User talk:Jguk

This user may have left Wikipedia. Jguk has not edited Wikipedia since March 2007. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12

List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes

This is the second anime list I am trying to get featured. Based on your comments on another nomination, I feel you might be interested in this nomination: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes --Cat out 13:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Cahn

Brookie here - I have started the above article and would aprreciate some help from those with more knowledge. Thanks Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 12:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:George Ulyett - noted as copyright Wisden 1888.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:George Ulyett - noted as copyright Wisden 1888.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Angr 07:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religioustolerance.org

I noticed your stance about this site, and the fact it is not a proper source. I rather agree, they seem to be so biased that I doubt there is one straight and true statement in the whole site. What I wonder is just what the bias is. Would you know what to what group--Svartalf 10:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)(s) the owners of that site belong or support?[reply]

6 months...

...already. We miss your contribution at WP:CRIC. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Tintin (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How have you been? It's great to have you on board again. Regards, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great to find you again. I saw that you went to Wikibooks during your break. So much must have changed since the last time you were here. Gizza^Chat ^© 09:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my name to those who are very glad to see your return. Welcome home! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good God he's back! I just saw a contribution and couldn't believe my eyes. Are you getting warmed up for the Ashes tour yet and will you be paying us a visit down under in person? Welcome back old man -- I@n 12:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. However, I am just briefly popping back (I didn't have much to do last Monday after we won the Test). I may touch in briefly again in the future, but am unlikely to return as a significant contributor. All the best, jguk 14:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, a little editing is better than none. Its good to hear from you again anyway -- I@n 15:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! Hope to see some more occasional posts by you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh - I am officially away at the moment, but could not pass up the opportunity to say hello! -- ALoan (Talk) 09:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are able to find time to make a lot more contributions, especially your historical work. Best wishes. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your return, but I'd still like to add my voice to the chorus here. Guettarda 19:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summer of four captains

Thanks for some valuable contributions. --Dweller 13:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And wow, thanks for the DYK! --Dweller 11:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lavinia Duchess of Norfolk's XI

Hi. Thanks for comments. I'll look into them and post on the talk page there. --Dweller 13:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial fix undertaken. <blushes> --Dweller 16:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page

Interestingly, at the top of this page you have a comment "If you wish to send me a message, please email me here. Otherwise assume I have not seen and will not see your message. Thanks, jguk." but the link says you've not specified your email address. --Dweller 16:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Rotherhithe Tube Station.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Rotherhithe Tube Station.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Conscious 15:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Conscious 12:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V

Hi Jguk, it's just that we've been through this before. You spent a few weeks as I recall trying to get rid of "verifiability, not truth," and were opposed by multiple editors. People do like it, and it's very, very helpful. I've seen it instantly turn disagreements around, and it's succinct and clear: the kind of thing you usually like. That one phrase, "verifiability, not truth," sums up V and NOR. Of all the phrases we need to keep, that is the single most important one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have conceded that it will stay. But why so vehemently oppose moving it down the page a little? It would still be there and quotable. Indeed, I wouldn't object to the reintroduction of that sentence that you wish to see remain within the context of the change in presentational emphasis that I am suggesting. Intriguingly your proposed Wikipedia:Attribution, which you appear to want to replace WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS, says absolutely nothing on truth. I confess, based on that, I had thought that you had changed your insistence on mentioning "truth" and was genuinely surprised to see you argue so strongly against me on the point on WP:V, jguk 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V has around 920 words, NOR has 2,220 and RS 4,490 (the precise number depends on how you choose to count words). Most of what can usefully be said on the matters covered by these pages is on WP:V. Indeed, it would be relatively straightforward, with a bit of give and take, to expand WP:V to around 1,000 words to cover all the points. Your discursive WP:ATTRIBUTE proposal takes the thrust away from verifiability entirely, and lapses into the "try to cover every scenario" problems besetting the other two pages. It is already over 2,000 words long (and probably set to expand further).

I agree with you totally that we only need one policy to cover these related content issues.

Bearing the style and length comments above, would it not be best to leave WP:ATTRIBUTE and concentrate on adding those few words to WP:V that are required to merge the other concepts in their entirety? This would have the benefit of brevity, as well as making it a much easier read - and make it more read, jguk 12:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason I started a new proposal, instead of arguing to incorporate NOR and RS into V, was so we could leave the word "verifiability" behind. It has caught on and so I'm not sure trying to get rid of it is realistic, but the word implies that in seeking to verify something, we're trying to find out whether it's true, which we're not. So I chose "attribution."

I'd go further, were it up to me, and would incorporate NPOV into V and NOR too, so that we'd have one content policy (WP:ATTRIBUTION or WP:SOURCE) and three ideas: (1) Everything in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source, but need not actually be attributed (which is the essence of NOR); (2) Everything that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable source, or it may be removed (the essence of V); (3) The views of reliable published sources on any given topic should be represented in articles on that topic in rough proportion to their representation in the relevant literature (the essence of NPOV).

All the rest is detail.

As for WP:ATT, don't worry about its length. At the moment, people are still feeling their way, adding things to see how they fly, removing them again. It'll settle down eventually and then it can be tightened. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W. G. Grace's relationships with two of his contemporaries...

Hi there, Jguk. We're having quite a discussion over on Usenet about the 1882 Test Match. We've been sidetracked several times by matters of interest, and one thing that we haven't been able to solve is the nature of W. G. Grace's relationship with Fred Spofforth and Bob Thoms, the umpire who upheld his appeal for that controversial run-out of Sammy Jones. I've asked BlackJack, but he, unfortunately, couldn't really help me. You seem to have quite an interest in The Ashes, Jguk, so I'm wondering if you might help. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 08:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

PS: Here are the links to the Usenet threads that we're using for our discussion: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/uk.sport.cricket/browse_thread/thread/79f927dcb57ab0f9/59cb6c0250882149?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2#59cb6c0250882149 and http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_thread/thread/b430bc08e2372e42/a989ec69037059c7?lnk=st&q=&rnum=4#a989ec69037059c7. Cheers again, Robertson-Glasgow 08:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Courcy the umbrella-handle muncher???

In the "History of the Test cricket (up to 1883)", you wrote: "Epsom stockbroker called Arthur Courcy, is said to have bitten through his brother-in-law's umbrella handle." I've heard about a spectator biting through his umbrella handle, but I have never heard the name of Arthur Courcy mentioned in this regard, and I certainly wasn't aware of it being his brother-in-law's umbrella. Would you care to give and quote your sources? Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 08:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worry not; 'tis been sorted.

Policies

Please don't disrupt WP:V again. It isn't helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed huge chunks of text. It's a policy page. You can't just remove whole sections and be surprised when you're reverted. You know this from the last several times you tried to do it before you left. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a note and discuss before, not after, and please discuss this on talk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to have multiple discussions about this, so please post on the policy talk page from now on. We have the same objectives, but I don't like the way you go about making unilateral changes to long-standing policy, then reverting when people object. I also don't like the POV forks, the aggression, the discussions in more than one place, and the spinning. What you seem not to realize, is that the current contents of V are there because many very experienced editors agree that those rules work. That's much, much more important than counting words, which is what you seem to focus on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would just be completely straightforward, you'd find an ally in me, but I really don't like the M.O. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh. I don't mean it to; it's just that it gets a bit much. Why not simply propose the changes on talk? You might manage to persuade others or find yourself persuaded. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any aggression can be put down to a refusal of you to discuss issues I raise, and yet revert any changes I make in relation to them. If you can discuss what concerns you on talk pages at the time, or only revert if you then go on straightaway to outline what your concern about the amendment itself is, then you'll find much of my frustration with you will wane, jguk 11:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made your changes prior to discussion and three editors arrived within minutes to revert you. You'll need to discuss very thoroughly before making radical changes to long-standing policies. I know it's frustrating to have to talk about issues for a long time, but it's the only way to get policies changed substantively. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a false impression. I reverted you, Jules reverted you, and Ann arrived to revert you but was beaten to it. Please continue this on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with you. You've spent the day trolling and trying to get people to fall out with each other. You blatantly delete half a policy without discussion, then just as blatantly deny you've deleted it, then you accuse other people of failing to edit collaboratively. It's utterly bizarre, and I can only hope you are trolling, because if you're not doing this on purpose, it's disturbing. No more. Don't contact me on my talk page; don't expect responses from me on other talk pages; and don't take my lack of response to mean I agree with anything you propose. I've watched you do this time and again, with issue after issue, editor after editor, and I'm not going to be sucked into it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to say on this one. I've spent all day trying to get SV to explain why she disagrees with a suggestion I made, making it clear I'm happy to discuss it. Is it trolling to ask an editor who has reverted you to explain what they disagreed with about the edit? What are you meant to do on WP when someone point blank refuses to discuss anything with you - and in particular why they actually disagree with you? Oh well, some people are like that. Thankfully almost all other editors are quite happy with the idea of constructive collaboration. I'll look forward to working with them. jguk 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I suppose the plus side is that if SV really is going to ignore me, I'll get the benefit of impartial comments from others when I make comments on policy talk pages. Some will agree with me, some won't - but on the plus side those threads won't be drowned out with noise, jguk 23:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally clear

good point, we should probably update {{proposed}} to reflect this usage (since it's relatively common). (Radiant) 14:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

religioustolerance dot org

Hi. I came across over 700 links to this organization, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. The site has a ton of ads but on the other hand, it has content (and a Wikipedia article).

Normally, such an ad-intensive site with so many links gets attention at WikiProject Spam for further investigation. Even if it's not spam, many links may often get deleted as not meeting the external links guideline. I've left a note at WikiProject Spam asking others to look at some of these and see what they think.

I understand you have some history with this -- feel free to weigh in at WikiProject Spam. Thanks, --A. B. 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to clue us in on this -- it was helpful. Since my main focus is on true spamming, I think I'll let this go. That's not conceding that these are appropriate links -- it's just that there's enough to do with hard-core spammers and they're so much more fun. --A. B. 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashes

Hi Jon, are you coming out to Australia for the Tests? — Moondyne 00:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC) (formerly I@n)[reply]

Sydney Riot of 1879

Sydney Riot of 1879 is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. As you were one of the major contributors, please help bring this article to current featured article quality. --RelHistBuff 15:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jguk, do you have the citation details for the Harriss and the NSWCA letters? — Moondyne 03:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the author(s)

Hi

I restored "the author(s)" on the verifiability page. It is far more accurate English. A few of us had a chat about this a while ago and this was the best comprise. Self-published sources might be from a "themselves" or an "itself", authors encapsulate both.

Some editors have claimed it means that only the self-published authors can use stuff about themselves, would you believe?

I support you. 195.82.106.244 22:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note re V

Hi Jguk, I probably missed the recent event, but I know that as of a couple of weeks ago as well as a few days ago, we were discussing specifically the nutshell box. In that discussion, which I think we had consensus (I initially disagreed and then agreed with the others) the nutshell format was an issue. Today I saw you reverted the nutshell into a bland (and non-standard with the other policy pages) message box. I also saw the disagreement in the Talk page with Jossi. I agree with you that consensus has to be reached a priori for these pages, I guess the question is which version is consensual. IMO at least the nutshell has been there for quite a while over the last few months, survived a lot of upheavals and conforms to the other policy pages. Crum375 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bodyline

Just a note, on the Bodyline FAC, you should append your Support per the FAC instructions, "If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this." You can just add a statement that you have contributed to the article in the past. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 17:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remarked because I had seen your name a lot in the 2005 edit history, but if those entries were not significant, you're right that a mention isn't required (I don't have time to check, but certainly take your word for it). Sandy (Talk) 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libellous

Thank you for your note, and no, I hadn't realized it was a UK/US thing - though I probably should have thought more about why there were such a large number of cases of spellings each way. John Broughton | Talk 19:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Riot of 1879

Jguk, I want to try to work on this today, to hopefully get it closed out. Are you around? I can't find any of the books - do you have publisher and publication date on them? I'll follow your talk page, to keep discussion in one place. Sandy (Talk) 15:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, ALoan found them on amazon.co.uk - I left some other questions on the FAR. Sandy (Talk) 16:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Sede vacante.jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 00:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1967 Close axed.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1967 Close axed.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 21:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1967 Close axed.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1967 Close axed.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU≈talk 19:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Riot of 1879

The featured review for this has stalled, with no clear consensus. There are a handful of citation requests. Do you think you could handle those? I'd be happy to strike my remove, as would the others I'm sure. The requests I think are quite reasonable as detailed in the review. Marskell 11:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK

Come to wikimediauk-l, we have corporate loose ends to attend to - David Gerard 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4-1

hmmm. Cheers —Moondyne 03:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Alletson

Hi. When User:The Rambling Man and I have finished our current FA drive for Ipswich Town F.C. and Norwich City F.C. (at peer review and "reconstruction" respectively!) we're planning on tackling Ted Alletson next, assuming we can get a usable image or two. If you're interested in helping, you're more than welcome. --Dweller 11:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom corporation tax FAR

United Kingdom corporation tax has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Wogan Article

Hi, I know you haven't done anything on the Terry Wogan article recently, but you seemed to have a lot of facts at your fingertips. I was hoping you might be able to tell me what Wogan's Parents' names were, since you implied you had access to his book "Mustn't Grumble" - I've been doing substantial edits lately, and have it nominated for GA status now, but this bit of info with a source would round out the personal section nicely.

If you have time, I hope you can get back to me on my talk page, or directly into the article. Cheers --Fritzpoll 19:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoghurt

I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it (since the discussion has happened so many times), but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them). There is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this.daniel folsom 00:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Brian Close on main page.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Brian Close on main page.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 orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ashes

The Ashes has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured List of the Day Experiment

I am contacting individuals in the order of the number of featured lists that they had created by Novemeber 10, 2007. You are among those who have created the most. So you are among the first. There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Sri Lankan first-class cricket clubs in 2005-06

Template:Sri Lankan first-class cricket clubs in 2005-06 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — bd2412 T 03:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year page formatting of multiple events

Hello, I'm sending you this message since you were involved in the August 2005 survey on year pages. As I don't know if you've gathered, somebody has been fighting for a change to the house style on how to notate multiple events on the same date. A discussion is currently in progress - your contribution would be appreciated! -- Smjg (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wessex Children

Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, D B D 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hkca-logo 145x115.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Hkca-logo 145x115.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:2005 ICC Intercontinental Cup logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2005 ICC Intercontinental Cup logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Billy_Midwinter.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Billy_Midwinter.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Billy_Murdoch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Billy_Murdoch.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Brian Close - book cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Brian Close - book cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Featured List contest

Grettings. FL directors Scorpion0422 and The Rambling Man have decided to run a contest for FL contributors. We are trying to get some interest in the process and get some FLs for the under-represented topics. If you would like to learn more about this contest, you can find such information here. If you are uninterested in it, then you could still help out by reviewing FLCs submitted by the entrants. Thanks for the time, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FLRC of List of English Twenty20 International cricketers

Hi. I'm one of the directors of WP:Featured list removal candidates. I'm just letting you know that List of English Twenty20 International cricketers has been nominated for the removal of its Featured list status. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of English Twenty20 International cricketers. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Test cricket from 1884 to 1889 FAR

History of Test cricket from 1884 to 1889 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:History of cricket

Template:History of cricket has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Cricketer (Career)

Template:Infobox Cricketer (Career) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

History of Test cricket from 1877 to 1883 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Logo of Hampshire County Cricket Club.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo of Hampshire County Cricket Club.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:South African cricket competitions in 1971-72

Template:South African cricket competitions in 1971-72 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Category:Natal cricketers

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Natal cricketers, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Natal cricketers is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Natal cricketers, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red links in Template:International cricket in 2005-06

There are seven red links in Template:International cricket in 2005-06 which have existed for nearly four years. If these articles are not likely to be made, I will remove those links. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Discussion

Template:Discussion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Graham Thorpe.JPG

File:Graham Thorpe.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Graham Thorpe.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Graham Thorpe.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:OCS Stand (Surrey v Yorkshire in foreground).JPG is now available as Commons:File:OCS Stand (Surrey v Yorkshire in foreground).JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:OCS Stand at the Oval from the Peter May Stand.JPG is now available as Commons:File:OCS Stand at the Oval from the Peter May Stand.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:OCS Stand at the Oval from the Peter May Stand.JPG is now available as Commons:File:OCS Stand at the Oval from the Peter May Stand.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:OCS Stand from the Bedser Stand at the Oval.JPG is now available as Commons:File:OCS Stand from the Bedser Stand at the Oval.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:OCS Stand from the Bedser Stand at the Oval.JPG is now available as Commons:File:OCS Stand from the Bedser Stand at the Oval.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crowd leaves the Oval.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Crowd leaves the Oval.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crowd leaves the Oval.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Crowd leaves the Oval.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Jguk! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Tom Graveney - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Old Cricketer

Template:Infobox Old Cricketer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Portalnomfailed

Template:Portalnomfailed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment

An article that you have been involved in editing, Romano-Chinese relations has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hallo

happy christmas from Italy --79.44.93.155 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:2005 ICC Intercontinental Cup logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2005 ICC Intercontinental Cup 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 orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hugahoody (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cricket redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 13:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hkca-logo 145x115.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hkca-logo 145x115.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 orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:James Southerton.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:James Southerton.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikimania 2005 writing contest winners

Category:Wikimania 2005 writing contest winners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queensland cricketers

Category:Queensland cricketers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 17:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:CricketCOTF

Template:CricketCOTF has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of United Kingdom corporation tax loss relief

The article United Kingdom corporation tax loss relief has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced piece of OR, and a plain example farm

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 20:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of August 2005 in sports for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article August 2005 in sports is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2005 in sports until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jguk, if you ever still do look in, all the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Whitgift School

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Whitgift School requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from www.whitgift.co.uk. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of August 2005 in sports for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article August 2005 in sports is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2005 in sports (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

County Championship Division One Current Table listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect County Championship Division One Current Table. Since you had some involvement with the County Championship Division One Current Table redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:George Ulyett - noted as copyright Wisden 1888.jpg

The file File:George Ulyett - noted as copyright Wisden 1888.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic 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, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:OldCricketCOTF

Template:OldCricketCOTF has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"County Championship Division Two Current Table" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect County Championship Division Two Current Table and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 28#County Championship Division Two Current Table until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"National League Division Two Current Table" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect National League Division Two Current Table and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 5#National League Division Two Current Table until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Spike 'em (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"National League Division One Current Table" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect National League Division One Current Table and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 5#National League Division One Current Table until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Spike 'em (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cricket poetry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cricket poetry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricket poetry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

agtx 01:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dick Pilling

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dick Pilling requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://content.cricinfo.com/england/content/story/154831.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BoJó | talk UTC 12:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Basil Grieve for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Basil Grieve is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basil Grieve until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BoJó | talk UTC 13:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Indian cricket competitions in 2005-06

Template:Indian cricket competitions in 2005-06 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Batagur baska (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]