User talk:Mosmof: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:08, 4 December 2009

Archives

File:Prslplayoffcup.jpg

why it have to be removed? when the picture is the cup of a small soccer league in puerto rico. can you splain to me why.(rey 04:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reytempo (talk • contribs)

Glen Davis

Why is this being removed when it is a cited item? It is not trivia when it was a major episode discussed on numerous media outlets. Yahoo sports is one of the most viewed sports websites on the web and it was "front page news" for at least one day. Is the issue with this bit of information the fact that I can't prove how many people read the story? What's the big deal? The guy cried on national television?. --Itemspitch2 (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More... I have to disagree with you in regards to your assertion that my statement being "well known" isn't verifiable. I verified it when I showed that the video has over 2 million hits on youtube. Furthermore, while I see your point regarding synth, the video referenced in the original citation is on the Yahoo sports website. Why does it matter where on the site it is located?. I feel compelled to revert your revision as you continue to do. As you continue to revert my revisions rather than attempt to find common ground, despite youtube regulations that encourage flexibility and compromise, I will do the same. --Itemspitch2 (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, imagine, if you will, that you are a professional athlete. You spend your nights playing basketball in front of millions of fans around the country (they watch on the TV). Although, like most athletes, you are perceived as being a tough guy, not afraid of a little contact on the court, you happen to cry after your team leader yells at you. Don't you think this episode would follow your career until the end? Answer: Most definitely. I would argue that this is the case with Davis, even more, as he is known (and if you think my entry is trivial you should take issue with this bit of information as well) as having body slammed Shaq. --Itemspitch2 (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your compromise. Also, I appreciate your "welcome" to wikipedia. Take care, --Itemspitch2 (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide, it's a suicide

Deprodding of Suicide, it's a suicide

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Suicide, it's a suicide, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Lampman (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move article Admiral (sportswear) incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Admiral (sportswear) to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for squad number (association football)

On January 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article squad number (association football), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ben arfa OM.jpg

Now I really don't know where I find the photo because I uploaded the photo from my gallery who includes now 139 footbalers photos;all of them are getted from different sites founded on google and everyone of them are renamed by me so I cannot search the image again because I will not get any results.But if I would know the website it is a chance to establish the copyright? I am very interesed in the sense because in the future I will note the websites.Karim Abdul Rashid (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Karim Abdul RashidKarim Abdul Rashid (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Carling Cup logo 2008-09.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Carling Cup logo 2008-09.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UNC Men's Basketball

They have won 5 titles. I have fixed the source because they have it wrong. For some reason, who ever reverted my edit, did not take into account the 1924 championship. Moldy912 (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It most definitely was. Stop looking at the source there and look at this one. http://tarheelblue.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/040605aai.html

It's the same website but it says the true information. "Whereas the Tar Heels' men's team has won championships in 1924, 1957, 1982, 1993, and 2005" Moldy912 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not believe me, then I will take a picture of the "1924 NCAA Championship" flag, right beside the other four. By the way, 1+4=5. Wikipedia is made for people to edit, not for two people to have edit wars. You seem to be trying to start one with me and it is very uncomforting to me and all the others you may be doing it to (above). Please listen to fellow editors when they have truthful information to back up their edits, especially when your source is incorrect and there is physical evidence (flags in stadium) that prove you incorrect.Moldy912 (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was mainly going on what I see on the banners at the stadium. I figured the school would know it's history so I went with them. I am glad that we finally have verifiability instead of the truth now. Readers will finally get something from both of us. It just kind of amazed me that nothing was said about 1924 in the article... Moldy912 (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the AfD of James Edward Miller

That article, and the even more nn Steve Gatena, were worked on by the same editors. Neither are notable, but the walk-on Gatena has managed to survive two AfDs with "no consensus" because there's never a high number of voters and his article always seems to have a handful of Gatena/Miller-editing-only accounts that stack it up. This is especially of interest to me because I've written or expanded the articles on the many bona fide NFL-caliber starter prospects on the Trojans; I fought for the inclusion of notable (not all) college football players under WP:Athlete; and I feel including walk-ons and buried-in-the-depth-chart players as something that cheapens the project and could inevitably bring down a much larger consensus that all college football players not be included (which is in turn foolish, but I've noticed a trend on Wikipedia towards black or white rules). --Bobak (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead with a third nomination for Gatena, as the previous were no-consensus. --Bobak (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Alleged Vandalization of entery for Possibly unfree File:ChiEmeraldsPortal.jpg

I apologize, and I will stop 'vandalizing' this entry. I have released it into the public domain, so there should be no reason to delete it. I just want to stop being dog piled for this piece of art that I spent a good amount of time on. So can you PLEASE close the discussion? It would be pointless to delete it. Thank You. PieMan.EXE MyPage | Exchange Words With Me 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Porter

If he were to acknowledge his firing, would it be okay? Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 15:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 20:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Donovan.jpg

Thanks, please let me know if there's an alternative pic out there somewhere or a way we can save that one. Spinach Monster (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Really Needing One

I'm sorry, but i'd have to disagree about not really needing a pic of the nomination, i've been heavily involved in regards to an article about the nominations themselves. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can help me find free use images. I want to get that article up to featured status by around May or so, and I know it'll take alot of images for that. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While i'm here I figured i'd ask you opinion as to whether that article can get up to FA status by May or so. Other than the cite news stuff, how can I improve it? Spinach Monster (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:NChan.jpg

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at User_talk:Marcuslim#Replaceable_fair_use_Image:NChan.jpg. Thank you. Marcuslim (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie

Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Mets-Phillies rivalry

Could you please elaborate on your tag on the article talk page? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've made some significant changes in the article, including a bunch of added references to support its claims. Could you re-review and reconsider your tag? Thank you! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bttf.jpg

I've added further information on the fair-use rationale for the image. There are two reasons I believe the image should not be deleted:

The website which once used the image is now down and cannot be accessed
The image is of a theme park ride which has been closed for two years, and therefore, cannot be replaced by a free variant

Please respond on the talk page for the image. Thanks.--Snowman Guy (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Long Island Road Map.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Long Island Road Map.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Mirza.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mirza.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Epsspalogo34.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Epsspalogo34.png. 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) 05:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boston Breakers

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Boston Breakers]] to articles/subcategories that belong in it.

I blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Carling Cup logo 2008-09.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Carling Cup logo 2008-09.gif. 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. Skier Dude (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Players of Boston Breakers (WPS)

I have nominated Category:Players of Boston Breakers (WPS) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Swisher

you don't need to put the pitching stats as it only was a one time gig

TUSC token c838f69d036643fa0ebe7e73d7f60d87

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Notifying uploaders when tagging images for speedy deletion

I note that you have tagged a number of images contended to be fair use by the uploader as {{di-replaceable fair use}}. In doing so, however, you have not notified the uploaders with: {{di-replaceable fair use-notice}} nor added {{deletable image-caption}} to the image captions, as in the instance of Lou Gehrig. Please do so in the future as per the instructions, as a courtesy to the uploader. Thank you. JGHowes ^talk 13:16, 14 tMay 2009 (UTC)

wagmag

There is a fairly simple reason the reasons are on the talk page. That is what MoS says they should be.

There's little point going prod it has been there twice before and survived.

I've no contention with it being a stub but give it a chance would you?

I have no vested interest in this article. I am just trying to help the editors, who are new to WP, get it started.

00:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Mosmof this is one of my problems with Wikipedia. Put some things on the talk page put some things on the article page. I think the majority of people I have seen talking, in many many contexts, get very fed up with that kind of thing. We just want to edit articles to make them better not do stupid rules like that.

All I can tell you is I have permission from the publisher, indeed original images from the publisher, I uploaded the images, I fixed the infoboxes, I sorted out the references, I did as much as I could to make it a stub. Yet now three times it has been proposed for deletion. Do you see why that my get under my hat a bit? I am just trying to make it better, and he is a new editor and if someone comes along with a prod every time they will not want to help make wikipedia better. It may well be that it's not notable that is for others to judge but should not be slapped so quickly.

Nobody tells you what the rules are and nobody tells you where to find them and nobody atually posts on article talk (I thought that was what it was for?) they just delete or prod or whatever and when you complain they refer you to WP:POLICYIVENEVERHEARDOF. I am not saying that is your fault. I edit in good faith but I want to edit real stuff, not articles about Wikipedia itself (meta-articles or whatever). There is a pernicious habit I think with those who do, and I know they have good faith, to assume every other editor knows all the details intimitaly. It is *very* hard to find stuff in the WP meta. Sometimes it tests one's good faith.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way please look for example at a tiny article like Newmarket and Chesterford Railway which I collaborated on with another editor (and look at the talk and the chat as we decided what to do) and Battle of Latrun which is very much a collaboration but not a destruction. I thought that was what Wikipedia was about. SimonTrew (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it has, or has not, "real notoriety"? Look up notoriety in your dictionary please. SimonTrew (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologise for my bad faith. I hope you realise that when one constructs an article for another it is a little annoying when someone tears it down. I think merge as suggested is probably best here.

Please I am very sorry to have had a grumble at you. I am just trying to make the WP better, and I know you are too.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is definitely an issue. But I think that is a separate one from simply marking an article for deletion. It's not very notable, I think, but without a chance it won't be. (I mean on WP not in real life). It's only just been born, it has half a dozen references, most of them not from its own source, it's not perfect but give it a chance eh? SimonTrew (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I am very very sorry for being so harsh on you and I really appreciate you are trying to make it better. Just a bit frustrating sometimes and you copped it. SimonTrew (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruthbatting.jpg

I have declined to delete this image because the subject is deceased, therefore it is unclear that the image is replaceable by a free image. If you still feel it is not appropriate for use on Wikipedia, please nominate it for FFD. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued problems with unresponsive editor Indianwhite

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued problems with unresponsive editor Indianwhite. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Baseball Talk Player

The Baseball Talk player is defunct since 1989 and the photo should be fair use.OddibeKerfeld (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: User:Niccos

I have reported this editor to WP:AIV. While there may be some argument that some of the material he is adding is sourced properly, he is also adding personal opinion as vandalism. He has plenty of warnings on his page this month to warrant a little time out. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bidone d'oro

Thanks for creating the article. BTW I removed the sort template from the flags as it was incomplete and it works without. -- User:Docu 11:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Klein image

I am really not on board with calling that image "decorative" in any fashion. Klein holds so many Phillies records that it's a sin (OK, not really a sin) for him not to appear in that article. This got through FLC with an image of him in there and a fair-use rationale provided; I'm at a loss as to why it's different now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already reviewed them. I don't see at all how NFCC#3 applies here. I'm not using multiple items of non-free content, and I'm not using an image that's got an excessively high resolution. As to criterion 8, I find that the exclusion of the image is detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic; obviously, you don't. I'm not going to bother with this issue any further, but my displeasure is registered and noted. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dallas Cowboys helmet Front.jpg

Please note that I reverted your edit from this image because common typefaces aren't eligible for copyright. See {{PD-textlogo}} for more informations.--Sdrtirs (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H

On this topic: I'm the creator of the file, plz restore it. Currently I'm not active on en.wiki, plz send me email if you need more information. Thank you.--Aparhizi (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Barkley Image

Hi, thanks for notifying me of your concerns. However, I'm not sure why you have nominated this image for deletion. It was previously nominated for your same concerns but the result of the discussion was keep. Also, the item lists 5 points for its fair use rationale. Again, I fail to see how it's previous discussion, fair use rationale, and template was ignored in this case. Please clarify. Thanks! Zodiiak (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaka edits

How is calling Kaka a playmaker subjective? He's an attacking midfielder who also scores a lot of goals. There are countless other players listed on this site who are described as playmakers.Numba1xclusive (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC) -Really? Look up the definition of a playmaker. Someone who creates opportunities for their other teammmates. How is that not enhancing netting ability?Numba1xclusive (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-How is that an opinion? Calling him a playmaker is an opinion? And if you're going to be enforcing sources this much, I expect that every single article that you contributed to has complete cites and doesn't have these so called opinions in them.Numba1xclusive (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 1947 Sun Bowl image

I just wanted to give you a heads up that I've removed the speedy delete tag on this image, and another editor has done the same for the logo. I understand that your argument stems from NFCC #8. I disagree. The image indicates the style of play prevalent during the game (running play), the archaic uniforms and equipment, the temperature and weather (snow and ice on the field and in the background), and the number of attendees (sparse, given the few fans on the sidelines).

This is a unique image, and no free alternative can be produced, since the event took place almost 52 years ago. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification! JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benzema in Real Madrid

He have allready been added to the squad list on Real Madrids homepage [1], just wanted you to know. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 01:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, and the writeup on the homepage. But he has yet to go through the necessary steps to actually joining the squad (namely, physical and signing of the contract), so he's not on the team yet. Also, FWIW, Kaka was on the homepage a couple of weeks before the opening of the transfer window. --Mosmof (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Jayhawks

I've removed the University of Kansas logo from the Kansas Jayhawks Athletics articles because the Kansas Athletics Incorporated does not use that logo. I'm fine with removing all logos from the season articles as that is a bit much, but It seems appropriate to use them on articles like Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball since it is a summary of one of Kansas Athletics, Inc's teams. Ryan2845 (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup quarter-final)

Hi, I wondered if you could explain (perhaps on the talk page of the article rather than here) why you think this article is both non-neutral and a synthesis? Looking to your edits on the day you added the tags - I agree with the majority of them. The removal of the claim in the intro is, I think, unfair - the article referenced opens with the sentence "The expressions 'hand of God' and 'goal of the century' form part of football folklore, and for most fans they conjure up memories of one epic encounter." Whilst I agree the claim "The match, between two of the heavyweights of international football at the time, is remembered as one of the most epic in FIFA World Cup history" may stretch into hyperbole, the phrase 'is remembered as' is intended to hint that this is a view (supported immediately in the subsequent reference by FIFA) and was put there to indicate why the article existed. I am aware, however, of how the sentence might read in the intro, so I can see why it can go. As for the synthesis bit - the article is well referenced and you have not left any explanation as to why you think this.

Anyway, I realise this was an article you visited about 6 weeks ago so you'll obviously need to refresh yourself with it, but with no indication as to why you've put these tags there, I do feel they're a bit disingenuous - as they themselves state, you're meant to explain why you're tagging with a discussion on the talk page, which you've not done. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PatJennings Mural, Windor Park, Belfast.JPG

Hi, thanks for the note, this was one of the first images I uploaded. I have re-licensed it, on the belief it is available under the UK's Freedom of panorama Fasach Nua (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying and changing the license. But I did some searching around and I wonder if the mural is a derivative work of this photograph, and thereby under copyright of the original publisher (Getty Images, in this case). I think the image would be fine for showing the mural, but not as a portrait of Jennings, as it's used in the article right now. --Mosmof (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objections to listing this image as wp:PUI, a broader input might be useful. I would agree that if it is deemed to be derived it is not an acceptable as fair use Fasach Nua (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Images

May ask why you are search through all my images, when some of them are obviously based off info in the articles content? You are purposely attacking my photos. I already have some of them under review why are you making things unnecessarily harder? And don't tell it's the rules because it isn't the Wiki rules to go through other editors things (with grudges) and add them for deletion, is it? Colleen16 (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lee Jun Ki. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. InkHeart 06:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruud Van Nistelrooy

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Lando09 (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Neill

Good edit. I re-included the fact that the ref, Cantalejo, was selected to officiate a quarter-final match. I think that and Hiddink's evaluation, together, sum up the situation nicely.

Tapered (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you undid the Cantalejo section after I posted the RfC. The RfC is an attempt to bring the wider community, probably the sporting community, into the discussion. Please revert your undo, and allow the RfC to go forward.

Tapered (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am going to restore the Cantalejo information, so that the RfC makes sense and so that we can get some commentary. If we don't get any I'm going to seek some sort of input fr/ soccer expert editors and Administrators. If you revert/undo again, I'm going to seek some sort of Administrative action, edit warring or locking the article down.

69.226.245.37 (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AI

I appreciate the note. You make a very reasonable point about the distinction between reports that he accepted the contract/terms and the actual official roster-move by which he becomes officially a member of the team. Technically, you are correct. You are welcome to change it back to "free-agent". However, I have a feeling that it may be a losing Wiki-battle to prevent the page from being edited to show him on the Sixers whether it be the next few hours or days that he is still technically a free-agent. Smel4727 (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should rest for a while from WP, take a vac, it would be useful for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigsons (talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 303: / Line 303: @@
 [[User:Tapered|Tapered]] ([[User talk:Tapered|talk]]) 18:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
+Am going to restore the Cantalejo information, so that the RfC makes sense and so that we can get some commentary. If we don't get any I'm going to seek some sort of input fr/ soccer expert editors and Administrators. If you revert/undo again, I'm going to seek some sort of Administrative action, edit warring or locking the  article down.
+[[Special:Contributions/69.226.245.37|69.226.245.37]] ([[User talk:69.226.245.37|talk]]) 05:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 ==AI==