in the article.

I suggest you read the rules before posting in future. There are more rules than you seem to be aware of given what you have just written. Jlsa (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that dude. (the goalscorers at 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF)) Now I just read the discussion so there's been quite a bunch of talk on this, so I'll leave it be. --The does (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. No harm done. Jlsa (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more refs, particularly from the major Portuguese publications (record, abola, correio da manhã, maisfutebol, etc). The largest sports network in the world (ESPN) showed a detailed analysis of how the goal was offside, which many of the publications reference. The largest sports network in Australia (Fox Sports) showed a detailed analysis immediately after the match of how the goal was offside, which I was unable to find online. Feel free to delete whatever references you think fail to meet wikipedia rel source standards (note that material in blog format by major news publications is allowed under wikipedia policy).Utopial (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite hilarious, but the two real incidents require no references, but the Villa goal gets a whole bunch. It just proves the complaints are the petulant whining of little girls who need to get their complaints in to explain why their little favourites failed to win. Jlsa (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you're a wikipedian?Utopial (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's why I don't try and conflate two incidents which got an official apology from the head of FIFA with a possible missed offside call that got a passing mention in the normal world. Jlsa (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean your normal world (which can't be canada, australia, brazil, portugal or a country that broadcasts ESPN). If it wasn't for the England goal on the same day, Mexico wouldn't have received an apology or much of a mention in your normal world either. wikipedian: "little girls", "little favourites", "petulant whining". The quantity of media attention serves as little verification of significance and meaningfulness - England's national team dominates the media and they do nothing on the international stage - smacked out of euro and world cups at will by everyone, only making 3 semis & one win across both tournaments throughout history, two of which were at home.Utopial (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still laughing looking at the three incidents - two are so obvious they need no real referencing - but the Portuguese are so desperate to excuse their loss they need a dozen "references" linking to minor comments on how refereeing isn't perfect. What desperation to justify putting this "error" on the same level as the other two. How utterly sad they must be. (And that's not "sad" as in "unhappy"). Jlsa (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An error is an error. In fact the Portuguese error is more significant because it was the winning goal. England and Mexico were destined to lose anyway. The portuguese were much more upset about France's dubious penalty in the euro2000 semis than this - most Portuguese accept that the tactics were the problem, and just consider the offside a bit of bad luck. I think it is a good error to have in the article because (1) it shows how widespread the errors were in just 8 matches, (2) it was the winning goal (3) it was after FIFA's communist style ruling to ban the broadcasting of controversial replays, which is partly why it didnt receive as much attention.Utopial (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me to enrich the article.

Hi Jlsa - four more dots can be removed from the map: Tahiti, Vanuatu, Tonga and Fiji have all been eliminated. Any chance of updating the file? Actually, it may be worth waiting until the end of the week, when the Oceania qualifying competition will have finished... Cheers, Grutness...wha? 09:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You started the thread in forum. http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=08bee4a083696353abe471fc5124d8df&t=1524401 Can you add the article? Some matches were played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.202 (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jlsa - about this, I did notice that, and thought it odd. Without that option it's impossible for the map to be correct. I know the point's academic since qualification will largely be over in a few days, but surely it would have been better to leave that option there so that the map would be right? After all, those four countries are still listed as being able to qualify on November 1 - which is wrong. Grutness...wha? 08:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense to me. The "four countries"? Four are now marked as "eliminated" (red) and four are still blue (the semifinalists). The pink option was introduced (for 2010 FWC quals IIRC) because in long group qualification teams can be eliminated well before they finish playing - months in some cases. In this case it's only a short tournament and the distinction serves little purpose. I don't get your last sentence - they are listed everywhere (map, qual count table and simple group lists) as eliminated. Jlsa (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally FWIW, the 1 November acknowledges the fact that CAF matches played on 1 November are included in the analysis. Jlsa (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The analysis is not part of the map, though. And given the length of the COMBEBOL tournament, it makes sense to re-include the "eliminated, but yet to complete" section. It was there earlier during the qualification process, and it still has its uses in the contest as it currently stands, (clearly, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation!) Grutness...wha? 21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Suzi. I was in Qatar and will be back next week to Qatar again. I see the match betwen Japan & Jordan and Iran & DPR Korea from near and get some image from their match. I get some pictures from stadium. I want add them to the 2011 AFC Asian Cup but it seem is lock. I want to you to add them. Thanks!FromEast (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The knockout map shows who is going to play against who and your version has never been done before on any article... Kante4 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a) That's just wrong - check out the World Cup for example (Matches were ALL listed) - please don't say silly things. b) The knockout map does not say which is QF1 etc, they match desingations for the semis for example say "Winner QF1" but there is no indication anywhere on the page for which match QF1 is. Jlsa (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great answering on your talk page, so i know when you answered... Of course all games are listed but not which QF1 and so on, first read and understand than get mad, 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage where is something like QF2 and stuff... Therefore were the match numbers (Match 49 and so on...) and then in the next round it was indicated: Winner of match 48 vs. winner of 52 e.g. 2) The knockout map shows who can play against who. Uzbekistan can face Australia, Japan can face Iran, Korea - Qatar... There is no reason to point out which QF it is as it is listed IN the knockout map. Since the winner of Uzbekistan and Jordan advance to the column where right now stand winner of quarterfinal 1. That´s pretty clear and does not need any more clarification! Kante4 (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know any information about

]

2011 AFC Asian Cup

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		For accepting feedback on your images and responding quickly Mattinbgn (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks for your prompt response! It is now much, much clearer. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello do you know when the first round draw was held. Uishaki (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hurt by your comments on the 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (OFC) pages. Why do you feel the need to be sarcastic, or to not explain in the first instance (re Tuvalu), rather than make beneficial changes? If you have access to info, why not introduce it to the article rather than leave edit summary comments and a citation needed? Do you enjoy pointing out when people are wrong> I really don't appreciate such rudeness. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your complaints are quite odd. The change was a request for a citation - I didn't even REVERT the entry, just asked for clarification as to why you thought this time would be different. You may have information suggesting the teams will be able to advance - I do not know - that is why the clarification was requested. AFAIK associate members DO NOT enter any other confederational tournament (there is no Zanzibar team in the African Cup of Nations for example). If you are going to have a hissy fit when people merely ask for clarification you are going to have a hard time on the internet. Be that as it may, I do happen to suspect you are wrong. So, the obvious question is whether you think I should have just left information here that I believe (through experience in the last WC quals) to be wrong, or what do you suggest I should have done? Even more ironically, the section you actually changed (Solomon Islands) was probably correct - they have been entered in the tournament, but probably missed the cut off date for the document you have cited - as they indeed did for all events. Jlsa (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

Where did you found the new data for the matches between Aruba and Saint Lucia? Thanks, Roelzzz 17:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Google News search: [3] [4] [5]. Although those "reports" are about all-time ranking, so CAF press release is just basically denying that they endorse any all-time ranking, and they only do 5-year ranking for their own competitions. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read to your heart's content: Template talk:Football box/Archive 1#WP:ENDASH. –HTD 12:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, why did it take three requests to get that? I must admit, I agree with the "footy editor" group that the MoS is focussed on prose (rather than lists). By the MoS, should we change all the  Brazil's to Brazil's in the match tables - we shouldn't use flags in prose after all. Jlsa (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(This is the statement before I edit conflicted:)

And if I may add, the cited list, is an

WP:EMDASH

as emdashes (—) never spaced. En dashes (–), for the most part, are not spaced except "...when there is a space within either one or both of the items". There's no space between "1" and "0", so they're unspaced.

Also, I've reached my 3RR limit, so it's probably a good idea for you revert to the MOS-complaint version.

(Now this is my statement after that.)

No, because it's not in the prose. However, MOS:DASH applies everywhere, in article titles, which are not part of the prose. –HTD 13:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the endash notes "To separate items in a list ... In this role, en dashes are always spaced." (bolding added). That was the query to the link (the only link provided - rather than the one that would have been useful - and avoided the extra reverting). Jlsa (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate section is the spacing section. You misunderstood on how to use endashes on a list (#4). If the score is labeled this way: "Brazil – 3, Argentina – 1", then it should have spaces since it is a list to the tune of "Shopping list: Canned tuna – 3, Sugar – 1...". Since it is always to the tune of Argentina 3–1 Brazil, you'd follow #2 as the "–" stands as "to" or "versus" and does not function as a list. –HTD 14:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't the score (3 to 1) just a shorthand for Brazil – 3, Argentina – 1. In a sense Argentina 3–1 Brazil is even worse - it is a transliteration of the way the scoreboard looks to fit into a template we "like" (I doubt you would use it in any prose sense - you wouldn't write, "the score of Argentina 3–1 Brazil made me happy" for example). It seems to me we are allowed to be loose with logic to even write Argentina 3–1 Brazil, but it's "okay" because we are in a template, but then all of a sudden a space creeps in (where it would actually be correct if we were being formally exact by writing Argentina – 3, Brazil – 1) and apparently the end of the world occurs. In fact, in this context the use of a 3–1 is more often tied to one team than both (we more often say "Argentina's 3–1 win over Brazil") Jlsa (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shorthand, or whatever you call it. It depends on how the information is conveyed. When it is conveyed as a list, you'd use spaced endashes, when it is conveyed as "Team A versus Team B" it doesn't have spaces. The footballbox conveys the information as if it means "Team A versus Team B" hence we'd use unspaced endashes. On your example, you even used unspaced endashes on the prose, more so in the template, unless you'd change on how the score is conveyed in the template, and it doesn't even have to employ endashes.

I just realized, it doesn't really come into play – spaced endashes – in prose or elsewhere when expressing a score, as you don't really need to separate elements in an item on a list. A headline of "Brazil 3, Argentina 1" will be sufficient – "Brazil – 3, Argentina – 1" would look awkward and you really don't need to separate the elements "Brazil" and "1", as you'd subliminally note that "Brazil" means the team and "1" is their score ("1" being a numeral helps). This is different when then are three or more items in a list: for example, "Andy – drums, Bart – guitar, Chris – vocals," compare that to "Andy drums, Bart guitar, Chris vocals," which subliminally tells you "Andy drums" is a name of a brand of drums. –HTD 14:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you explain why you're going against] just about every major style guide in English, and the WP house style? Please read

Mainly because (if you bothered read the edits) it is not the standard that has been followed here in the past. If people want these to be fixed, they need to indicate why they are changing them (as the above notes, there is a reason, although not everybody agreed with it in the first case). If we let edits through just because people shout loudly or are persistent there would be all kinds of garbage around (I have two examples of this from the last 24 hours - the AFC 2nd round page (persistent addition of times for matches that are utterly made up) and the Women's world cup (deleting of information against a consensus). HTD has now provided some justification (although I admit I generally agree with the people who argued against it) so it can go back, but I don't think it was an unreasonable request for a reason for a change to a widespread convention in pages like this. Jlsa (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, there was no change, just that nobody followed the rules, and that there's no need to show any discussion, since we already have the MOS which has been extensively debated since time immemorial, and applies to all articles. There's no need to grant an exemption unless there's no good reason, and "we've consistently violated the MOS" isn't one.

And it's quite odd to see an edit that makes an article compliant with MOS compared with vandalism. –HTD 13:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course these is a need to show (a link to) discussion. If you are asked directly it is simple courtesy - even if it doesn't appear in the manual of style. Jlsa (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dumbfounded why a link to

WP:MOS, which is based on discussion, isn't enough. –HTD 14:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

It probably would usually be enough - but if someone then queries its applicability you need to decide whether they deserve an answer or whether an effective response of "because I say so" is sufficient. It's your call. Jlsa (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to accept citing the MOS is equivalent to "because I say so." –HTD 14:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is if someone says "I think you are misinterpreting the MoS, can you provide some discussion that gives a context to why you believe your view of the MoS is correct" (particularly if you claim that something is always the case but the MoS says it is usually the case). You might note that my query ("isn't the MoS" really talking about prose usage) is the very first comment in the discussion that you eventually deigned to provide. Jlsa (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to note that, while you obviously focus on the MoS, the

template being used (and hence, what passes for a MoS for the template) directs the usage of a different formatting convention. Jlsa (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think the what the template tells you to do trumps the MOS. Templates should follow the MOS after all, unless there's a good reason not to. And we've been doing it forever isn't. –HTD 15:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, there's a discussion at

WT:MOS I suggest this should be continued there. –HTD 15:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Roy9955 —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

we can exclud the card my piont is not yhe cards my piont is that when using a collapsible footballbox the viewer wouldn't have to look at all the games and the goals scored he can choose a game and see it as for past afc world cup qualifier i can change them and for other continent we can contact the users there and ask them to do so. Roy9955 (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re WC qualifying...I try to contribute for once to something on wiki, and like a smart-ass it keeps getting deleted because you disagree with it, calling a new column "kruft" which I actually had to look up to understand what it means. I'm going to leave your "0 or 1" stuff, just leave my next match date column, or edit it as to avoid "kruft." I think it would be useful to have members update when the next match date is for each confed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.173.174 (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you want to add new info, you should probably explain why in the edit summary rather than just bulking out an already large table. Second, this sort of information caused all sorts of bother last time around and was consistently deleted due to that. Third, you also changed parts of the table without reference (or, in fact, thought) as to why - basically changing the meaning and interpretation of the table from something that was correct to something that was, at best, jargon and at worst misleading (or even plain wrong). Fourth, part of the info you added was unsourced, probably just a guess, and likely to be wrong based on the experience of WC2006 and WC2010. Finally, you will get more respect if you bother to get a user name rather than a simple IP address (also it makes it possible to have conversations like this in the correct manner). Hope that helps Jlsa (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware you needed "respect" around wikipedia. I added information on the next match date, much of which can be found elsewhere on the page. Simply because you disagree with the decision to make the table larger, doesn't mean the information is not accurate. Knowing when the next match date is actually more useful than knowing when the final match date is. Also was unaware I needed to explain why I was adding this, not really necessary in my view. Additionally, FIFA traditionally uses the 1/2 place slot to signify how many places are allocated or remaining for each confederation. I'm not going to fight with the big bad wolf of the fifa qualification page, so enjoy refreshing over and over again to make the page acceptable to your own personal liking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.173.174 (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, you don't need respect, but you seem to expect it. Second, if, as you say, information can be found elsewhere on this page it is probably repetitive and would need a reason to be duplicated (which you didn't feel the need to give). Third, it is not just my interpretation, it is the interpretation that has been used consistently over the past few years. Fourth, the 1/2 terminology is fine when space is limited and the designation is noted (neither of which you seem to bother with). Again, if you want new stuff to be accepted you need (as it says when you edit) to give a reason just like everybody else. That is merely asking you to be polite and play by the simple rules that have been set up. If you think that makes me a "big dog" then you obviously haven't seen a real one - and you probably won't like it much when one actually finds you. Jlsa (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you want, pal. I think it would be extremely useful to everyone to add another column to know when the next match dates are without having to drill down into each sub category, but not going to argue with you about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.173.174 (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you say that when you add the column? Without a reason there is little difference between trolling and helping. Jlsa (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I understand my edit may look suspicios, but how am I supposed to provide a source for a template edit? The source I had is this: [6] (translation [7]) -

Thanks for your response. The easiest thing is to note the source in the edit summary - most likely some geek will do the work for you :). Other than that, the fixtures should also go into the UEFA Group I page (that is, an expanded version of what you have done on the Belarus team page) and you would note at the start "Fixtures were decided in a meeting at blah blah blah". Look at the 2010 WC qualifier page for examples. Again, there is every chance you could get someone to do the page by placing a note on the UEFA Group I talk page. Anyway, great find of the fixtures. I'll look the reference up and might even do all the geeky stuff myself. Jlsa (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw you comments about the South Africa situation on the Cup of Nations qualification. Thanks for the mention! LarryJeff (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I wanted to alert you that Trinidad and Tobago can still qualify for the 2014 FIFA World Cup (you coloured them orange). You should color them blue again (they are the southernmost dot of the Lesser Antilles, just north of Venezuela. And colour the blue dot which doesnt have a neighbour (Dominica). If I can do it you have to teach me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NauruDude (talk • contribs) 01:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was much older, with Saint Lucia coloured in in the wrong spot (1 position too low). That threw everything else out. It all looks correct now. Note that DOM is Dominican Republic, not Dominica (the country you edited but called DOM). Jlsa (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you would want to join a national football team task force. The goal is to improve all national football team articles. Signups are here. Hope you join, Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 23:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. nice work on qualification articles :)

I'm merely following the precedents for qualifying group templates set at

I was talking about the default skin. The does (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jlsa, great work as always on keeping the matches up to date. However, one minor thing. When a goal is scored, please add it to the goalscorers list at the bottom and also on the confederation page. (Example: 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)) I won't be able to edit tomorrow as real life is interfering, and I am hoping you and The does can fill in for me. Also, don't forget to unbold names (which is kinda fun :P) and update 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification#Top Goalscorers at the end of the day. I might be able to get on Wikipedia at night. Sorry for the tall task.

Sincerely, Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 03:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminaries/oceania/matches/round=258402/match=300179080/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.222.69.247 (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Not Jlsa) Trust me, it happened. Here it is

On the other hand, American Samoa has won their first ever match! Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 03:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first time they have apparently (ever) led a match. James Montague's commentary was interesting, especially with the transgender player for the American Samoan side - according to him, "she" was the star in the Samoan's defence! Jlsa (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jisa.

Having seen you are very interested in Football in general, we would like to have you aboard on the first international site about all sports, particularly focused on Olympic ones.

You will have the chance to follow all sport events with us, being always updated about all sports in the Road to London 2012.

If you are interested, you can saerch on your search engine for "Football FIFA World Cup 2014 OFC Oceanian Qualification", and you will find a thread of dedicated to the Football Olympic Oceanian Qualification.

I hope you will register and start posting soon.

Thanks!

Stip 149.132.189.79 (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Forgive my curiosity, but may I ask you about the sources you use to follow ongoing World Cup qualifiers in the Oceania zone? Do you watch the games, or do you view some live score service? I was following the Samoa vs Tonga match via FIFA's report, soccerstand.com and livescore.net, but I observed you edited in Tonga's equaliser (a lot) before any of those three was aware of it. I'm sort of anxiously waiting the decisive match between the two Samoas, and if you recommend a source better than those I know, then I might help out with tomorrow night's updating too. --Theurgist (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm glad you asked, because I probably can't "watch" the last round (I'll either be driving the Hume Highway at the time, or timekeeping at a regional swimmeet). Along with futbol24.com and the OFC, the best source is people at the ground, in this case, James Montague, who you can follow on twitter at JamesPiotr's twitter feed. He is a freelancer streaming from the ground - and he does an awesome job. Jlsa (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you please help in working to improve the

I noticed that you was very good to edit 2010 African Women's Championship.--Uishaki (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jlsa,

I came across your comment concerning the dispute about WS, separate from morocco or not? Indeed, and quite surprisingly actually, according to the FIFA, WS is mixed with morocco. Fine, this point is sorted out, now. However, for the CAF, and this is what the article is all about: africa, WS ans morocco are considered as being separate. Please have a look at the following page [[8]] (sorry, only in french, the english version [[9]] of it is empty :-/. However, the arabic one confirms the info of the french page [[10]]). Thanks form your remarks. A third opinion is always useful :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacific kiribati (talk • contribs) 12:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering... When I had added the "next matchday" section on the Summary of Qualification, you were quick to remove it, stating that the matter had already been discussed and that it would simply be too hard to keep track of. I'm wondering two things:

- Where is it that this issue was previously discussed? I haven't seen it as of yet.

- Why do you consider it to be so hard to maintain? There is plenty of time between matchdays, and once one of them is played, you simply change it to the next one that has been previously scheduled.

Any more info on what I've discussed about it, please refer to Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification Nitroxium (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer with a question for you. Should the "next matchday" be changed when a) the first match on the current day begins, b) the last match on the current day begins, c) the last match on the current day ends, d) some other point? Jlsa (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to me personally, I think it should be changed after the last match on the current day... However, I don't think the fact that the "next matchday" is changed a few hours earlier or a few hours later than planned would make so much an issue, since we all know that by the end of the day, it needs to be changed. Nitroxium (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you are interested to cooperate with Football Results also here, you will be welcomed (first link) http://www.google.com/#hl=it&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Men%E2%80%99s+Football+OFC+Oceanian+Olympic+Qualification+Tournament+2012%22&oq=%22Men%E2%80%99s+Football+OFC+Oceanian+Olympic+Qualification+Tournament+2012%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=2956l3693l1l3848l2l2l0l0l0l0l67l67l1l1l0&gs_l=hp.3...2956l3693l1l3848l2l2l0l0l0l0l67l67l1l1l0.frgbld.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=11cb275f82181382&biw=1280&bih=876

There is a thread for each Football event.

Thanks,

MarcusHall — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusHall (talk • contribs) 09:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried adding it but Jilsa, remove it again, for some reason ...--80.161.143.239 (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why must people do not read who came respectively. 5.6 and 7-site? It is not mentioned in the article, and is mentioned as always by articles on other major football tournaments like the European and World Championships, whether it has played, good or bad.--80.161.143.239 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why do you not want to understand. I have never in my life heard about a person who are called "Ghead". Gehad is a well known name in the arabic countries. The name is written جهاد in Arab countries.

See here:

• [11]

And here:

• [12]

I promise this is the correct spelling of the referee's name.--Uishaki (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC) The FIFA and CAF pages don't need to have correct every time.--Uishaki (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that assumes he is arabic. Grisha itself is a Coptic Christian name equivalent to Gregory. But that is largely irrelevant. Why would FIFA get his name wrong every year he has been on the referee's panel (3 years at least) - and why are there at least 5,000 references to "Ghead Grisha" and virtually none for "Gehad" - maybe you should be informing them? Jlsa (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong numbers. 24,000 references for Gehad Grisha, while 16,000 results for Ghead.--Uishaki (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is his Facebook page: [13] The best evidence that Gehad is the most correct:)

Can you edit some of the Qualifiers as Cape Verde Qualified from african group B instead of Tunisia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.135.42.80 (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your edit to CONCACAF 2014 qualifying. If you have a source for your edit summary claim, you can add it back. Also, USA's ranking was 19, not 17, but since you left that part I'm guessing typo in the edit summary. Smartyllama (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Template:2011 Pacific Games men's football tournament – Group A has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EAFF Women's Football Championship has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 Pacific Games men's football tournament group talk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification - UEFA Group 1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round (Group 1) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round (Group 2) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round (Group 3) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round (Group 4) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round (Group 5) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round (Group 1) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round (Group 2) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round (Group 3) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round (Group 4) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Third Round (Group 5) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]