This is an archive of inactive discussions between 21 October 2008 and 31 December 2008. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.
Image permission problem with Image:Grace Bill Turner.JPG[edit]
Image Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading Image:Grace Bill Turner.JPG, which you've sourced to http://www.billturnersoccer.com.au/. I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's linked to the permissions mate. As follows:
These pages are copyright under The Copyright Act 1968. Copyright (c) 2007 Bill Turner Cup / Bill Turner Trophy. All rights reserved. Permission is given for non-profit electronic viewing, via the Internet.
General permission is given to print and copy(Bill Turner Cup / Bill Turner Trophy) as linked to on the ‘Downloads’ page on the conditions that:
1. No alterations are made to the content
2. The copies are distributed freely, without charge or cost.
Apart from this, and any use as permitted under the Act, no part may be reproduced or used, by any process, without written permission. JRA WestyQld2 (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Narangba Demons, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
Non notable amateur baseball club
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mattinbgn\talk 12:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of Southern Stars Baseball Club[edit]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Southern Stars Baseball Club, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mattinbgn\talk 12:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Redlands Baseball Club, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mattinbgn\talk 12:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wests Baseball Club, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mattinbgn\talk 12:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ipswich Musketeers, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mattinbgn\talk 12:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Runcorn Indians, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mattinbgn\talk 12:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Beenleigh Hawks, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mattinbgn\talk 12:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mt Gravatt Eagles, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mattinbgn\talk 12:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Logan Sharks, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mattinbgn\talk 12:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of Surfers Paradise Baseball Club[edit]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Surfers Paradise Baseball Club, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mattinbgn\talk 12:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mudgeeraba Redsox, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mattinbgn\talk 12:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Jacobreust.jpg. 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.
Hi. You have been here long enough that you don't need a lesson from me about WP:N, WP:RS and the other panoply of initialisms we use here. It has been a few years since I was resident in Queensland but I do not recall seeing much coverage of local baseball in the media; indeed substantially less than other minority sports such as local soccer, AFL and touch. Maybe WP:BASEBALL can help? Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you have been warned for creating articles on non-notable Brisbane-region baseball teams, I just speedy deleted the five articles you recently created on regional baseball bodies. Please review WP:N and WP:ORG before creating any further articles on amateur sports teams and regional amateur sporting associations. In short, such organisations are generally not notable and you need to provide references to independent reliable sources which establish their notability at the time the article is created. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. The fact that there isn't a professional baseball competition here in Australia indicates to me that almost no team will meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but you need to dig up in-depth coverage in the media or professionally printed books to establish each team's notability at the time articles are created. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, please let me know if you'd like the material you posted in these and the other deleted articles recovered and posted in your user-space so that you can use it elsewhere. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm going to be traveling for the next couple of days, but will move that stuff to your user page on Sunday. Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the material on four of the five regional articles to your userspace at User:JRA WestyQld2/Baseball - I couldn't remember what the fifth one was called. Please do not recreate these articles, but consider some high-level grouping which meets WP:N and WP:ORG. I have also speedy deleted the template for the under-19s baseball team and removed the lists of names in Australian Schools Championship (baseball) as it is a policy not to name living people in articles unless they clearly need to be named (see: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names ) Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on this article and associated pages, havent had much of a chance to get on here recently, i dont think i have finished the articles for last years shield yet!. --Dan027 (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah i saw the new template, looks heaps better then the old one i did, i think that was one of my first attempts at a nav box. feel free to power away through as many articles as you want i have nowhere near the amount of free time as id like to finish them myself! --Dan027 (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of Australia national schoolboy baseball team[edit]
Hi there. We are attempting to make a few simple adjustments to the Wikipedia page for Anglican Church Grammar School. All we want to do at this stage is remove the non-existent image link in the History section, and the School wishes to have the Controversy section moved further down the page. Many other websites feature a Controversy section, but this is located far down the page. You have no reason to continue undoing our edits without discussing with us first. If you continue to do this without first contacting us, we will request your editing permissions get blocked.
Update: We have now made those adjustments - moving the Controversy section down the page and removing the broken image link in the History section. Please DO NOT revert these changes. Review what we have done and you will see that everything is still in place. Regards, Wesmanbigmig (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JRA - please advise what problem you have with us rearranging the information on the page?? Who says that you get to determine the order the page gets listed in anyway? I need you to explain what problem you have here, or what authority you think you have with being able to stipulate the ordering of sections on this page. Get back to me on this.
Re-request: You do not seem willing to resolve this dispute over the very reasonable changes we are making to the Churchie page. You may find yourself in a situation where your repeated reversion of our editing will earn you a block. Please respond on your our our talk page, and if you do not then we will make our edits again and if you revert after that then we will seek third party resolution and request a block on your editing priviliges.Wesmanbigmig (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JRA - I am familiar with the guidelines for articles. Nowhere does it address that Controversy sections have to appear high up. Indeed, if you look at the Brisbane Grammar School's wiki page you will see that it's controversy section is placed in a reasonable location further down the page. Currently, you are dictating that Controversy sits as high as it does on the Churchie article, and this is unreasonable. Unless you can point me to a a SPECIFIC wikipedia page that says that controversy features have to appear high up on a page, then your persistent reversion of our reasonable edits will be reported. Consider that a final warning from us. It's not about winning, it's about being reasonable, and unless you can advise why it's reasonable for Churchie's Controversy section so high up on their article, then I'm sorry but you deserve to be blocked and we will pursue this.Wesmanbigmig (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and our warning that we have issued you doesn't relate to a "legal threat" - we will simply follow due process to have you blocked since you are unwilling to adopt a reasonable stance regarding the sequencing edits we are making. Again, Wikipedia is a community initiative - you are not the sole editor in charge here, and we will request mediation if you continue to harass us through your continued reversions of our reasonable edits on the Churchie article. Wesmanbigmig (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JRA - is it ok if we remove the missing / blank / non-existent image in the History section on the Churchie page? Please can you do this for us, or advise if it's ok for us to do this. Not wanting to waste any more of our time and have you undo the changes, so if you could do this one as requested and advise us, that would be great.Wesmanbigmig (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in again, but the image does work. Your browser must be bugging up and not displaying it correctly. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :D 05:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As what MoP said and what I left on your user talk, perhaps your browser isn't displaying correctly - JRA WestyQld2 (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JRA - my advice to you is that you tread lightly when dealing with incidents relating to minors. Under Australian law, it is illegal to name minors in any public space regarding reputed or reported incidents and you have done this on my talk page with the minors involved. The Queensland Police would be very interested in pursuing this matter further, as it contravenes federal and state law, so I suggest you be *very* careful with your statements and aggressive manner, as they could land you in some very deep, very hot water.Wesmanbigmig (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could ask the same question of your JRA - and looking at other posts on your talk page it appears as though there are other people out there who disagree with the information you post on other pages as well. I note the warnings you have received from others about hem getting you blocked. Wesmanbigmig (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Just a small note about this; technically, removing warnings isn't wrong at all, as it is verifiable proof that the recipient has read and understood them. Don't worry, you haven't done anything wrong, this is just for future reference. Cheers, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :D 05:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I must have misread Warnings vandalism: Old warnings may be archived into page history when they are no longer useful. Give consideration to the IP's contribution history when deciding how long to leave warnings visible. Always note the archiving of old warnings, but be sure to remember that any editor -including anonymous IPs- may remove messages at will from their own talk page.
Yeah, just presented as an option. Anyway, glad all is cleared up! Keep up the good work, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :D 05:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anglican Church Grammar School. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Though you haven't performed more than 3 reverts in the last 24 hours, I'm warning you as I've warned the other party for violating WP:3RR and because you're at 3 reverts. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted Template:Redcliffe Padres roster which you created today. Please do not create further lists of non-notable people or add such lists to articles - I have warned you about this previously. Please review WP:BLP and WP:ATHLETE for guidance on Wikipedia's policies towards the privacy of living people (in short, for athletes to be notable they need to either be professional or have received in-depth coverage in reliable sources) and note that violations of these policies are treated very seriously and can lead to you being blocked. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anglican Church Grammar School. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Though you haven't performed more than 3 reverts in the last 24 hours, I'm warning you as I've warned the other party for violating WP:3RR and because you're at 3 reverts. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
