User talk:Libro0/Archive 2

Bit busy

I'm a bit busy atm and don't have time to look into the full request, try WP:RFPP they are usually good with quick semi-protects. MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I, Darwinek, hereby award you this Working Man's Barnstar for your tireless and continual noteless, but much needed work on FIFA World Cup-related squads. Darwinek (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! - Darwinek (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!

OK, I understand your dilemma. I'm sorry about my reply - I was in a pretty bad mood. I meant no offense.

I'm kinda full up on other stuff right now, so what I'm going to do is re-open the case as new. I can't guarantee that you'll get a quick response, but I'll bug people around IRC to see if they can help. I'll remove the notes I made. Again, I'm deeply sorry for my reply, I shouldn't have made it. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Libro0 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Please comment on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-04 1950s Topps. Mike92591 (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give San Francisco C.D. Mexico a different title by copying its content and pasting it into El Farolito Soccer Club. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Russ (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not template regulars

Hello. Not sure if you are familiar with Don't template the regulars, but I would like to encourage you to craft personal notes rather than just drop template messages on the talk pages of non-new editors. At best, regulars generally view impersonal template messages as being condescending or rude, and almost never have the intended result. Instead please consider writing a personal message to get your point across. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Six of your most recent messages at User talk:Baseball Card Guy consisted exclusively of template warnings: [1], [2], [3], [4]. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Libro0 (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Topps edits

It would appear that a couple of IPs have been following your edits to various Topps-related articles. I have reverted most of there edits, blocked the IPs, and semi-protected the articles in question. Please let me know if you see any that I missed. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the note you left on my talk page. Looks like we were both thinking on the same wavelength! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders removal is a correction?

No it wasn't a correction just an oversite. I will add it back but I cannot use Ebay as a source. I have seen these in a book somewhere listed a 'Topps Super' type of set as a non-sport for some reason. Libro0 (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fractions

I think it's ok to write "2.5 X 3.5" in rather than "2+1⁄2 x 3+1⁄2" for half inches, but use the {{frac}} template for other fractions? Are you ok with that too? Just to avoid more edit warring with BCG over that. Also, be nice to Your Radio Enemy. He's not really out to get you. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"List of trading card sets"

I haven't been editing much lately so I wasn't able to comment on the article. I'm surprised that it was deleted and the focus wasn't just changed. I still think it could happen; you simply need more specific titles. If you make list articles for the brands, there wouldn't be much reason to object to a generic article. Mike92591 (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Mr. Men books

It was a pretty standard case of fair use overuse, so there was no discussion regarding these particular images. For more information, see the non-free content guidelines and, particularly, this explanation of "fair use overuse". J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Football club wiki pipes

Hi, I was just wondering what your rationale was for adding pipes to a number of player articles so that the actual American club they played for is just shown as an 'FC' designation rather than the full name e.g. Denis Lawson (footballer). Thanks Eldumpo (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I added pipes to a number of articles because some team names are not official names or need further verification. In a number of cases the limited number of resources does not allow researchers to determine with significant accuracy the degree to which a team's name was official or merely a descriptive term. In the example you cited for Denis Lawson, the term Clamdiggers would be best used in parentheses if at all. Libro0 (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me moving the message here to follow the thread - I will watch. I understand the point you are making but surely if these team names are not official (or in very common usage) it is the team article that should change, rather than just individual player articles. However, based on the reality of how American sports team names generally work, is it not more likely that the 'Clamdiggers' and equivalent names are a formal part of the name, or else were in such wide usage that it is reasonable to include them as part of the name? Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right about the naming typical in American sports teams. In the historical period there were other common (nick)naming conventions as well. Some were by owner/manager, uniform colors, and even by occupation of players or region. I have been trying to research a number of teams to determine the nature of a name or nickname. I don't know how familiar you are with MLS teams but as an example there was a team called Dallas Burn which is the typical way, as you mentioned, US teams are named. They are currently called FC Dallas and among their nicknames is 'Hoops' in reference to their uniform design. Providence FC is to FC Dallas like Clamdiggers is to Hoops. So it would not be a good idea to say Ralph Smith played for the Dallas Hoops. However we could say "Ralph smith played for FC Dallas. While with the 'Hoops' he scored three goals." I agree that the team pages should be dealt with but the process is slow since it appears that everyone deals with the middle and recent history while there is virtually no other researchers for the early historical period so there is no one to compare notes with. Libro0 (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your further response. You're clearly well informed about a period when I guess firm facts are not so easy to come by. I still feel that any changes you feel are necessary should in the first instance be made to the club article name, and player names could then be changed in time (plus new player articles created would logically then link to the 'correct' club article that had been created). I must admit I thought the recent references to 'FC' and 'United' in the MLS were a way to try and break with the normal American sports conventions and to show an awareness of football (soccer) traditions elsewhere. Anyway, if there are specific areas you want any help with let me know. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:JoeGaetjens.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JoeGaetjens.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --TheGrappler (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

US Open Cup

Hey, hope you don't mind, but both the US Soccer site and the American Soccer History Archives confirm that the Open Cup was called the 'Open Cup' from '48 on, so I reverted your edits as such. Fifty7 (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Open Cup

Hi Libro0,

I want to apologize for not getting back to you until now, re: the U.S. Open Cup. It appears the corrections have been made, but thank you for bringing the errors to my attention. Quidster4040 (talk)

Thanks for the link, I'll be sure to check it out and ask when needing addition information on USOC tourneys. Quidster4040 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

US Open Cup again

Hi, sorry for not responding to your last post at Footy. I thought I'd reply here been as the thread is slipping up the page and only you and I were conversing. Are there any online links to newspapers and journals indicating what the competition was referred to at various periods historically? Re this edit you made I think (assuming there are sources to show it was known as NCC in 1949) this should be amended to "The 1949 US Open Cup (generally referred to at the time as the National Challenge Cup).." or something like that, else there is confusion between the article name and the first line of text. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Circolosi.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Circolosi.jpg. 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 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).

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 Dude (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 1960s Topps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parkhurst (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) 10:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited San Francisco I.A.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athletic club (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) 10:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco A.C.

Hi there, you cannot simply redirect a page which has existed for 9 months to a new one created today - we need to keep a record of the page history. I have reverted your redirect, please instead request a page move at WP:RM. Thanks, GiantSnowman 13:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

While there is minimal history, you still shouldn't be creating a new article at 'X' when an existing one exists at 'Y'. I understand that it was most definitely an honest mistake (even I've done it in the past!), but in these cases a page move is always preferred. GiantSnowman 20:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

We could merge the article history, into the new page - have a read of Help:Merging for details on how to propose this. I'm about to finish for the night but if you need any help then just leave a message and I'll pick it up in the morning. Thanks, GiantSnowman 21:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1993 O-Pee-Chee

The article 1993 O-Pee-Chee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of this minor trading card set of meeting WP:GNG, doesn't seem mergeable

While all 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. Secret ^account 23:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Variant spellings

Yep! See here. That will prevent automatic typo fixers like AWB from incorrectly "fixing" that. You may also want to add a note, either in the article or as an HTML comment, for people "correcting" it by hand. —Chowbok ☠ 23:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

O-Pee-Chee

Some comments:

• old comments are not removed, they are moved to archives. I moved a few comments to Talk:O-Pee-Chee/Archive_1.
• as far as I know, posting wantlists is an acceptable use of talk pages. It's just people pointing that the article lacks some content If you think that the content is not good, then explain why in a comment.

--Enric Naval (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I had misunderstood your comment about wantlists. Have a good editing. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

National vs. Open Cup

Sorry about taking so long to reply. I've been pondering the issue and I'm torn by the best way to go. On one hand we have the common usage, "US Open Cup." On the other hand, we have the words on the torphy/medals. I wish I knew why the media used the term "Open Cup" if it didn't originate with USSFA. Was "Open Cup" something people came up with on their own. Or did the USSFA, despite the words on the trophy/medals, used the term Open Cup in its press releases, etc. I could see the USSFA at the time keeping an outdated trophy/medal design to save money. Since we still know so little about all this, the question remains: should we use "official" name of National Cup or the "common" name Open Cup. I don't know and I can't decide. Change the 1959 name back if you want. I won't argue. Mohrflies (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SFGlens.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SFGlens.jpg. 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 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).

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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Autobot small.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Autobot small.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2015 (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) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Libro0. 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)

Orphaned non-free image File:SFGreeklogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SFGreeklogo.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Libro0. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Libro0. 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)

Proposed deletion of File:GeorgeMoorhouse.jpg

The file File:GeorgeMoorhouse.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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

File:GeorgeMoorhouse.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GeorgeMoorhouse.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Marksmen.jpg

The file File:Marksmen.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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1940s Bowman

The article 1940s Bowman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a catalog, or, in this case, not a Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide.

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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1950s Bowman

The article 1950s Bowman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a catalog, or, in this case, not a Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide.

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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1950s Topps

The article 1950s Topps has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a catalog, or, in this case, not a Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide.

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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1960s Topps

The article 1960s Topps has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a catalog, or, in this case, not a Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide.

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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1980 Topps

The article 1980 Topps has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a catalog, or, in this case, not a Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide.

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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1981 Topps

The article 1981 Topps has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a catalog, or, in this case, not a Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide.

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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1982 Topps

The article 1982 Topps has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a catalog, or, in this case, not a Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide.

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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1985 Topps

The article 1985 Topps has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a catalog, or, in this case, not a Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide.

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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1986 Topps

The article 1986 Topps has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a catalog, or, in this case, not a Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide.

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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1988 Topps

The article 1988 Topps has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a catalog, or, in this case, not a Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide.

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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1992 Topps

The article 1992 Topps has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a catalog, or, in this case, not a Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide.

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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1993 Topps

The article 1993 Topps has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a catalog, or, in this case, not a Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide.

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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1994 Topps

The article 1994 Topps has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a catalog, or, in this case, not a Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide.

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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of O-Pee-Chee Sports Cards Sets

The article List of O-Pee-Chee Sports Cards Sets has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a catalog.

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. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of 1970s Topps for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1970s Topps, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1970s Topps (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:70s Topps Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:70s Topps Logo.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1991 O-Pee-Chee Premier Gary Gaetti.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1991 O-Pee-Chee Premier Gary Gaetti.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)