User talk:RemembertheAFL

Hello and welcome Angelo! - Hephaestos 03:11, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Here, on the other hand, we might have a problem; if the articles are copied direct from the AFL Hall of Fame website, they're under copyright, and we won't be able to use them without a substantial rewrite. - Hephaestos 03:40, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, disregard my last; I didn't realize that they were on the same server. *grin* I can see now how Angela got confused. - Hephaestos 03:52, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Angelo. Sincere apologies for the confusion. I have sent you an e-mail with further explanations. Sorry your initial entry into Wikipedia was somewhat rocky! Hope you enjoy enjoy contributing here. Angela 13:04, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Texans/Chiefs franchise was the flagship team of the American Football League, with the most playoff appearances as an AFL team, six (tied with Oakland), and the most Super Bowl appearances, playing in

Did Oakland play 6 in the AFL playoffs between 1960-69 ? I only come up with 3 times 67 68 and 69 Smith03 15:01, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

External links

Hi, are you User talk:24.48.96.44? Please don't add so many external links to that same site as it looks like Wikipedia is endorsing it. If the information is useful, then add the external link to the main AFL article, and link to the Wikipedia AFL article from the other ones. Also, sorry to say so if it is your site, but that design is pretty bad. Dori | Talk 05:11, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Fine work on the AFL, Angelo. -戴&#30505sv 05:17, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I still think it's a bad idea to have the links on all the pages, but some may disagree. However, it's inappropriate for the owner to add the links himself even if done in good faith. Dori | Talk 16:06, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

Hello! Were you planning on expanding the article on the draft? As it stands now, it's totally empty except for the AFL logo which makes it a speedy deletion candidate. Ah, if only we could return to the Raiders of old...I still miss the Tooz. - Lucky 6.9 06:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spamming

I'm happy that your site is not commercial, but you have still been spamming Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for self-promotion. If you want to put your player articles on the site, please consider donating the actual content to Wikipedia instead of adding hundreds of links here. I think your site deserves to be linked from the Wikipedia article on American Football League, and nothing more. No links from AFL teams, no links from AFL players. Wikipedia doesn't prohibit commercial sites (that's why NFL links are fine), but they do prohibit self-promotion. Rhobite 22:52, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Official sites are fine, spamming related sites with your own site is not as it brings commercial benefit to you. If we were to allow that, all articles would be nothing but links from people wanting to plaster their links all over the place. Dori | Talk 00:08, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a question of "What is self-promotion?" The American Football League no longer exists (that's why it can't have an "un-official site" - if there's no official site, what's an un-official site?). It has few advocates in todays' sports media. Its impact on professional football in the US is historical fact. I gain absolutely nothing from the AFL website, it is not a commercial site: visitors to the site gain information not available elsewhere. It seems that others who could gain from promotion of the NFL (thru increased sales or use of their NFL-oriented services) may put links to the NFL site on any football-oriented page. For example, someone from "TV Network XYZ" could place links to NFL.com so that more people would be more involved with the NFL, watch more of the NFL on XYZ-TV, and buy more of the products sold on XYZ-TV. Is that self-promotion? If I placed links to "The Fabulous Ange Coniglio", that would be self-promotion.

I'm sorry it took me so long to get involved in these discussions, I'm sort of a novice at carrying on conversations in this mediium. I really enjoy Wikipedia, and the opportunity to use it. ... RemembertheAFL 8:43 PM EST 29 Nov 2004

As I've said before, one link on the main AFL page is OK, putting it on every related page just means higher rankings for your site, whether you profit or not is besides the point. The guidelines are to not promote your own site. Oh, and where you reply depends on your preference. I (like any other editor) am more likely to see a message on my talk page. Dori | Talk 02:05, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to me. If you're interested in donating your content to Wikipedia, you have a few options. You can simply add your content (instead of links to your site) to AFL-related articles as you see fit, just make sure it fits Wikipedia's style guidelines. Another option that some content owners have chosen is to license their work under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which is the license Wikipedia uses, and allow other users to integrate it with Wikipedia. You would want to post a GFDL notice on each page of your web site. Any content licensed under the GFDL may be copied freely and integrated into Wikipedia - you still hold your copyright, but you can't take back content you've released. You should read the GFDL before you make any decision. Rhobite 02:15, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

Image:DenverBroncosAFLLogo.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:29, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Dude I know you love the AFL but must all your "contributions" to the NFL page be about how the AFL was better than the NFL?

Unverified image

Thanks for uploading the image

Image:SpaldingJ5V.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the image and I'll tag it for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 19:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And:

Image:SpauldingJ5V.jpg

AFL champions

You're completely right. I left a full response on the NFL wikiproject talk page. --Sophitus 05:43, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:DawsonSestak1964.png

Thanks for uploading Image:DawsonSestak1964.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:AmericanFootballLeague.png

Thanks for uploading Image:AmericanFootballLeague.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:JohnnyRSBIV.png

Thanks for uploading Image:JohnnyRSBIV.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles

Please do not create pages without sufficient article text that establishes the significance of the subject. Pages containing only the article name will be speedily deleted.--Jiang 16:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link spamming

Once again, we kindly request that you stop inserting links to your personal AFL website in Wikipedia articles. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines on WP:EL are pretty clear as to what types of links are and are not acceptable. A listing of every player who ever played in the AFL is hardly relevant to individual player articles, and adds no information that is pertinent to the article. Profootballreference.com, although it may contain solicitations for funds, is the most comprehensive statistical site for ALL of pro football, which is why it gets included. It is also an objective site, while yours most definitely is not. You are more then welcome to continue adding AFL-centric content to Wikipedia, such as player articles and historical background. You obviously have a wealth of information and passion about the AFL, and it is great that you want to share that. But continually adding links to your website has already been deemed as link spamming by multiple editors, and if you persist you may be blocked. I would hate to see that happen, so if you wish to debate the issue further, I encourage you to bring it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League. This is one of the main areas where policy regarding NFL (and by default, AFL) articles is discussed and formulated. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Magazinephoto

Template:Magazinephoto 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. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texans

can you please edit Dallas Texans as Kansas City Chiefs|Dallas Texans Dallas Texans so it does not go to the disamb page Smith03 17:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on another talk page you asked how to sign names here you go : Wikipedia guidelines and sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added. For further info see: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

Also you asked why people consider you adding your own website as spam is because it you adding your own website. People do not assume that people who add say the pro football HoF or football database work/own thoses websites Smith03 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Chiefs page talks about the team when they were in Dallas Right now if you just put Dallas Texans it directs readers to a page that tells them the the AFL Texans are now the Chiefs. By puting Dallas Texans the reader see the words Dallas Texans but are directed to the Chiefs page which will tell them they moved from dallas to kc otherwie the reader goes to the disam page are directed to the chiefs so it prevents a person from having to hit two pages Smith03 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. What about my point about who posts what? If someone from Pro Football Reference added a link to PFR on a player's page, would you refuse to allow it because it was put there by someone from PFR? How do you know that half the external links on Wikipedia weren't put there by someone associated with the site linked to? How would you know that RemembertheAFL.com was my site if I hadn't been honest and said so? Seems like there's an NFL bias in Wikipedia. NFL and "pro football" are NOT synonymous, at least they have not always been so. Pro Football means ALL of pro football, past and present, NFL means the current league.

Reporting, for example (as it was before I corrected it), that Lance Alworth was in seven Pro Bowls is simply not true. Lance Alworth was in NO Pro Bowls, he was in seven AFL All-Star Games. Today, the NFL recognizes AFL All-Star Games as "the equivalent of Pro Bowls", but "equivalent of" doesn't mean "identical to".

The "Infobox" should be for "Pro football player", not "NFL player", and should include AFL headings as well as NFL headings. Unless you want the information to be ONLY for NFL players, in which case your encyclopedia would not be so encyclopedic, would it, since it would exclude records of great players when they played in leagues other than the NFL? RemembertheAFL 02:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was this address to me ? if some user name "ProFootballReference" started putting alot of links to that site I think people whould question him like they do you. As for the infobox bring that up with whoever created that propose a name change for it Use Alworth as an example.

Can I be honest I think you have provided a lot of great information about the old AFL here and on your website what bothers me is that alot of time it is writen with an agenda of basically "AFL was great and the NFL was bad". which I think hurts your overall work.

Regards Smith03 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Smith03's last comment, and would like to add once again that it's great to have an AFL expert like yourself willing to share information on Wikipedia. But with that being said, it is important that all contributions to Wikipedia follow the guidelines that have already been established. If you disagree with certain policies, that's fine. But the proper way to deal with those difference is not to ignore them. Rather, please feel free to use one of the many channels available to discuss your criticism (if you are unsure of what those channels are, please ask). Comments such as "It seems to me that the guardians of Wikipedia are somewhat hypocritical" will serve no purpose but to make other editors here reticent to work with you. In addition to being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a community. I think you will find that most people here go out of their way to be helpful if you take care to not accuse them of being hypocrites. Lastly, one of the key tenents of Wikipedia is assume good faith. If some of your contributions are removed or altered, don't assume that we're out to silence you or to disparage the AFL. In my case, nothing could be further from the truth. Being a Raiders fan, I have a great appreciation for the AFL. But I still do my best to make sure that items added to AFL-related articles meet the requirements that have been set forth for this project. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Apology

No need to apologize - I try not to take things personally anyway. Listen, when you do come back to Wikipedia, drop me a line. I'd be happy to assist you in your efforts to increase the amount of AFL info on Wikipedia. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NYJetsAFLlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NYJetsAFLlogo.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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. — Moe ε 22:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RemembertheAFL.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:RemembertheAFL.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BuffaloBillsAAFClogo.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BuffaloBillsAAFClogo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TenYearAFLPatchPhoto.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TenYearAFLPatchPhoto.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) 08:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:VioletLHSAngel.png

A tag has been placed on Image:VioletLHSAngel.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Image:VioletLHSAngel.png|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MBisanz ^talk 05:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:LHSAngelViolet.JPG

A tag has been placed on Image:LHSAngelViolet.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Image:LHSAngelViolet.JPG|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MBisanz ^talk 05:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:TriangleViolet.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:TriangleViolet.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with no fair use rationale uploaded after May 4, 2006 which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Image:TriangleViolet.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MBisanz ^talk 05:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:BuffaloBillsAFLlogo.gif

A tag has been placed on Image:BuffaloBillsAFLlogo.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Image:BuffaloBillsAFLlogo.gif|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MBisanz ^talk 05:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NYJetsAFLlogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NYJetsAFLlogo.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) 12:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA thanks

I have been quite delinquent. I should have sent this some time ago. Thanks for getting this article started:

This user helped promote Jack Kemp to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello RemembertheAFL! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 7 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Charley Barnes - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Rudy Barber - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Al Bansavage - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Lou Andrus - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Max Anderson (American football) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Buddy Alliston - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Bud Abell - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Al Bansavage

The article Al Bansavage has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Unitasock (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NYJetsAFLlogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NYJetsAFLlogo.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 in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tom Day

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 Tom Day requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. StewartNetAddict (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Teddy Bailey

The article Teddy Bailey has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article has no references

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. AlanS (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2014 (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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:AmericanFootballLeague.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AmericanFootballLeague.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:StrattonTacklesLincoln.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:StrattonTacklesLincoln.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Don Allen (American football)

The article Don Allen (American football) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 07:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Charley Barnes

The article Charley Barnes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unref blp

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]