User talk:Timsdad/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Orphaned non-free image (File:CF Pachuca.PNG)

You've uploaded File:CF Pachuca.PNG, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sony Camcorders

You edited an article where I made a change about sony avchd cameras. Are you a camera expert? Im not being facetious im just asking because I am and own several hd cameras. Sony camcorders are no longer limited to 1440x1080 and there are multiple resolutions. Why would you revert an updated statement to a previous one that is no longer true?

Thanks 82.35.171.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

I apologise for reverting your edit, at the time it looked to me like a common unsourced edit which read a little like an advertisement. I now look back on many other edits on the article along with yours and can see that the entire article is in fact full of unsourced material and needs a serious cleanup. Maybe a camera expert like you should be the one to do it? Also, please post on a talk page by clicking the 'New section' tab above the page as this will create your section down the bottom of a talk page (it may seem to newer users that editors will see comments up the top, but I had trouble finding my 'new message'). Thanks, timsdad ^(talk) 11:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries thanks for the explanation. I felt it was confusing to see a statement that all sony cameras recorded 1440x1080 and see a few lines down about cameras that have higher resolutions, so to the uninformed it can be very confusing. I think I will perhaps do some work on the article. Apologies for the talk-page issue. 92.237.105.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

Reports of FT cancelation

I am a major supporter of the TTII but i do not like it when people say that it is approved. Even though in two days there have been 2 people claiming that the FT is cancelled from the same source. We need to control ths problem or investigate so we know waht is true 67.191.207.167 (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if the problem persists and we still have not found any sources supporting its approval, then we might have no choice but to put semi-protection on the article (which means anonymous IP users cannot edit it) in which case I suggest you create an account for yourself. --timsdad ^(talk) 04:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I do have a ancount. an i have for 2 years. Im using it right now Holden yo (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to put the artical on semi lock Holden yo (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

More on Marshall Strabala photo

Duplicate at Talk:Marshall Strabala#Images Placed on Marshall Strabala page. --timsdad ^(talk) 15:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelaide United season 2005-06

all done now - as a future note you can do this faster with {{db-move}}. Happy editing - Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Marshall Strabala

Timsdad

Just curious, how long does Copyright Status question have to be attached to Marshall's photo before it is removed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Strabala  ??

Also, you will notice I have added more of his project photos to the page since we last communicated, some of which have not appeared on Flickr or elsewhere. Thank you. Mykjoseph (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Mykjoseph

The copyright notice must stay in the picture's caption, and on the image's description page until the issue is addressed here. People will get to the discussion eventually. And yes, I did notice those images, and I have no problem with them. --timsdad ^(talk) 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Image of U2 at football park

Where the image "should" appear is a function of page-width; it is not an absolute.
If the viewer uses a narrow page width, the image "should" be centred. If the viewer uses a wide page width, I agree that it looks better on the right. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked that. I've re-centred it now. Cheers, --timsdad ^(talk) 10:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Unrelated: I somehow find it satisfying that more people went to a football match at football park, than to the U2 concert. On-the-other-hand, I find it sad that the football match was over 30 years ago ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a shame. It's the case with many purpose-built stadiums. The MCG's an example, although AFL and cricket matches are more similar to each other than a music concert and a footy match.

Orphans

Thank you for taking the time and effort to explain; I assure you that it is appreciated.
So, an "orphan" isn't necessarily, an orphan at all, it's anything that is "almost" an orphan. Fine, I can live with that.
But even so, so what?
Why is it such a big deal?
And why is it a big enough deal to merit its own template?
I really don't understand what all the fuss is about, and I really don't see the value achieved by putting a template at the top of the page.
To me, it sounds very much like a solution that is addressing a "problem" that isn't really a problem at all.
However, I'm receptive to any reasonable explanation of any real problems ...
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I totally agree with you. But it's not up to us to decide how Wikipedia should be run, and orphans have been part of it from the start. Personally, I'm just going to abide by the rules. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Random

"This user is a Los Angeles Dodgers fan."
I can understand "Adelaide United", "the Australian Socceroos", "the Adelaide Crows Football Club", "the Australian cricket team", "the Southern Redbacks", "the West Adelaide Bloods" - even "the Adelaide 36ers".
But the "Los Angeles Dodgers"???
Pdfpdf (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well after spending a few weeks in LA I picked up on some baseball while I was there. I've never really been that interested, but there wasn't much on over there so I supported them for a while. I felt it necessary to add some foreign userboxes on my page. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Bahrain World Trade Center

Dear Timsdad,
Since you are an active editor on the Bahrain World Trade Center article, i think you should see this and this; i know, i really didnt know that it existed :). Do you think we should delete it? Rehman (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I had no idea they existed either. Seeing as they only link to each other and no other articles (orphaned), one could hardly expect to find them. Good spotting! Yes, they should be deleted, I have listed them both for deletion per WP:PROD. Thanks for that, --timsdad ^(talk) 06:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. Thanks for tagging them. Have a nice day :). Rehman (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A-League articles, templates

With regard to the A-League articles, someone decided that "FC" should be added to every club in the A-League, regardless of whether it is used anywhere by the team in the club's logo, the history section of the website, or anything. Gold Coast United are just Gold Coast United. There's no "FC," their name is not "Gold Coast United Football Club" or any of that. Secondly, if a club's name ends in "FC" (note: without the fullstops/periods) like Sydney FC, for instance, then the club's full name is just "Sydney FC." Look at other articles like AFC Wimbledon, FC Dallas, etc. If the club's name really is something like "Melbourne Victory Football Club," then the club's article should be at "Melbourne Victory F.C." and the club should be piped as "Melbourne Victory." See Arsenal F.C., Manchester United F.C. etc.

As for the templates, clubs with "F.C." should have it left out of the piped link, and clubs with "FC" should have it included. These are the names of the clubs, and the A-League should follow the same rules as everyone else. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Adelaide United FC#A-League clubs: FC to F.C.. --timsdad ^(talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perth Glory F.C.

Just a heads up on Perth Glory F.C.. I've declined Grant.Alpaugh's speedy deletion request, and suggested to him that the two of you form consensus rather than reverting each other. You'll find my message to him at User_talk:Grant.Alpaugh#Perth_Glory_F.C..--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing Advice

Thank you very much for the advice on the in use tag, will be used. It's definatly going to be a long edit, but it's been bothering me for a while and I thought "Well, it's a slow night, might as well do it" Once again, thank you for the tag advice! Mikhael04 (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sears/Willis Tower

Just to let you know, Willis Group has, in fact, purchased the naming rights to the Sears Tower and has officially announced that it will be renamed this summer. So though the anon's change to List of tallest buildings and structures in the world was premature (and the body text regarding earlier times probably shouldn't be changed at all, as it was still called Sears Tower when the whole Petronas spire controversy occured), it wasn't vandalism. John Darrow (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I recently found that out. Thanks anyway... If the anon provided an edit summary, I would have considered his changes to be more credible (seeing an anon change the name did appear to be vandalism). Sorry for the mistake. --timsdad ^(talk) 05:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter problem

I replied (and I believe fixed your problem). The reason the page is new is that this filtering system is new - we just got it today. Sorry for the troubles! Prodego ^talk 08:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that (I replied also). No problems, I understand that the filter is new and that there're always problems with these things. Not that it really got anything wrong, I just failed to spot the 'test' ref. Thanks, timsdad ^(talk) 08:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

Technically the filter is right - an old bug in the diff engine credits you with removing one section, and adding a new section with one word different (rather than just adding that one word). That way things in sections you edited get counted as 'added' by you. It isn't really fixable, and it doesn't happen all the time. Prodego ^talk 08:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. That explains it. I guess as long as there's always support to help people get around the errors, then the filter can be nothing but beneficial. --timsdad ^(talk) 08:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer)

I noticed that you have reverted my edits and asked me to discuss them first. In fact this was already been long discussed in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia_national_football_(soccer)_team#Football_is_more_than_one_game.2Fcode. The agreed term is football (soccer), not the vague "football" on its own, so it was actually the person who originally changed it who did not discuss it, not me. Thank you.60.224.0.121 (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, it would have been very helpful if you provided an edit summary to explain this, how was I supposed to know if this was discussed before?

Secondly, you'll find that consensus was not actually reached here, where you specified. I suggest you leave things as they were and take it to the Wikiproject to try and reach a consensus there before continuing to change the lead sections of the clubs' articles. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever ...

Regarding this edit
1) "Remove template - many pages link here"
2) "Rv - only the disambig page and one article link here. See Special:WhatLinksHere/IOOF Building (Adelaide))"
3) Contents of Special:WhatLinksHere/IOOF Building (Adelaide):

• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Adelaide articles by quality log (links)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Australia articles by quality/30 (links)
• Odd Fellows Hall (links)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Adelaide articles by quality/1 (links)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Adelaide/Cleanup listing (links)
• IOOF Building (links)
• User:Doncram/inprogress (links)
• User:AlexNewArtBot/AustraliaSearchResult/archive27 (links)
• User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive11 (links)
• User:AlexNewArtBot/OrganizationsSearchResult/archive36 (links)
• User talk:Doncram/Archive 7 (links)

4) Your cryptic response led me to Wikipedia:Orphanage#Criteria. Obviously, the definition of "link here" is different from simple physical observation and counting of links.
5) Whatever.
6) Possibly see you again when my interpretation of that definition supplies me with a "link count" >= 3.
(No response necessary or requested.) Pdfpdf (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryugyong Hotel

Thanks for the hello following my edits. I'm only an occassional reader, but was horrified by the unsupported claims in the article, and the use of citations which did not support the sentences to which they were attached. I'm no fan of the North Korean regime (or at least how it is reported, but there again I am open minded enough not to believe all I read without my own personal experience.) It's a pity that the article has been blatant propaganda as it could be a useful source of information about a fascinating building. I don't know if it's badly built but the citations given either do not support it or are from extreme;ly biased persepective - Christopher Hitchens being one - or from what are little more than blogs. And the claim of 'unappealing aesthetics' can be levelled, in fact is, at many modern buildings: but it varies with individual tastes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.43.24 (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:ABB Grain Limited logo.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ABB Grain Limited logo.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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC) --Skier Dude (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Marymount Logo.gif)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

tallest buildings

hey, great job on gathering references for the tallest buildings page. you've really cleaned it up well. i think a cherry on the cake would be the addition of a rendered image of an "under construction" building, like this one of vision brisbane or this one of the bhp tower.

i just don't know how to go about uploading it, as i don't know much about copyright and stuff. examples of alrady added renders of under construction buildings include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aedas_Pentominium_Tower_Dubai.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shanghai_Center_Dragon.jpg so i'm sure there's some available of australian buildings. Rehumanist (talk) 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I really think that would go nicely, too. That Vision pic is really quite a speccy one, I'll go about attempting to upload it under a claim of fair use. --timsdad ^(talk) 05:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

hey, i was wondering what we could do to get the List of tallest buildings in Australia page to featured status. The only similar page I know of to reach that status is List of tallest buildings in Dubai. I think the inclusion of a "timeline of tallest buildings" section would help, but I can't find any references on that at this moment. An image to accompany that would be one of Melbourne's skyline, as from what I know, most of Australia's previous tallest buildings are from Melbourne. also, perhaps a list of approved/proposed buildings, but that seems far more nebulous and uncertain, especially in the current economic climate, so it could be difficult to maintain. Rehumanist (talk) 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Shard London Bridge

Just a heads up on the French IP editor who keeps reverting your edits to the article. I've been in an edit war with them for over a year. They're a fanatical anti-British editor who makes anti-British edits to many articles across Wikipedia. They change their IP almost every time they make an edit so it's hard to keep a track of them but they almost never give up edit warring and have a habit of following people's work on Wikipedia and reverting it. ShardLondonBridge (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Adelaide United

Adding an external link to Football News is not spam. Football News is the no1 football website in South Australia and one of the top five football websites in the country. It receives in excess of 100m hits per year.

It is not an unofficial site. It is an official news website. It is a registered media organisation with the FFA and is a member of the Australian Football Journalists Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webzone10 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You were adding the link www.adelaideunited.com which doesn't appear to work. --timsdad ^(talk) 13:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Copied the link from above and did not edit it properly. Webzone10 (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So if you can provide the real link, one that works, we can check it against Wikipedia:External Links and see if it qualifies for the section. --timsdad ^(talk) 13:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well until then, I've removed it from the article. --timsdad ^(talk) 14:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah with the A-league article u said that it had been changed from the top 4 teams go into the finals series to the top 6 go on to the final series.

I had a quick look around and couldn't really find anything on the football australia website.

Also in the part of the A-league article that discuss the finals series it says that the top 4 teams using the page playoff system which (as i understand it) is the top 4 teams in the league going into the finals series.

I just was wondering where u got the info that it was been changed from 4 to 6?

thanks Digmores (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, yeah, I'm sorry about not explaining that well enough. As I have recently been updating the A-League 2009-10 fixtures, I had been using the new Season Draw, released by the FFA not long ago. The link I used is: http://www.a-league.com.au/site/_content/document/00001133-source.pdf, and it was originally much different to the one you will see if you visit that link. It was much more aesthetically pleasing and had much more info including stadium info, the fixtures for each team, a round by round section, etc... For some reason they've changed it to this much simpler and uglier looking version that is not dissimilar to last year's season draw. It was from this draw that I discovered that, according to the finals series bracket, six out of the ten teams will be entering the finals series. It also appears that in this new (yet old) version, under HYUNDAI A-LEAGUE 2010 FINALS SERIES, Match A will be 1 v 2, Match B will be 3 v 6 and Match C will be 4 v 5. This implies there will be six teams progressing to the finals series this season. Sorry for the long winded explanation... --timsdad ^(talk) 07:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmores (talk • contribs) 07:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cat:Soccer clubs

Apologetic reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest you go ahead and do it; you have my support. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads up". Not that it needed it, but I added a "support" comment. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Elevator count

Hello, Timsdad. You have new messages at Rehman Abubakr's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Discussion continued here. Rehman (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Docklands Stadium size

hi Timsdad, I notice you changed references the capacity of Docklands Stadium when used for MVFC matches a couple of times. Although the 53k capacity when in rectangular mode is correct, for some unknown reason (I think it may be a cost issue) the stadium is never used in that configuration for MVFC games - it is always in oval format. -- Chuq (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Cheers for that. Should the rectangular part be removed then, seeing as there are many other ovular/circular stadiums that only have one capacity figure in their articles? --timsdad ^(talk) 06:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

From the Docklands Stadium article itself? Probably not, since some events (eg. I think a rugby union match a couple of years ago was the last one) do use the "proper" rectangular format. I'm not sure how they decide what does and what doesn't! -- Chuq (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Football Park

In reply to message left by me here. --timsdad ^(talk) 09:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No problems.

ABB Grain

Reply from User talk:Masalai#ABB Grain. timsdad ^(talk) 08:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant because of their common past as co-operatives in politically left-leaning jurisdictions which were corporatised. The SK Wheat Pool didn't merge with Agricore but took it over. Masalai (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's hardly relevant to the ABB Grain article at all. If you don't have a better reason, I'm removing it from the article. --timsdad ^(talk) 08:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Brisbane buildings

Reply to message left on this talk page. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this, really appreciate it, because i thought the page needed a bit more insight as to what the CBD can expect in the future —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.177.53 (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

List of buildings taller than 400m

plz seeTalk:List of buildings taller than 400 metres.........

Colossal (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I'm watching the page and there still aren't any messages from you... --timsdad ^(talk) 10:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Pagcortower.jpg

I denied your request to delete File:Pagcortower.jpg because it is not stored at the English Wikipedia. If you would like to propose that it be deleted, you may do so at the file's "real" location at Commons:File:Pagcortower.jpg. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh jeez, how embarrassing. --timsdad ^(talk) 05:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert of me

Hi Timsdad, yeh I know that the edits he made were ok (here)....just that I have a lack of patience for Tasos90/Lav90 and his many socks and any of their edits. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. It's generally much easier to revert all edits. Thanks, timsdad ^(talk) 12:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

John Hutchinson and Malta

Hi, I agree with your decision to revert the flag on the Central Coast Mariners article for now. In case you don't know though, if he makes his debut for Malta the Manual of Style indicates that he should probably be listed with the Maltese flag per this section that states "Use the flag and name of the country (be it a state or a nation) that the person (or team of people) officially represented, regardless of citizenship, when the flag templates are used for sports statistics and the like." and this that states "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or sporting nationality."

I'm not especially keen on the flags being in articles in the first place since they seem to cause more problems than they solve, but I suspect I'm in the minority on that point. Camw (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well thank you very much for that. I did not know this was the case... I'm not a big fan of the flags either, for the same reasons. I guess that makes two of us. --timsdad ^(talk) 08:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey - he has played for Malta now, so the flag can probably stay changed. Camw (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed structure

You removed a mast i put on the list of tallest structures in the world. Then what is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVLY-TV_mast still on the list??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.66.126 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you've decided to discuss this rather than revert my edit straight away. If you care to read the edit summary I left with my revert, I state that the mast you added is "Not the tallest in that category". The reason the KVLY-TV mast is there is because is the tallest in that category. Read a bit about the table under the heading if you wish to understand better. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

New article

Hi, i have created a new article List of development projects in Dubai, i have added almost all construction projects, if you know about more construction projects then you are welcome here.

Colossal (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed structure

Ok, i see it now, no problem ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.66.126 (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Reply to message left on this talk page. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot from educating me .. I have been contributing to pages from 2k7. But today was my talk discussion contribution. Thats why had to copy urs ... Thanks for letting me know this in a short notice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chockalinga Ayyappan (talk • contribs) 06:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No problems. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ireland cricket team flag.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. Because someone created a similar image and it is being currently used as the Ireland cricket team's flag. Fair enough, even though I don't agree with the flag currently being used as it is not actually the flag of the Ireland cricket team. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

QLD/Brisbane Roar

I understand that for the purposes of history their team name was QLD Roar, and I see your point that entries related to QLD roar and not the current club should remains as QLD Roar. I do believe however that some of the updates I have made and am making concern both the old QLD Roar and the new Brisbane Roar. These records and other entries that pertain to the current Brisbane roar will now read as the new name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trent McCrow (talk • contribs) 01:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is why, as you'll see, on articles such as A-League all-time records and W-League all-time records I have changed the name to Brisbane Roar and added a note underneath explaining that it includes stats from the former Queensland Roar. --timsdad ^(talk) 01:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed. Thanks for the help updating these things.Trent McCrow (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

AFC Champions League 2009

How come you have added the draw in the bracket for the rest of the tournament, even the though the draw has not yet taken place? Do you know something nobody else knows?Druryfire (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that the round of 16 is being played right now, the last game is in penalty shootouts at the moment? Is that another round? --timsdad ^(talk) 12:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, whoops, sorry. I wasn't thinking. I just matched up the teams with each other in the order that they played in the Round of 16. I've removed round 2, but the Round of 16 in the bracket is still correct, yes? --timsdad ^(talk) 12:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did. But Frankie goh got to it first and I got an edit conflict. --timsdad ^(talk) 12:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for amending. Personally, i don't think we should have a Round of 16 Bracket, as the draw only makes sense since the Quarter-Finals comes active. Potentially, new readers of the aricle may think it was pre-determined who plays who from Round of 16, but this isn't the fact, it's pre-determined from Quarter-Finals. Maybe not a big issue, but that is the fact, but nobody wants it to change. Thanks for correcting(or attempting to correct)Druryfire (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was so busy trying to update the article I didn't even think to take one look at the talk page which would have told me anything. I stronly feel the bracket should be commented out to avoid confusion. --timsdad ^(talk) 12:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3