User talk:Sliat 1981

G'day mate, just letting you know about the footy project we have going on - WikiProject AFL. We've got 49 members at the moment but make sure you tell all your mates as this is the biggest source of footy info on the net - and we want to keep it that way! Join the project and drop us a line on my talk page with any questions. Cheers mate, Rogerthat ^Talk 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Sliat 1981, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bttle.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 07:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pls.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 23:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 16:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:H-cmc2a.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 03:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 20:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 02:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 03:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

G'day Sliat,

you may have missed it, but we had a great deal of rather embarrassing edit warring recently over whether we should call a certain sport "football" or "soccer". At the moment the issue has settled on "football (soccer)", partly as a compromise, and partly because many other parts of Wikipedia refer to it thus. This is not an issue we want to have flare up again. Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed you've changed "footballer" to "footballer (soccer)" on many bio pages (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joshua_Rose&diff=prev&oldid=44030727). Please note that "footballer (soccer)" doesn't make any sense, and you should have changed it to football (soccer) player (and not "footballer (soccer) player" either, which makes even less sense). Please be careful when making these changes as it creates more work for others. Cursive 13:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jd4.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an arguement why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 18:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Durham.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey 04:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Seekers.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey 04:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Horler.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey 04:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded two images and claimed to be both of them, Durham and Horler... Remember: Users who upload content with false license declarations ... may be blocked. feydey 04:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Loudysmiling.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey 05:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. feydey 05:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always give sources that people using wikipedia can themselves retrieve, a working URL, better a book or magazine. Also the english Wikipedia follows US copyrights so do not claim: ...is from my Father's old magazine from the sixties, so the copyright status is well past date. In the US all materials after 1923 are copyrighted usually (see Wikipedia:Copyright). Please do not break copyright laws. Thanks. feydey 05:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the images are not from the US they are hosted on US computers so the locl copyright laws abide. Please read what is proper to upload before uploading or the images might get deleted. Also please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Thanks. feydey 05:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for listing your article on turkish australians for deletion :)

Please do not remove maintenance notices from articles unless the required changes have been made to the article. If you are uncertain whether the article requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the article's talk page before removing the notice from the article. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. Thank you. 193.122.31.188 09:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against Talk page etiquette. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator.

The intent of this is to give you time to consider your position as previously advised. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC) I do not want to respond. I have nothing more to say and the conversation is over. I just don't care about it anymore.[reply]

I just don't care about it anymore.... unblock denied -- Tawker 14:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself bitten - denied. --Doc ^ask? 20:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

these people were not asking me anything. they were making a point and did not ask for a responce. the issue was over and i wanted to forget the unplesantness

Denied. — Apr. 13, '06 [10:21] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

all right you've made ur point. i'll fix it up again

So what the heck to you want me to do?

You are arguing about something that is largely subjective and really doesn't warrant any mention in the article. Whatsmore your addition doesn't make sense and disupts the narrative of the text.--nixie 06:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text is talking about sports Australia participates in on an international level. Later in the same paragraph other sports that are popular in Australia. Did you even read it?--nixie 06:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that you have exceeded the 3RR? This is blockable for 24 hoursßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text as it stands, before you started editing it with you POV, was choosen for a few very specific reasons, first cricket and union are not the most played sports, that's Aussie rules, second it's POV to pick out some sports- with no basis in fact and say that they are the "most popular". Netball Australia has far less members that the AFL or NRL. Please stop changing the text to reflect you understanding of the subject.--nixie 07:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sliat, could you please actually read the text you are changing and notice that it doesn't say anything about which sports are most popular. It mentions strong international teams, then other sports which are an important part of Australian culture in one way or another. Your versions mention cricket, rugby league, etc twice, and don't really reflect reality. Finally, if you really can't accept the neutral wording, please discuss it at Talk:Australia, instead of repeatedly changing it without consensus. JPD (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your Official WP:3RR warning. Since you've stopped reverting, I'm not going to block you now. But if you restart, you will get blocked. Please read 3RR carefully, and better still read WP:1RR carefully William M. Connolley 16:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so scared

We already mention that Ms. Kidman is Australian in the opening paragraph. --Yamla 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Football Hall of Fame has been selected as the new Australian collaboration. As you voted for it, please help to improve the article in any way you can. Scott Davis ^Talk 14:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've gone a bit far off topic in the NRL article, user talk is a more appropriate place for it. I can't work out at the moment exactly what the problems are, but generally no article should be in a category and also its parent category. eg if Western Bulldogs is in Category:Sporting clubs in Melbourne, there is no need for it to also be in Category:Sport in Melbourne, since the first category is a sub-category of the second. That's the only apparent dispute I've looked at, I suggest you talk with Chuq about it, rather than me. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 10:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have talked to him. I have explained why they should be in both as Sydney United and the lower grade soccer teams are. I think if they are there, so should the other codes.

It doesn't seem to be a case of "if A is there, then B should be there", it should be "should A be there? should B be there?". Sydney United is only in Category:Sport in Sydney. Sport in Sydney is a sub-cat of Category:Sport in New South Wales, so no article should be in both (except possibly Sport in Sydney, if it existed). The clubs should be added to Category:Sport in Sydney, but there is no need to add them to Category:Sport in New South Wales as well. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 10:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well he edited Newcastle Knights out, yet left Central Coast Mariners in of Sport in New South Wales. Being that they can not be catergorised in Sport in Sydney, I felt a right to put them there. --Sliat 1981 10:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Newcastle Knights are in Category:Sport in Newcastle, New South Wales, which in turn is a sub-cat of Category:Sport in New South Wales. Again, it is redundant to have this article in both. Seeing as there is no Category:Sport on the Central Coast of New South Wales, it is logical to have Central Coast Mariners in Category:Sport in New South Wales. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 10:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what your comments about different football codes have to do with it. My edits were related to the fact that Category:Sporting clubs in Melbourne is a sub-category of Category:Sport in Melbourne which is a sub-category of Category:Sport in Victoria. Having a single article in all three categories is redundant, hence my reversions to your changes. I don't know what Melbourne Victory and so on have to do with it - all I was doing was reverting changes you made, so I can't really revert them when you haven't touched them. -- Chuq 10:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted your changes concerning Tim the film (or movie). According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) the name should be film. Not that movie isn't good but it was decided that all movie articles should be consistent. So film was chosen in the end. Garion96 ^(talk) 12:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realised when I wrote the above that you already made an article. I moved the article to Tim (film). Happy editing! Garion96 ^(talk) 13:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I revert inappropriate comments as I see them - I don't go and scan the entirity of the pages history looking for them. Please don't threaten people with "reporting them for vandalism" when I did no such thing. -- Chuq 11:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume to know what other people are thinking. I simply checked the last edit of the article (as I do to many articles in my watchlist) and noticed the last one was a personal attack, so reverted it. I notice this isn't the first time where you have assumed an innocent action was an attack on you and the things you like. I assure you that it's not the case and you don't need to be defensive. -- Chuq 07:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Gaol is Australian English and appropriate for the article on Australia and the Vietnam War.--Arktos ^talk 09:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the Nicole Kidman article, could you please consider:

1. Sticking to facts. Saying she has X passport(s), has X nationality parents, rasied in X says a lot more about her identity than "she is AUstralian".

2. Please explain your edits and do NOT make repeated clumbsy reverts. I refer to you 2nd revert of my removal of a number of single-sentence paragraphs, and your removal of my standardisation of image sizes. Remember, wikipedia is about communication and the assumption of good faith. Why for example do you insist on having 3 different image sizes and a continuous series of 1 or at most 2 sentence paragraphs about the SAME topic.

3. Just because something has been there for a long time doesn't mean it is necessarily "correct" nor does it mean it cannot be challenged - it is no justification for keeping something.

Thanks. --Merbabu 05:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your response seems to miss my point. I too would call her an Australian - i have no problem with, but it is how it is written. But you cannot tell people what to believe - people just aren't going to accept what you tell them, you need to back it up. Ie, you can't just say "she is an Australian". If as you say you have been doing this for months, did you not stop to think what the problem was? Instead, just state the facts - she was born in Hawaii to AYstralian parents, was raised in Australia and holds dual citizenship (US & Aust). I think that makes it clear. And if as you say she "always" refers herslelf as an Australian, you would be helpping your cause if you included a reliable source or two. Wikipedia is not about telling people what they should assume, rather, providing facts only for them to make their own decisions.

Also, could you please my other two points above, or, shall i just assume you are a clumsy reverter? And please sign comments you leave on people's user pages. --Merbabu 06:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you still missed my point. But don't worry about it. --Merbabu 06:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silat, are you familiar with the Three-revert rule? The problem i see at the moment on the Nicole Kidman page is that from my calculations you have now reverted that first paragraph at least 5 times, mainly in opposition to myself, Sarah & slf67. --Merbabu 06:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: don't know if you were the one who just wrote the last comment on my page (it was unsigned), but it isn't up to just three people to decide what the first paragraph should say. Besides, if I can't revert it, I'll just type it out again. It doesn't really bother me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)

That is in clear violation of the 3RR. It does not mean just through a standard revert process, but any edit that has the effect of a revert. Ie, your "typed" reverts. I suggest you take it easy. Such an attitude gets you blocked. You are basically saying that your way is the way it is going to be and anyone else can go jump - well, Wikipedia is about collaboration, you need to learn this. You can start by explaining some of your edits better. --Merbabu 07:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Sarah (Talk) 07:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:3RR. Changing it to what you think it should be is the same as reverting. Please stop or you will be blocked. Sarah (Talk) 07:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know any of the other users and can assure you they aren't my friends. I reverted your edit because I believe it was not beneficial to the article. Please sign your talk page comments. Sarah (Talk) 07:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:3RR. You clearly do not understand the policy. Sarah (Talk) 07:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!--Golden Wattle ^talk 10:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think that it was clear enough why i corrected the articles by saying that Peter Daicos is Greek. Replying to your statements one by one: 1. Yes, he was known as the Macedonian marvel, but as u can see in his article, 'Mecedonian' redirects to Macedonia (Greece). This is were his family origins were from. not from modern day FYROM. Apropos, when his parents emigrated to Australia, FYROM was called Vardar Banovina. 2. The name 'Daicos' is a Greek Macedonian surname, not a Slav Macedonian one. This is obvious enough. U are an Australian from Melburne, i bet u know Greeks there... All of our names end in -s. Slavic names end in -ov, -fski, -ich, but not in -s. I have a link from Cambridge University Press about the Greeks in Australia [1], where his name is mentioned clearly [2]. And i am quite sure, that it is possible to find more sources. Thanks for your messange. I will not revert u, until u reply. Ciao --Hectorian 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are u talking about? Have u got any idea of geography and history? Me, and the rest of the Greeks, do not consider what u call "Macedonia" to be Greek! There is the region of Greek Macedonia, whose people are called simply 'Macedonians' and they are Greeks. Your POV regarding how the people of FYROM are called is none of my interests. Peter Daicos' origins are from the Greek Macedonia, his surname is Greek and u are listing him as a Slavo-Macedonian. The ancient region of Macedonia is indeed still owned by Greece, and the modern Republic to which u are refering to does not have the copyright of the name. As a matter of fact, your own country recognises it with the name the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (id est "the republic that used to be called Macedonia within the limits of former communist regime of Yugoslavia). Deal with it! about this But simply renaming someone as Greek because you think their country should be owned by Greece is just POV opinions, not fact that u said, i consider it offensive, since i do not care whose their country is. but Peter Daicos is from Greek Macedonia. so, rephrasing your statement, i say that But simply listing someone as non-Greek because you think their region should not be owned by Greece is just POV opinions, not fact. Thus, i am reverting your edits, and btw, u have not replied to what i said above, not to the source i provided (which is more credible than yours). Regards and remember that POV-pushing is not allowed. --Hectorian 22:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my aggresive way in the last comment of mine, but i got angry, cause u were talking about things i never said. about the link u provided, it states that his family came from the Lerinsko region of Aegean Macedonia. Aegean Macedonia is a term some none-Greeks use for the Greek Macedonia. so, i was not wrong in saying that he comes from Greek Macedonia. btw, the link u showed me is Written for an American-Macedonian monthly, which i can hardly consider it as neutral. as a counterbalance, i could provide links from the Pan-Macedonian Assosiation, to see the Greek POV, instead of the FYROMian. However, i am not 100% sure either if he is of Greek descent. i just say that place of origins and surname are greek, and that the fact that he was called 'Macedonian marvel' can well signify a greek origin, instead of slavic one. it is not surprising if a greek identifies with his regional name... u may listen to Greek-Cypriots saying that they are just Greeks or Cypriots, and to people of Crete saying that they are Cretans. it is the same case with the Greeks in the Greek Macedonia. many times, their federations abroad have the regional name as their title (e.g. Pontian Assosiation of Germany). this is not something to be used as if they are not Greeks (they are just subgroups of the Greeks) (e.g. Bavarians, Saxons, Berliners are all Germans). for the moment, i have reverted u. i am not sure if i can find more info about him (have in mind that i hardly know anything about him and his career). however, if u find anything more, pls let me know before u revert me. Thanks:) --Hectorian 23:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U are Australian, and i bet u know a lot about sports. so, tell me: if he was not of greek origins, how come he was named as vice-captain of the Greek-Australian AFL Team of the Century in 2002? [3] (pro-FYROMian webpage!). don't u know that? can u find more about it? so, revert yourself. --Hectorian 23:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, i am not angry with u, but angry with the way some people try to hijack a name which they prefer to use (but internationally they can't) into refering only to them. Peter Daicos was named vice captain of the Greek Team of the Century, he accepted the honour, and i bet he is in the group picture [4]. This can be an undisputed source about his origins. what u have presented me is a link for a clearly pro-FYROM article, in which it is mentioned what he "supposendly" said in an interview. the name 'Macedonian marvel' can refer to his greek heritage as i said before. u have no reason to include him in Macedonian Slavs, unless u find sources that he had at least such ancestry. i will revert u again, placing an internal link to the Greek Team of the Century in my edit-comment. pls, do not revert back, unless u have sources about him been a Slavo-Macedonian. Regards (still not angry with u personally:)...). btw, he is Australian, as u said before... no doubt about that:) --Hectorian 23:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in my 20s, i live in Greece and i do not remember the specific interview (if it happened anyway...), but i have cousins in Melburne who i guess know about it:). I certainly did not mean u trying to hijack anything (look in the internal link i made under 'people'-obviously not refering to u!). Saying that he have been accepted into the Greek team because realistically there is not enough players from Macedonian origin to make a Macedonian team of the century, sorry, but seems ridiculous to me... Only people of Greek origins were accepted there, and so, he was as well. for me it is clear enough. as for 'only he can say which his origins are', i guess he said it by joing a team strickly limited to people of Greek heritage. claiming a biased source that he was not greek cannot solve things, nor can it be presented as fact or dispute (have in mind that i can find greek biased sources), from the very moment that in a unique way he said he is of greek origins. the first link u gave me says that he is 'macedonian' (have in mind that Greek Macedonians also self identify as Macedonians, in the same way that other regional greek sub-groups also use the regional name). only a clear interview by him saying that he is not of Greek descent could make me accept his inclusion in Macedonian-Slavs. sorry, but at the moment everything points out that he is Greek... Keep searching and let me know if u have found something clear and credible. Take care. Ciao --Hectorian 00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on man! why are u doing this? i have explained everything: place of origins, surname, links from the Cambridge University Press and the Greek AFS Team of the Century, photo, usage of the term 'Macedonian', a pro-FYROM site that says he is Greek!, et cetera! all u have have provided is a biased link and another one which merely mentions the name 'macedonian' and nothing more! why don't just quit? u cannot support your claim, unless u find something more. --Hectorian 00:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... now u call me a racist... u know, i could quote pro-Greek sites and articles written by Greeks... but i won't. Your link is the only one that gives a reason for the 'Macedonian Marvel' origin, cause u have stricktly connected in your mind the term 'Macedonian' with the new republic of the Balkans. I will revert u again, but not now cause i do not want to break the 3RR. --Hectorian 00:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviously" written by a Greek... nice attitude... No, your claim is not as legitimate as mine: was he named vice captain in a team where only players of greek origin could take part? he was and he did accept the honour. nothing can be more clear than this. --Hectorian 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately u fail to understand that 'Macedonian' does not refer only to FYROM. Had he been from another Greek region than Greek Macedonia, his nickname may had been 'Cretan marvel' or 'Thessalian marvel', but this would not mean that he is not Greek. He became the vice captain of the greek time, so he is greek. u can quote anything u like, no matter how biased it will be, but he will still be Greek... Don't worry, other wikipedians will notice what is going on in this article, and so, it will be fixed... Oh, and u indeed called me a racist ... --Hectorian 00:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Eurovision Song Contest, the singers are not obliged to be natives of the country they represent (see Celine Dion). Eurovision Song Contest is for EBU members, not for European countries only (see that Morocco has also taken part). But the Greek Team of the Century was made up strictly by Greeks (players who had at least some Greek ancestry). So, he undoutably has greek origins. Also when he was younger, he would have been likely to deny being called Greek, now that he's is been accepted into the Greek team, he feels less sensitive about it u are making assumptions to support your claim?! Once more: 'saying "Macedonian" it does not mean "non-Greek", quite the contrary... I will revert u again, until u find some Slavo-Macedonian ancestry regarding him. --Hectorian 01:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, big diff... U did not call me a racist, but said that i SEEM like one... --Hectorian 01:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was nominated because he has greek origins, just like all the others were nominated. it is a team for Greek-Australian only. saying that a source is biased, it does not mean that u say that the author is racist! come on! u know better english than me, i guess... I do not know if he is 100% greek, but i do know that he has at least some greek origins. that's our difference: u have no idea if he has slavo-macedonian origins... In the beginning u had been removing his name from the Greek Australians (u, a football fun, did not know that he was in the Greek Team of the Century?! it is written in his article! yes, the one u reverted...). then, when i found out about that team u said 'OK, include him in both...". It seems that u are POV-pushing, and now that u can't exclude him from Greek Australians, u are trying to preserve the least of what u wanted... Debating with u is over for me, for the same reason u said about me. --Hectorian 01:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to a 3RR violation. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. El_C 10:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to review policy list. You also need to take your argument to the "American born" section on Kidman's talk page where the current consensus is against you (do not reply on my talk page-it will be deleted if you do).

I personally don't care whether she is Aussie or American, and it has nothing to do with what I know, but to claim one or the other is a "claim", and according to policy on Bios of living persons needs to be sourced, or removed, and this process is not subject to the three revert rule. It will always be reverted. You need to consider the revert war you have engaged in as disrupting the editing process. So take it to the talk page. If she considers herself as Australian in spite of being dual nationalist, it must be cited, and it must also be negotiated whether the info belongs in the lead paragraph, or integrated in the body of the text (e.g. trivia). Other members engaged in the discussion have been informed. If your edit war continues I will take to a mediator. If you do not like what I have written, you need to take it to a mediator. Amerindianarts 16:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to reply in the discussion section at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-08_Nicole_Kidman), a page created for mediation to end the revert war. Amerindianarts 00:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your blatant violation of WP:3RR on Nicole Kidman is unacceptable. That it is at least the third time you have violated this policy is quite upsetting. However, as the issue has now gone to mediation, I am not blocking you in the hopes that you contribute your rationales on the mediation page. This is instead of a block, so please don't abuse this. --Yamla 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit of Sydney FC you requested citation of "glamour team". Well, take your pick (2 minute job, Google will get you plenty more if required) .....[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] -[dM] 03:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise not touching the article again, and bringing your concerns to the talk page. Noticing your editing history, your edits are reverted immediately. Any further edits to this article along the lines of the previous ones will likely cause you to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 01:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. Don't do that again. Your provided "citation" absolutely does not make any claim of Kidman holding only single citizenship or even being Australian. Only the person doing the interviewing makes any claim and that claim has nothing to do with her citizenship. --Yamla 23:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation needs to provide evidence that she does not hold dual citizenship. Or specifically, that she has renounced her American citizenship. I can say that I'm Canadian but this does not imply that I am not also British. --Yamla 01:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "About that thing you put on my page. You and Nicloe Kidman are not that same cases. Nicole's parents and whole family are Australian. She does not have any American ancestory. "

Except, of course, she was born in the U.S.A. which makes her American. --Yamla 17:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Olivia de Harland is Japanese and Vivian Leigh is Indian are they? You're trying to claim someone as american, even though they have never refered to themselves as one and has several times reffered to herself as an australia? that's pretty lame. american must be desparate for stars if they're trying to claim someone who's proud to be an australian as their own

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 48 hours for this. This is absolutely unacceptable. When your block expires, please return and contribute positively. Naconkantari 00:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for one week for your continued vandalism of Nicole Kidman. --Yamla 17:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sliat 1981 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

i have been blovked for so called "valdalisim of the page. if you have a look where the case was reffered to:[13] nothing has yet been resloved and aggreed on. the article was temporarly blocked while we were to discuss it. they have gotten rid of the blocking and simply said that their view has prevailed even though nothing was yet aggreed on. this person hasd no more right to revert it than me. I demand to be treated fairly.

Decline reason:

Silat, your behaviour has been inappropriate for months. You've been warned repeatedly by numerous people, but have chosen to continue. I suggest you be very grateful that you haven't been indefinitely blocked and take this opportunity to have a break and rethink your editing habits here. -- Sarah (Talk) 07:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Excuse me, these various people r u and yamila who think their ideas on nicole are right and they're right. u had no right to remove the protection on this article. i'm going to fight this and make sure that u both get into trouble for using it. u had no right to touch that article. You have chosen to ignore the proff and quotes i have put on there. you should be blocked for removing nthe protection and reverting it before anything was agreed on. so you have no right to judge my blocking and be thankful i'm not demanding you get blocked too

Knock it off. I don't care about Nicole Kidman (check how many times I've edited the article), I care about your extremely disruptive behaviour over a sustained period of time. I did not remove protection, nor have I "touched" the article and I have no idea why you accuse me of these things. You're welcome to report me for refusing to unblock you. If you continue with your disruptive behaviour, you are going to be indefinitely blocked. Sarah (Talk) 07:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So ur alowwed to revert it because u think ur right and i'm wrong. well that sounds really fair

I haven't reverted the page. I haven't touched the article since the start of September. Your accusations against me are false, unfair and unfounded. Please stop abusing the unblock tag or your page will be protected. Sarah (Talk) 08:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sliat 1981 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

this person has no right to judge as they are forcing their views while dismissing mine. i demand not to be judged by someone who is biased in this case

Decline reason:

Though I agree that this is purely a content dispute (and not vandalism), I will not be lifting the block on anyone who is grossly violating Wikipedia:Civility by calling other editors "bitches" and threatening to have administrators blocked. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sliat 1981 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I already was blocked for that and sat it out. not unblocking me because even if u think i shouldn't be and just because you don't like my attitude is very unprofessionable

Decline reason:

Your past and continued disruption and incivility don't bode well -- you've called another editor a "bitch," and now you've made repeated and baseless accusations of conspiracy against another editor who hasn't even edited the article in question, all the while reverting or removing her comments. I need reason to think you'll do anything but continue edit warring, before I'd unblock -- evidence of willingness to discuss your edits and actions would be great. Please take a day or two off from editing, at least, before using another unblock template. -- Luna Santin 08:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wikipedia:Civility: "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.". How am I "unprofessionable" for enforcing standard policy? Your block was escalated because you resumed tendentious editing right after your last block expired. I'll let a third administrator review your block, but in light of your most recent threat, it's doubtful it will be lifted. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me those people have been editing the same article without agreeing to the talk page, y werent tyhey blocked? as i said i was already blocked 4 this civility thing

The next time you dishonestly delete comments, I will protect this page so you cannot edit it. Sarah (Talk) 08:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me, u deleted my responce 2 yamila and got rid of my apealls twice. sonn as i get out of this i'm gonna recommend u 2 b blocked

You have been told enough. Once more and I protect this page completely. Glen 09:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ihateuden.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 01:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not delete the image. I nominated it for deletion because it was not used anywhere making it an orphan. Orphan images are rountinely deleted on Wikipedia. -Nv8200p talk 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I SpecialWindler give you this barnstar for your willingness to contribute to rugby league related articles, namely images. Keep up the Good work. SpecialWindler talk 23:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. It would be good if you could get other player (namely opposite teams from Melbourne), but nonetheless, good work. SpecialWindler talk 23:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deliberately provided fraudulent information on Image:Mattruajv6.jpg. Wikipedia does not tolerate actions such as this. You have been blocked indefinitely until you can provide a suitable explanation for this and can convince an administrator that you will never again lie like this. Until this account is unblocked, WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK prohibits you from editing using any other account or editing anonymously. --Yamla 15:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Sliat 1981 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

original block message

• Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: This is not an autoblock, but a seemingly appropriate direct block, per the comments by Yamla above this template. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop blocking this computer? It is a shared computer and you are stopping everyone here from using it. Block the person if you want to

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Sliat 1981 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

original block message

• Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 11:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not exactly true, you say this is not an autoblock, yet on my request it says to lift this "autoblock". Secondly I originlly uploaded the picture. Despite adding the links to the permission and the person's contact details, this photo was deleted. I asked him what I should do and he said I should try uploading it as my own. I uploaded it and now I am blocked. I undersatand that they do not like it when I say its mine when its not, but I did have permission and nobody listened to me when I showed my proof in the first place when I unblocked it.

• Note to other reviewing admins: Urgeback (talk · contribs), Sliat 1981 (talk · contribs) and Bremskraft (talk · contribs) have made the same sort of malformed unblock requests at about the same time, at times making references to one another. This would seem to indicate some sort of meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry. Sandstein 13:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally per Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bremskraft Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is now shown to be an incorrect linkage although Urgeback and Silat_1981 are believed to share a computer/ip. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sliat 1981 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

When I originally uploaded the photo, it was deleted because I was not the creator. I told them the person and gave their address to contact them. They still deleted. Then he suggested I upload it as my own. Now I am blocked because I did what he said. I have his contact details here: [email protected]. He is htew author and please contact and ask him before you decline my request for unblocking.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry but this isn't a good reason for violating copyright and Wikipedia's policies, especially since you were aware of them having had the image deleted the first time. — Shell ^babelfish 19:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This does not explain your false claim that you owned the image. --Yamla 17:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the line "I asked him what I should do and he said I should try uploading it as my own." I did what someone else suggested I told him to. Did you contact him or did you just keep the block like I think you did?

Thanks for uploading Image:Billyslater.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

slait_1981 here. I am unable to log in Yamla has blocked me and am unable to even answer in my own defence to these accusations. Although there is proof I did not take the Mattrua.jpg photo (I am not denying it), proof I took them myself is consistent with this link here: http://www.thebaistand.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=42&topic=4553.0

Thanks for uploading Image:Hoffyi.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

slait_1981 here. I am unable to log in Yamla has blocked me and am unable to even answer in my own defence to these accusations. Although there is proof I did not take the Mattrua.jpg photo (I am not denying it), proof I took them myself is consistent with this link here: http://www.thebaistand.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=42&topic=4553.0

Thanks for uploading Image:Hoffy.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

slait_1981 here. I am unable to log in Yamla has blocked me and am unable to even answer in my own defence to these accusations. Although there is proof I did not take the Mattrua.jpg photo (I am not denying it), proof I took them myself is consistent with this link here: http://www.thebaistand.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=42&topic=4553.0 Having said that, I much prefer the Hoffi.jpg pic I took so if you want to delete this one I will not complain.

Thanks for uploading Image:IMG_0206.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kingy.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

slait_1981 here. I am unable to log in Yamla has blocked me and am unable to even answer in my own defence to these accusations. Although there is proof I did not take the Mattrua.jpg photo (I am not denying it), proof I took them myself is consistent with this link here: http://www.thebaistand.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=42&topic=4553.0

Your request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

• Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
• Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
  • If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
• Click View source on that article.
• Copy and paste the contents of that page at the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = Article title =)
• Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article.
• When are you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
  • If we are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you.

The Melbourne Storm are a professional rugby league football club based in the city of Melbourne, Australia. The Melbourne club play in the Australasia's first grade competition, the National Rugby League premiership. The Melbourne Storm has won one premiership in their ten years in the first grade competition.

The club was founded in 1998, in the new competition National Rugby League. The club is the first first grade club based in Victoria. The club has been successful in a Aussie rules heartland. They play their home games at Olympic Park but previously played their home games at Telstra Dome.

Melbourne have won the 1999 grand final only two years after being admitted into the competition, making them the quickest non foundation team to win a premiership. The club also became the minor premiers in 2006. They made the grand final in 2006, but lost to Brisbane and became runners up.

Contents [hide] 1 History 2 Emblem and colours 3 Stadium 4 Statistics and records 4.1 All time head to head record 5 Current team 6 Team of the decade 7 See also 8 References 9 External links

[edit] History Melbourne had sent it's first rugby league team to play in NSW in 1889, but the game more or less disappeared until the 1930's. In 1924 Victoria played against the visiting English Lions on the first game of their tour (losing 45-13 at Fitzroy Cricket Ground). The odd match was taken to Melbourne over the following decades - the most notorious being in 1979 when Manly and Wests initiated their 'fibros v silvertails' battles. [12] The NSWRL had let Melbourne host a number of premiership games during the early 1990s. In 1991 the St Kilda VFL club made an unsuccessful attempt to have NSWRL games played on their Moorabbin Ground, later the Sydney Tigers breifly played games at Princess Park in 1994.[13] However, attendances for Test matches and State of Origin games in the 1990s had been strong. The 1990 State of Origin played in Olympic Park, attracted a crowd of 25,000 at Olympic. Another 160,000 was attracted in three matches at the MCG (1994, 1995 and 1997). Whether a Melbourne Rugby League club could be a success on a weekly basis against Australian rules Football was another question. [14]

In August 1991 the NSWRL began to express interest for its 1993 competition, and made a request to the Victorian Rugby League to put forward a proposal. The local League showed significant hesitation, indicating that the game had little support to build upon. ^ a b c Collis, Ian and Whitaker, Alan (2004). The History of Rugby League Clubs. Sydney: New Holland Publishers (Australia) Pty Ltd, 344. ISBN 174110075–5.

However during 1993 ARL Chairman Ken Arthurson made it clear that he remained positive about Melbourne and thought it had much to offer. Former Melbourne CEO Chris Johns said; "John and I had been with the Broncos from day one and we had learnt first-hand how the club had progressed in 10 years to become a 'super club'. Melbourne had three times the population of Brisbane and the people down there just love their sport".^ a b c Collis, Ian and Whitaker, Alan (2004). The History of Rugby League Clubs. Sydney: New Holland Publishers (Australia) Pty Ltd, 344. ISBN 174110075–5.

Plans to enter Melbourne gained momentum in November 1994 when both the ARL and the organisers of the (then called) News Ltd rebel competition both began initiatives to fast track their own teams in the Victorian capital. ^ a b c Collis, Ian and Whitaker, Alan (2004). The History of Rugby League Clubs. Sydney: New Holland Publishers (Australia) Pty Ltd, 344. ISBN 174110075–5. In 1996, the Australian Rugby League (ARL) decided to establish a Melbourne based team due to the high attendances at recent State of Origin matches. But in May 1997, Super League boss John Ribot pushed for a Melbourne based club in the Super League competition, which was the rival against the ARL competition.[1] Former Brisbane Broncos centre Chris Johns became the CEO of the club and Ribot stepped down from head of the Super League to set up the club. In September 1997, Melbourne announced that Chris Anderson would be their foundation coach, and then the Super League announced that their new team will be named the Melbourne Storm.[2]

The Melbourne club then went forward with signing players from other clubs, including Robbie Ross, Glenn Lazarus, Brett Kimmorley and Scott Hill. With the Super League and ARL joining into one competition, the Melbourne team was now part of the National Rugby League (NRL) for the 1998 season. In their first ever game, they defeated Illawarra, with Glenn Lazarus being their inaugural captain. Melbourne, in a complete shock to the rest of the competition, won their first four games, before losing to Auckland.[3] They went on to make the finals, but were defeated by eventual premiers Brisbane Broncos.[4]

In 1999, Melbourne won their eight of their first eleven games, and went on to make the finals in third position on the premiership ladder. The team was beaten convincingly 34–10 in the quarter final by St. George Illawarra, but came from behind in both the semi final and preliminary final to make the grand final. Melbourne faced St. George Illawarra in the 1999 grand final, St. George Illawarra were favourites due to comfortably defeating Melbourne just three weeks earlier.[4] When St. George Illawarra were ahead 14–0 at half time and Melbourne seemed down and out, but two tries in to Melbourne put the score line at 18–14 in favour of St. George Illawarra with 15 minute remaining. With three minutes remaining Melbourne winger Craig Smith was knocked out by a high tackle which caused him to lose the ball over the try line. In a historic video refereeing decision, a penalty try was awarded and Melbourne's Matt Geyer kicked the goal that won Melbourne the 1999 Grand final.[4][5]

Between 2000 and 2002, the Melbourne club performed poorly. Cracks were starting to appear between Johns, Ribot and Anderson through out the period, and Anderson quit as coach of Melbourne mid season of 2001, and was replaced by Mark Murray. The Melbourne club failed to make the finals in 2001. Johns left the club as CEO at the end of 2002 and coach Murray was released due to Melbourne's poor form. Craig Bellamy was announced as the new coach of Melbourne for 2003.[6][7]

Between 2003 and 2005, Melbourne made the finals under coach Bellamy, but lost games in the semi finals preventing them from making the grand final. In 2006, the Melbourne team won their first minor premiership for being on top of the NRL ladder. Melbourne only lost four games in the season making them outright leaders by four wins.[8] They went on to win their two finals matches and go on to the grand final.[8] But in the grand final, against the Brisbane Broncos, they lost 8–15 to make it them runners up despite being favourites for the title.[9]

[edit] Emblem and colours Originally, the club favoured the name Melbourne Mavericks with a gunslinger logo holding a fistful of aces. The club officials were all set to go with this until News Limited's Lachlan Murdoch told them to go with something else because the Mavericks sounded too American. So CEO Chris Johns and John Ribot decided to go with the themes lightning, power and storm. The club then became known as the Melbourne Storm.[1]

The Storm was always going to go with the colours of their state, Victoria. These were navy blue with a white 'V'. But club consultant Peter McWhirter, from JAG fashion house, suggested that they should also have a flash of gold to make their merchandise more attractive.[1]

[edit] Stadium Melbourne have played the vast majority of their home matches at the city's Olympic Park Stadium. It was here that the club played their inaugural home match in the fourth round of the 1998 season on 3 April 1998, having come off the back of three successive away victories.[3] In front of what remains the club's record home attendance of 20,522, the team recorded a 26–16 victory over the North Sydney Bears.[10] The team remained at the ground until the end of the 2000 season. Following steady attendance increases over the three years, it was decided to move home games to the much larger Colonial Stadium for the following year.[6] However, with the team ending up missing the finals, crowd numbers declined and it was decided to move the team back to Olympic Park, where they have remained ever since.[7] Attendance bottomed out at 8,886 in 2004, but have risen back over 11,500 for the 2007 season.[10]

In 2007 the Victorian Government confirmed that it would be building a new 31,500 rectangular stadium at Olympic Park, adjacent to the club's current ground. The Government has stated that the ground will be used for rugby league, it remains to be seen whether the Melbourne Storm will go to the new ground when it is completed in 2009.[11]

[edit] Statistics and records Melbourne's highest ever point scorer is Matt Orford with 877 points. Current players Matt Geyer (616) and Cameron Smith (512) are the highest current players with the most points. Matt Geyer has the most tries in the club's history with 102 tries, followed by Marcus Bai (70) and current player Billy Slater (66).[12]

Melbourne's highest ever victory was the 64–0 against Wests Tigers on July 5, 2001. The most points they have ever scored is 70, when they took on the St. George Illawarra Dragons and thumped them 70–10 on March 3, 2000. However, their biggest loss was by 46 points to both the Bulldogs (50-4 on August 10, 2003) and to St. George Illawarra (50-4 on June 4, 2000).[13]

[edit] All time head to head record Over the 10 years that Melbourne have participated in the National Rugby League, they have the following Win-Loss record.[14]

(Correct to 27 July 2007 or Round 20, 2007) Games Wins Drawn Loss Tries Goals F/G Points Win % 255 153 4 98 1144 899 7 6381 61%

[edit] Current team For more information on the current season see Melbourne Storm 2007. The current team for the Melbourne Storm.[15]

No. Position Player

 FE Russell Aitken   SR Paletasala Ale   PR Scott Anderson   HK James Aubusson   PR Adam Blair   CE Will Chambers   SR Michael Crocker   HB Cooper Cronk   PR Ben Cross   PR Garrett Crossman   WG Israel Folau   HB Liam Foran   WG Matt Geyer   SR Ryan Hoffman   FE Greg Inglis   LK Dallas Johnson   No.  Position Player   PR Antonio Kaufusi   PR Jeff Lima   CE Matt King   SR Sika Manu   PR Ben Matterson   SR Clint Newton   CE Anthony Quinn   CE Ryan Shortland   FB Billy Slater   HK Cameron Smith (Captain)   SR Jeremy Smith   SR Sam Tagataese   PR Aiden Tolman   WG Steve Turner   PR Danny Vaughan   PR Brett White   

[edit] Team of the decade As part of their 10 year celebrations in 2007, Melbourne Storm released a team of the decade. The 17 man team was selected by former assistant coach Greg Brentnall, foundation CEO John Ribot, Daily Telegraph journalist Steve Mascord and board member Frank Stanton.[16]

No. Position Player 1 FB Billy Slater 2 WG Matt Geyer 3 CE Matt King 4 CE Greg Inglis 5 WG Marcus Bai 6 FE Scott Hill 7 HB Brett Kimmorley 8 PR Glenn Lazarus (captain) 9 HK Cameron Smith

 No.  Position Player  

10 PR Robbie Kearns 11 SR Ryan Hoffman 12 SR Stephen Kearney 13 LK Tawera Nikau 14 RE Rodney Howe 15 RE David Kidwell 16 RE Dallas Johnson 17 RE Cooper Cronk

[edit] See also National Rugby League Victorian Rugby League

[edit] References ^ a b c Collis, Ian and Whitaker, Alan (2004). The History of Rugby League Clubs. Sydney: New Holland Publishers (Australia) Pty Ltd, 344. ISBN 174110075–5. ^ Collis, Ian and Whitaker, Alan (2004). The History of Rugby League Clubs. Sydney: New Holland Publishers (Australia) Pty Ltd, 345. ISBN 174110075–5. ^ a b Collis, Ian and Whitaker, Alan (2004). The History of Rugby League Clubs. Sydney: New Holland Publishers (Australia) Pty Ltd, 346. ISBN 174110075–5. ^ a b c Collis, Ian and Whitaker, Alan (2004). The History of Rugby League Clubs. Sydney: New Holland Publishers (Australia) Pty Ltd, 347. ISBN 174110075–5. ^ Collis, Ian and Whitaker, Alan (2004). The History of Rugby League Clubs. Sydney: New Holland Publishers (Australia) Pty Ltd, 348. ISBN 174110075–5. ^ a b Collis, Ian and Whitaker, Alan (2004). The History of Rugby League Clubs. Sydney: New Holland Publishers (Australia) Pty Ltd, 349. ISBN 174110075–5. ^ a b Collis, Ian and Whitaker, Alan (2004). The History of Rugby League Clubs. Sydney: New Holland Publishers (Australia) Pty Ltd, 350. ISBN 174110075–5. ^ a b Rugby League Tables / Season 2006. Retrieved on 2007-07-28. ^ "Broncos edge Storm for NRL title", BBC News. Retrieved on 2007-07-28. ^ a b Rugby League Tables / Attendences Melbourne. Retrieved on 2007-08-13. ^ Major Projects - Melbourne Rectangular Stadium. Retrieved on 2007-08-13. ^ Rugby League Tables / Scorers / Melbourne. Retrieved on 2007-07-22. ^ Rugby League Tables / Game Records / Melbourne. Retrieved on 2007-07-22. ^ Rugby League Tables / Win-Loss Record / Melbourne. Retrieved on 2007-07-22. ^ Melbourne Storm Official Site Current Players. Retrieved on 2007-07-21. ^ Melbourne Storm Official Site Team of the Decade. Retrieved on 2007-07-21.

[edit] External links Official Sites

Melbourne Official Web Page NRL Official Site on Melbourne

News Sites 

Storm at foxsports.com.au/league Statistics & Information Sites

Melbourne Statistics Tables RL1908 Melbourne History

Melbourne Storm The Club Representatives • History • Records • Honours • Players • Venues Seasons 1998 • 1999 • 2000 • 2001 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • 2007 2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 Clubs in the National Rugby League, 2007 Brisbane Broncos · Bulldogs · Canberra Raiders · Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks Gold Coast Titans · Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles · Melbourne Storm · Newcastle Knights New Zealand Warriors · North Queensland Cowboys · Parramatta Eels · Penrith Panthers St George Illawarra Dragons · South Sydney Rabbitohs · Sydney Roosters · Wests Tigers

Defunct NSWRL/ARL/SL/NRL clubs Adelaide · Annandale · Balmain · Cumberland · Glebe · Gold Coast · Hunter Illawarra · Newcastle · Newtown · North Sydney · Northern Eagles Perth · South Queensland · St. George · University · Western Suburbs

NSWRL/ARL/NRL seasons 1900 · 1901 · 1902 · 1903 · 1904 · 1905 · 1906 · 1907 · 1908 · 1909 1910 · 1911 · 1912 · 1913 · 1914 · 1915 · 1916 · 1917 · 1918 · 1919 1920 · 1921 · 1922 · 1923 · 1924 · 1925 · 1926 · 1927 · 1928 · 1929 1930 · 1931 · 1932 · 1933 · 1934 · 1935 · 1936 · 1937 · 1938 · 1939 1940 · 1941 · 1942 · 1943 · 1944 · 1945 · 1946 · 1947 · 1948 · 1949 1950 · 1951 · 1952 · 1953 · 1954 · 1955 · 1956 · 1957 · 1958 · 1959 1960 · 1961 · 1962 · 1963 · 1964 · 1965 · 1966 · 1967 · 1968 · 1969 1970 · 1971 · 1972 · 1973 · 1974 · 1975 · 1976 · 1977 · 1978 · 1979 1980 · 1981 · 1982 · 1983 · 1984 · 1985 · 1986 · 1987 · 1988 · 1989 1990 · 1991 · 1992 · 1993 · 1994 · 1995 · 1996 · 1997 · 1998 · 1999 2000 · 2001 · 2002 · 2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 Super League - 1997

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sliat 1981 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have put in more information, however I can not use the graphics and images and i can't put the references properly instead of just writing it as i have forgot and can not go to the page and copy it from the edit page and i can only copy it literally

Please include a decline or accept reason.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please contact the unblock-en mailing list regarding this request. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted the person blocking me. Since she has not answered at all, I am unclear wheither she: 1) Is unable to answer. 2) Did not recieve the email. 3) Has refusewd the request. 4) Thinks i need to do more work on the article. 5) Is too preoccupied to give a response at the present time.

As you've been told above, please email [email protected] . Sarah 04:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly am i meant to do that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs) 01:12:48, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I removed your picture that you had under Greg Inglis. It was a picture of a Storm player NOT Greg Inglis. It was not appropriate to place it there. Hopefully you can get another one.Roadrunnerz45 06:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the defaultsort at Billy Slater - I left off a bracket when editing. Fixed it now. I removed the Fox Sports link to the Big League ad as it is more ad than story, but the other report (Storm skipper makes it a hat-trick) pretty much covers the comment. Cheers! ~ Florrie • talk • 23:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Iwthswvn.JPG, 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. Nv8200p talk 03:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sgfcs.JPG, 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. Skier Dude (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Melbourne Storm/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Samjoe.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AAMParkscreen.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing the culture of Australia page. Where it says about other sports, I have changed as it says Australia is focused on british sports. I feel this is wrong as it degrades all other sports Austraia is interested in. can you help? 60.224.3.243 (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also someone has written on the Santa Claus page and put Father Christmas first and santa second. I feel this is false as far more children call him Santa. Can you help? 60.224.3.243 (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Brenda Hodge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnotable person, and a BLP nightmare

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. Herostratus (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is perfectly good article, and thank you for contributing it. But I PRODed it anyway. Why? In my opinion in violates the spirit of WP:BLP. There's just too much negative info there. Granted the woman wrote a book and appeared on TV. Even so she may not want a Wikipedia article, which has high visibility. There is also negative info about other people who may be alive. You can remove the PROD, but unless convinced otherwise I'll send it to WP:AFD, I think. It might survive an AfD, though. Herostratus (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said gave me 7 days. You deleted it before the agreed day, even though you stated I had the time to argue my case. I am not on this computer 24/7. I am only on weekends, so I could not get to the computer. I thought I had time, but you deleted it before the agreed time, simply because you couldn't wait. I had plenty or arguments for retaining it and other information to change the article. But because you could not even wait the time you gave for me to tell my side, you deleted it. Now all the information I have on it is lost6. Thanks for nothing. There is no point mentioning what I was going to do or what my arguments were for retaining it Sliat 1981 (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete it, that was done by JamesBWatson. He said at the time that it was an "Expired PROD" which would mean seven days had passed. But nevermind that. Any "PROD" (Proposed Deletion) can be stopped by any one person, so, you may ask JamesBWatson to restore the article in its previous form. (I would do this but I do not have the technical ability to restore articles.) In fact I will ask him myself to do it, right now. OK? I do sincerely apologize to you if you feel that you have been ill-used. I recognize that people can't always get on the computer. We set "seven days" as the expiration date for a Proposed Deletion because we have to have some deadline. (If the seven days had indeed not passed, this was a mistake on our part, for which we would apologize). Any further questions, feel free to message me. Herostratus (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we now have two versions of the article - the one that existed before deletion and the one that you have started to re-create - is a complication that you will have to work out with JamesBWatson. Herostratus (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have made a mistake: the 7 days for the PROD to expire still had a couple of hours to go when I deleted the article. I would in any case have restored the article on request. I have now restored the edit history, so the earlier versions are available if anyone wants them. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a better discrtion so that this image can be placed in catagories. Who is "vanessa"?

Thanks for uploading File:Meltigchmp.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 the "Edit" tab at the top of the 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) 11:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Greg Inglis 2007.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned, redundant to higher-quality pictures of Greg Inglis such as File:Greg Inglis - Flickr - Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer.jpg or File:Greg Inglis Australia.jpg

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HouseBlaster^talk 14:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]