User talk:Joshurtree

Archives

/August 2005 - December 2007

Hi! In the future, please allow some time for a discussion on the talk page before you decide to remove sourced content. That is not to say that your point isn't good, far from it, but removing sourced content, especially when the source is very reliable and backed up by secondary sources, may be considered vandalism. In this case, I don't consider your edit vandalism but I do wish you would have allowed people the time to answer on the talk page before deciding to delete both the content and the source. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that user:JdeJ is fiercely pro-French and is on a mission to ensure France's economy is seen as larger than the UK's. Signsolid (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Signsolid (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my fiercely pro-French bias can be seen from my edit history. Almost 4% of my edits deal with topics related to France. The other 96%, well. Honestly though, Signsolid continues to attack me and stalk me from page to page. I've reported him for harassment. JdeJ (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Running Man Barnstar
		Awarded in recognition of your continued contribution to articles related to the history of football in Sheffield. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 20:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply ]

A tag has been placed on

, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking that it was time that we tried to get another Wednesday article featured. Maybe Hillsborough or History of Sheffield Wednesday F.C.? Both might be quite a bit of work though. What do you reckon our chances of getting Sheffield Rules featured are? I must admit I'm far from an expert on the subject, but it's an article that I feel deserves a bit more limelight... Dan1980 (talk | stalk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about the history article, there's a lot of work there. I might have a crack at expanding it at the end of February though - I'm having an operation and will be off work for two weeks, so if I'm feeling up to it I can have a Wikipedia marathon!

The Sheff football taskforce sounds like a good idea, or maybe even a dedicated Sheff Football Wikiproject. Our Wikiproject has been neglected for months now and as you say it can only help the other Sheffield football related articles if we work with the Blades editors. Where's the discussion on it - I haven't seen it? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

]

I've added some comments for you at the peer review. Feel free to get in touch with me if you need any help. All the best! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh,

I've just had another quick look over Sheffield Rules (it's looking fantastic by the way) and I reckon that there are quite a few statements in it that will require citations if we are to go for FA status. I'm probably not going to be much use at finding sources for them, but if you want I could add {{fact}} to the ones that I think need to be cited and leave the rest to you.

As the subject is quite old and not very well known to the casual reader, I think that there will probably be quite a lot to be honest.

Let me know what you think, I don't mind going through the entire article and tagging statements with {{fact}} for you if you want.

Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 00:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've gone through the entire article and copyedited it and added {{fact}} tags where I think that citations are needed. I have tried to be as strict as possible as I'm sure that will be the case if we go for FA with this, but if you think that I have been too harsh and that a statement is covered by a nearby citaion then feel free to just remove the tag - it's not easy for me to tell as I don't have all of the books to hand. Also, I'm not sure what the convention is when adding inline citations that cover several statements in the same paragraph, but it appears that some of them are given after the first statement and some after the final statement. In my opinion it would be better if there was a uniform way of citing multiple statements (probably after the final statement in the paragraph), and I'm sure that consensus must already exist somewhere for this.

I've also added a couple of comments to the peer review. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Billy Mosforth, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--

]

I see that you recently created this article. There is already an article about the same person at

]

A tag has been placed on

, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this section to the article (I shamelessly ripped off the format from Priestfield Stadium, although I've expanded upon it a bit). If you could have a quick look at it and maybe copyedit it, that would be great. There are also a few citations missing, I don't know if you could help out with them...

Finally, I could not find the record League attendance anywhere, which should really be in there too - any ideas? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

]

A tag has been placed on

, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh,

I've finally set up the Wikiproject for

.

Please let me know what you think of the page. Also if you could tag any articles you come across for quality and importance that would be great.

By the way, I notice you've added a watchlist to the project. How does that work? Does it automatically add any pages tagged with {{WPSWFC}}?

Cheers, Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 23:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy tagging articles, so the number of pages tagged with {{WPSWFC}} has more than doubled. It's probably worth running the script to update the watchlist again. I think that I have tagged all of the existing articles on SWFC players and managers now, so we should have all existing SWFC related articles covered. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has done its first run and the results are:

Sheffield Wednesday articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
GA		1	7	4			12
B	1	1	7	4			13
C			41	26			67
Start		2	154	169		2	327
Stub			39	142		22	203
List				4			4
Category					8		8
File					1		1
Project					9		9
Template					5		5
NA					1		1
Assessed	1	4	248	349	24	24	650
Total	1	4	248	349	24	24	650
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 3,184			Ω = 5.12

– Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh,

I notice that you've rated the SWFC related cup final articles as Low importance. I was holding off rating them as they don't fit nicely in to the SWFC specific guidelines that I drew up at

]

Whilst I'm on the assessment subject, what are your thoughts on current players. Should these be regarded as more important than previous players bearing in mind that they are likely to have played less than 50 games? Should there be a minimum importance for permanent members of the current squad, e.g. at least Mid or High importance?

Also, what about the other related articles such as Sheffield Rules? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just spotted this and wondered if it would be possible to use this to create watchlists for projects other than Sheffield and if there was any limit on the number of articles that it can process. Keith D (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for setting up the bot. Does it run on a schedule basis or is it manually invoked?

There is a minor problem with the script with non-ascii characters as in Brontë Country which is output to the list as [[Bront� Country]] Keith D (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to set up JoshurBot to create watchlists for WikiProject Louisville and WikiProject Kentucky? We were already using WatchlistBot to create these previously, but it went out of service. The watchlist files currently used are at

]

Thank you for creating watchlists for these projects. However, there are a couple of issues: 1) The talk pages for articles are missing (we would like to track them too); and 2) Only the talk pages for categories, images, portal, etc. are listed and not the regular pages themselves. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!

Talk • Work 18:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

A tag has been placed on

, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you added the Autoarchiving to the page, and it has now autoarchived but without leaving any links to the archive. Did you set it up right? PamD (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh,

I've just got back online after over a week without any internet connection and I notice that Sheffield Rules didn't make FA. Any idea why? I notice that it didn't attract any opposition and that no reason was given for why it failed FAC. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 15:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that there must be some sort of minimum requirement for the number of supports that a FAC should receive to pass regardless of whether or not it is opposed. It's a real shame if that's the only reason they failed it. Might be worth drumming up some support on

WP:FOOTY anyway. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, I noticed the default syntax at the top which lets the user know the page is updated by bot has a bad link. An example is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio/watchlist. The click here leads to an invalid page. The problems seems to be with the subst:fullpagename. If I figure out what's wrong I'll let you know. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was with the "subst:", I removed it and the link works fine now. That okay? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

]

Watchlist

Hi, can you run the bot to refresh the Yorkshire watchlist? Many thanks Keith D (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi still waiting for an update, is there anyway that there could be a regular update of the list? Keith D (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please update the Yorkshire project watchlist as it has not received an update since April. May be there is a way that we can initiate an update ourselves rather than having to wait until you run it for us. If this is possible then let me know how to do it. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove the tag again, I will report you! Your actions are not according to policy. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You're invited to join in a discussion on the inclusion of the EU in the above list. Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#Informal_mediation. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 23:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thought I'd let you know that Fonez4mii has been reported for suspected sockpupperty over Here. Jack forbes (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why the "Sheffield Structures" table that was added to the main "Sheffield page" was removed with the "not an appropriate place for it" comment ? If I wanted to find out about Sheffield the place to look is the main "Sheffield page", I would not look say in Leeds for such info for example ? one purpose of the main page is surly to link to other related content that is relevant to Sheffield and the table provides a way of allowing access to a lot of information to a much wider audience - BulldozerD11 (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply josh, now you have pointed out that there are 1/2 a dozen similar tables that it could be argued should go on the front page I can see you point of view, and action. but then that begs the question of what should be included or not I suppose. BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation discussion regarding the inclusion of the EU in List of countries by GDP (nominal) has come to a conclusion with the following result:

• The EU to remain in List of countries by GDP (nominal).
• The EU to be positioned according to GDP rank between World and USA.
• No consensus on the EU appearing in all three charts. By convention this means the situation would remain as current - that is the EU remains on all three charts.
• Data for the EU on each chart to only be given if sourced, otherwise a dash to replace the data.
• Explanation to be placed in the lead section for the appearance of the EU and other non-countries. Possible wording: "Several economies which are not normally considered to be countries are included in the list because they appear in the sources. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed in sequence by GDP for comparison."
• The List retains the current name.
• A suggestion by Tomeasy that I feel should be carried out is that the sister articles are given the same treatment as agreed above.

Unless there are significant disagreements within the next 48 hours I will be closing the Mediation. Any questions, please get in touch. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a long centralized discussion at Talk:United Kingdom, in which it was decided with 83.33% consensus that constituent country would be used to describe England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, users at Scotland are saying that they will not accept a consensus made on another page, so I would like to inform you that there is now a similar vote on the Scotland talk page. Cheers --fone4me 20:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my suggestion here. Cheers --fone4me 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wondering what the "(Table Only)" signifies in the above and whether or not it would be an error to remove it..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should it not be Trans Pennine Trail attractions (as displayed at head of navbox), as its not actually the trail its self described in the template. - --BulldozerD11 (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh,

I've just started a new sources section at the Wikiproject and would appreciate it if you could add to it with any useful links that you know of that aren't already listed. The new section can be found

.

There's also a book list that will help in sourcing articles if you need information from a book that you do not own, so if you could add any books that you have to the list then that would be great too.

Finally, I'm in the process of starting individual articles for each of Wednesday's seasons. To start with these will essentially be stubs with an infobox and final league table, but will eventually be fleshed out. If you would like to help by expanding these articles or by creating some of the stubs then feel free to join in – you won't be treading on any toes! There is a full list of the season articles

.

Cheers, Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

]

]

Unreferenced BLPs

unreferencedBLP

}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Roger Davison - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Elsecar basin.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading this media, It would be appreciated if you could add :

• 1-2 paragraphs explaining what is shown in the image.
• A location marker/geocode for the location shown.
• An explanation of how this is your own work.
• An explanation of why this image or its subject is notable.

As well as helping those categorising the image, it will help place the image in context and allow other users of the image (including academics) to make better use of the image :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the

welcome page

if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the

welcome page

if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or altered there, Hillsborough Stadium.jpg, has been listed at Commons Deletion requests.

You can read and participate in the deletion discussion if you are interested or do not wish the file to be deleted. You may have to search for the title of the file to find its entry. Hillsborough_Stadium.jpg Martin H. (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hillsborough Stadium.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK ward has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox UK ward. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. –Temporal User (Talk) 07:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Nathaniel Creswick.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trans Pennine Trail, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Efs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.. QED237 (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.. QED237 (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map start has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Msg end has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Msg start has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Crystal Peaks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Peaks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Davey2010^Talk 17:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

]

Request for help with 1862 version of Sheffield Rules

Hi User:Joshurtree. I see you haven't been active on Wikipedia or Wikisource for almost a decade, so this attempt to contact you will probably be in vain, but here goes anyway :) You originally added the 1862 version of the Sheffield Rules to Wikisource here in 2006, and I've been trying to add sourcing information. I've been vainly looking for any source -- online or offline, in print or out of print -- for the complete set of 1862 rules, and I've come up blank so far. The version of the rules on Wikisource appears to be the only complete version I can find anywhere (apart from copycat websites and books). If you can give me any hint of where I might be able to find an independent source for the complete 1862 Sheffield Rules, I would really appreciate it. The addition of sourcing information would make the version you created online at Wikisource even more valuable. For context, I'm trying to build up a thoroughly sourced collections of laws of early laws of football on Wikisource. Thanks! Grover cleveland (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The 1862 rules were copied from a copy held at the Sheffield Archive. Their catalog of Sheffield FC documents is here. The 1862 rules are part of FCR 12(2). Hope this helps. josh (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information! Grover cleveland (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parsed time has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Sheffield outline.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

]

Sheffield Rules, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of football club nicknames in the United Kingdom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of football club nicknames in the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spiderone 11:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]