User talk:Julianhall

]

Removal of Dream Team

Please see

talk) 12:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirecting problem

WP:RL seems to have some confusion about naming articles, since there appears to be two formats for articles about season results:

• "<year> <competition> season results" : 2008 Super League season results
• "<competition> <numeral> results" :
  Super League XIV Results

I'm planning to tidy up

play-offs page into the results page. As it is currently, this would result in a double redirect. I'm also planning to do a results page to accompany every SL season so far, so we need an agreed format for all SL season results pages. The Aussie contributors are far ahead of us in this field, and I reckon we should just follow their example, which I've made bold in the list above. Agreed? GW(talk) 23:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think that the actual page name is too important, so certainly i'd be happy with us following the '2009 Super League results' format. I also agree that the playoffs article should be merged into the main results page. Julianhall (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. It's just that, since we edit the articles, we know the names of them and we know how to navigate our way around. It's not so easy if you're a general reader and the names seem to go all over the place. I'll get to work on it. GW(talk) 21:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Andrew Jarrett

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Andrew Jarrett, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, no context, stub, has not played first grade failing rules 2 on

rugby league notability guidelines

. Also fails rule 9 in that his notability seems to be established based on the notability of the team.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's

--Nitsansh (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's not explained, but this article on the Super League website clearly shows that Huddersfield (i.e. the highest-ranked QPO loser) will play Catalans (i.e. the lowest-ranked EPO winner). Julianhall (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found this source later last night and ammended the references to this one.--Nitsansh (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we not allowed to publish upcoming fixtures? are they protected by copyright laws?--Nitsansh (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! check out this section further up this very page where i was told about it myself earlier this year. Julianhall (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which sports/leagues have copyright of their fixtures?--Nitsansh (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's another issue to consider. Wikipedia is hosted on servers in the U.S., which means that the most pertinent copyright law is American. While sports leagues are free to copyright their fixture lists, listing a small subset of fixtures (say, one week of the season, or possibly the playoffs) would probably fall under the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law. — Dale Arnett (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Fair use is a defense, not a blanket license to copy. — Dale Arnett (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which sports and leagues hold copyright, i do not know. I do know that Super League Europe hold copyright of their fixtrures, therefore we shouldn't publish them as per the comments above. Julianhall (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of arguing over copyright law, which is complex enough without the debate over whether the UK/US/Fair use laws apply (and to the best of my knowledge none of us are qualified to speak of such things anyway), I think it's wiser to just play safe and state simply that, "Hull KR will face Wigan in the second phase of the play-offs" or something along those lines. GW(talk) 11:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comments about copyright law, definitely better to play it safe. As far as your other comment is concerned, i don't think we even need to state who will play who. This is, at the end of the day, an encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedias don't publish fixtures. Plus, this is a results page, not a fixtures page. Finally, the second round of games will be complete in a week's time, and the playoffs all finished in three weeks. If people are looking for fixtures, i'm sure that they will look at other sites before this one. Julianhall (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous pages about sport events that list the schedule of matches/competitions. I see no reason to assume by default that all these are copyrighted. It seems to me that only UK domestic leagues have copyright of their fixtures.--Nitsansh (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do i. All i stated was that Super League Europe fixtures are copyrighted, which is what i was told earlier this year, further up this very page. You are more than welcome to make whatever assumptions you see fit to make. I am simply stating that, unless anyone who understands copyright law well can explain otherwise, it is almost certainly safer to err on the side of caution and not publish fixtures. Also, i would remind you that just because there are lists of fixtures elsewhere on Wikipedia, it does not necessarily mean that they are allowed to be displayed. Can we draw a line under this now? I think that we can all agree that Super League Europe fixtures are under copyright and shouldn't be published here, can't we? Julianhall (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK to publish the dates and rounds only without the teams involved? See this and this--Nitsansh (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only really reiterate what i have already said, i.e. that this isn't my field of expertise, and that if we're unsure, it's better to err on the side of caution. If i was forced to choose, i would guess that it is OK, but i must stress that's my assumption and that as there is doubt, i'd probably not even publish that. Maybe we could contact the RFL about this since it's rumbling on so much? Maybe we should discuss it on

WP:RL? Does anyone know if there is any sort of precedent for Wikipedia doing this sort of thing? Julianhall (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Section added to the

WP:RL talk page here. Julianhall (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I have create a page for episodes of chelsea lately.Now I need help improving so can you help me and and send this measseage to other users.PAGE:List of Chelsea Lately episodes.--Anesleyp (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assistance in setting up the deletion template, the first person to actually take the time to help out a new member. Appreciated. Aidyzzle (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization It's in Category:1991 debut albums, which is a subcategory of Category:Debut albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

A tag has been placed on

criteria for speedy deletion

, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a

mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of The Simpsons writers 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 The Simpsons writers 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.

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the

Remember that. FokkerTISM 09:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A fact I'm fully aware of. However, Wikipedia rules ARE Wikipedia rules. I suggest you remember that. Julianhall (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ITunes Session (The Gaslight Anthem EP) 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/ITunes Session (The Gaslight Anthem EP) 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. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. Julianhall (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rugby ball, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby passes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately modified this to be a link to a disambiguation, as i feel it's more appropriate. The initial link was to a less-relevant page, and this now allows the user to select between passing in Rugby League, and in Rugby Union which are separate articles, but equally relevant. Julianhall (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Julianhall. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I have been asked by another member of WPRL to widen the conversation on "Flags in European current templates", in the hope to gain a wider consensus. I imagine that this message may well never be read, dismissed, see me lose support, potentially gain some or take the discussion forwards. Please do take the time to read the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league#Flags_in_squad_templates if you can, but the crux of my position is that the flags are prevalent elsewhere, are consistent with usage by the MOS, and their implementation for their rugby league national squad/team or representative nationality, is in line with their intended purpose. The crux of the remove side would be an IP editor may interpret a flag as indication of birth, give too much credence to the nation, and the decision was made previously. To remove them from all rugby league templates when there is a limited conversation would seem more than a little unfair I would say, hence the attempt to reach out. I'm quite happy to voted down, but would appreciate a few more voices to the discussion, else it would seem quite wrong to move from the majority into the minority.Fleets (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Julianhall. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Julianhall. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs is not reliable because they allow users to change the information. They are listed at

WP:ALBUMAVOID. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]