InsteadOf
Just because some quixotic anglocentrics have had a rush of blood to the brain and renamed the soccer article, it doesn't mean that we need to follow suit. The name used by FFA is "football". The common name in Australian English is "soccer". Few Aussies would ever had heard of Association football. Grant | Talk 12:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- To second this, your edits adding 'Association football' to the articles confuses the reader. I had no idea what 'Association football' was and had to look it up. Please change it back. Since when has association football been the common name for soccer or football? Rimmeraj (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi InsteadOf. You might not have realised it, but this image whihc you uploaded is licensed for "non-commercial" use only, and Wikipedia policy is to avoid images with this sort of license as much as possible. I am going to delete this image - it can be uploaded again if the photographer agrees to change the license, or perhaps we could find a similar picture with a free license. If you have any questions, please ask me - image policy can be a little bit confusing at first! JPD (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. I noticed some other images in the same situation: Image:Mathew stokes.jpg, Image:Portkick.jpg, Image:Hawkscheersquad.jpg, Image:SCG football old stand.jpg. Another image, Image:Telstrastadiumfootball.jpg has a license whihc allows commercial use, but is still not free because it does not allow derivative works. The other images you have uploaded from flickr are fine! JPD (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, two of the licenses on that page are ok. There are many different creative commons licenses, which mix and match different conditions that the copyright holder puts on the photos. For Wikipedia, some of the conditions (attribution, "share alike") are not a problem, but others (non-commercial, no derivatives) are. So images with either the attribution license or the attribution-sharealike license are good. Hope this makes sense! JPD (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of AFL Dream Team edit
A tag has been placed on AFL Dream Team requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.
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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mayalld (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of AFL Dream Team edit
An editor has nominated AFL Dream Team, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFL Dream Team (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
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) 13:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The file File:Kangaroos 27.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused, low-res, no obvious use.
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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)