User talk:ElDubs

Unspecified source for Image:Ff13logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ff13logo.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 file 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm assuming that it was a scan/photograph that you made? Okay, that's cool. Just put that on the image page and we'll be good to go. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just like you would edit any page normally: just say something like "This is a scan/photograph of the game in question." --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need an image copyright tag on it. For the image below, you should probably put the text {{gamecover}} on the page. All your other images seem to fit that description as well. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Ff10-2logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ff10-2logo.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ff2logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ff2logo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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.

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ff3logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ff3logo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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.

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ff10logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ff10logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ff10-2logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ff10-2logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ff12logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ff12logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ff11logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ff11logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ff7logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ff7logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ff8logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ff8logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ff9logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ff9logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

2012 Heartland Championship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to James Carr, James Foster, Mark Davis and Andrew Gardner

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Rugby Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santiago Fernandez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Rugby Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Alexander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Heartland Championship

Template:Infobox Heartland Championship has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Match report

I'm happy to address my concerns with you here. First off, I removed all the flags because they are deprecated by MOS:ICON, which says "Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative". You don't need a flag next to the match officials' names because you can just write out the name of the country they're representing and include a link to that nation's rugby union, to which the official is affiliated. This is far more useful to a reader as it spells out exactly which nation is being referred to without the potential need for confusion over whether, for example, that 20px flag is that of Australia or New Zealand. That brings me on to the 100px flags and team names above each line-up. Those aren't necessary because it would be pretty confusing to the reader if the team on the left in the {{rugbybox}} template wasn't also the one that is on the left in the line-ups section. Add in the team kits as well and you'd probably have three instances of the team name in quick succession: totally not necessary. As for the scoring icons, can you justify why those are necessary? As linked above, MOS:ICON says icons "should [...] serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension" and that "one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction". Because each type of score has a header in the {{rugbybox}} template, there's no need to add an icon with it. Adding a picture of a rugby ball next to a player's name when they're listed under the word "Try" does nothing to get a reader with no clue of what a try is any closer to understanding of the subject. The goalpost icons have slightly more merit to them, but really they're just visual distractions, especially when you start combining them. To take your documentation as an example, imagine there had been two France tries in the 2011 RWC final and that Francois Trinh-Duc had scored one conversion and missed the other. Adding an icon to show the missed one in line with the scored one would be extremely visually distracting, not to mention the fact that you don't really need to mention the time when a potential score was missed. I imagine you'd like a counter-example: this report of the first Lions test last weekend uses icons in the list of scores at the top of the page; however, those icons serve an actual purpose, in that they act as the section headers for each type of score. You will notice that each individual score is not accompanied by its own icon, or even every individual player, as in the case of Biggar and Farrell in the list of Lions penalty scorers. Let me know your thoughts. – Pee Jay 22:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay:, it seems you just generally disagree with the use of icons/flags. It's not a particular disagreement with my use of them. If I'm correct in this, then I will refer to your previous discussion in your deletion recommendation for scoring icon templates, where you were opposed. I believe that discussion gives a clear consensus that your interpretation of MOS:ICON is not one that other users agree with. It seems you still don't agree with that outcome, so feel free to start a new discussion to reach a new consensus. In the meantime, please respect the consensus reached previously that others do find the icons useful and not just decorative.

I think setting the time of missed penalties is as valuable as setting the time of successful penalties. And placing the times next to the icons is much clearer than putting in brackets (2/3).

I've been happy with some of your other edits. I see you've changed "Left and Right" flanks, I think this is just a difference in naming conventions between countries, but I have no issue with leaving it at the one you've set it to. El Dubs (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to look at that discussion and have it again if necessary, but I don't see those templates really being used in great measure anywhere on Wikipedia, and I think it's a bit bold of you to introduce a new template that mandates the use of these icons as though they're just part of the furniture. They're not being used at 2021 British & Irish Lions tour to South Africa, they weren't used at 2021 Six Nations Championship and they weren't used at 2019 Rugby World Cup. I guess you like them, and that's fine, but I don't agree with your assessment. I also disagree that missed scores are worth mentioning in the {{rugbybox}} template; reliable sources don't do it, and I see no reason why we should buck the trend. – Pee Jay 22:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay: Note the template doesn't enforce the use of those icons, they're not included in the actual template, I've included them as an example and as "useful" templates. Again, you've had a discussion on their use, and the community has agreed they are useful. I'm not being bold by including them, I'm following the consensus reached in the discussion you started in introducing them. In terms of "looking at a discussion", I'm suggesting that if you wish to change the consensus on such icons, you should start such a discussion. I don't think it's appropriate that you go changing articles just because you don't seem to think they're useful, despite others disagreeing with you.

Regarding the missed scores. A missed penalty is an event that happened in a game just as a penalty goal happened. But as a matter of interest, missed penalties are usually mentioned in commentaries. El Dubs (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the template doesn't enforce anything, but including them in the template documentation serves as a tacit recommendation of their use, which runs contrary to the way things are actually done on prominent rugby pages here. Whatever the consensus was regarding those icons, I admit it obviously wasn't to get rid of them completely, but clearly the community doesn't see them as valuable enough to start using them across the board (or even in a minor way, tbh). As for missed scores, I acknowledge that a missed penalty or conversion is an event that happens, but they are rarely included in lists of scores (such as in the ESPN match report I linked you to, or this one from the BBC). Obviously they're mentioned in commentaries and minute-by-minute live texts because they're events that happen in the game, but they don't contribute to the score. Wikipedia has a pretty bad problem with not including prose accounts of sports games, instead relying on statistical summaries in tables and templates; what we should be doing is encouraging people to write prose accounts and include mentions of any notable misses in there, not breaking with the conventions of other sites and adding information that usually would be considered irrelevant. – Pee Jay 05:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find the icons incredibly useful. They serve as a visual cue of what's happening. Yes, there is the title beforehand, but since the icons are small and sit neatly next to them, I don't believe they are superfluous, they just provide an additional cue, and if used with the missed kicks, really help differentiate them. That said, I agree, they aren't widely used currently, and I will start a discussion on their merits. As {{Match report}} is not yet widely (or at all) used, please leave the icons there as an example for the discussion I'll set up. Once a discussion is reached, the documentation can be adjusted to suit.

We are already recording missed kicks through the use of "(2/3)", we just aren't recording the time of the kick. We record the time of successful kicks. I see no harm in including the extra information, and it makes the article slightly more complete. It doesn't match the lists of scores as per ESPN, but it incorporates a bit of that and the minute by minute report into one format, which I think is acceptable as it just means we're providing more complete information by combining multiple sources. But here again, it is a change from the norm so just as above, I'll seek a discussion.

Additionally, I agree that we should shift to a bit more of a prose format, but not at the detriment of how the statistics are presented now. I believe the two formats should work in tandem. With that in mind, I think recording missed kicks. I'd like to see a "timeline" format, that provides short prose on significant events, i.e. we currently don't record when penalties are given and what those penalties are for, but I think they're important. El Dubs (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But as I said, the icons actually don't help the reader to understand what's going on any better than the text already does. If a reader doesn't know what "Con" or "Pen" mean, a little icon of some goalposts isn't likely to improve their understanding; it would take further reading elsewhere to do that, by which point, they would probably understand what "Con" and "Pen" mean on their own, which negates the need for the icon. At that point, the icon is the very definition of "purely decorative". As for missed kicks, I will again point you to the fact that other sources do not list missed kicks. We're probably doing too much by saying "(2/3)" when "(2)" would do. We are an encyclopaedia, not a sports almanac. I get that, as users who work on rugby articles, we're likely to be quite invested in rugby as a sport and therefore desire to see it covered in decent depth on this site, but I think you're taking a lot of liberties with what should be included in our match reports. – Pee Jay 06:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the icons help the reader, even with the use of the text that's there already. I also think having both a readable and graphical cue working together is perfectly acceptable. I've started a discussion over on the WP Rugby Union that I pinged you in, feel free to add your perspective to the discussion. I also consider missed kicks, and the time they occurred of encyclopaedic value, considering they are mentioned in the minute by minute reports. Again, I've started a discussion of this over on the wikiproject, feel free to add to that too. I actually think we're far too selective with what we allow in wikipedia articles. Yes, if we flood an article with information, then we can lose really significant information amongst the smaller details, but in this instance, it's a very small, but I think useful addition. El Dubs (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List articles

If after July 8, someone else begins a discussion on 'how' to implement Option B? I'll be supporting Elfast's & Skyring's version. I won't get into any edit spats, on the page itself. PS - IF it were up to me, all 'list pages' would be deleted (except sports), as they're nothing more then trivia & a source for disputes. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, any discussion would be how to change Option B. Implementing is easy, if there's more Option B votes than option A votes, then someone goes and implements the example linked to in Option B. Glad to hear there won't be edit spats. Once the change is implemented, I actually do look forward to discussing changes to it, even if they're almost immediate. But I think it's necessary to first implement the change that has been voted on.

To illustrate what I mean, the order of events should be:

The RFC is closed on 8 July (Can we not squabble over on/after 8 July unless the votes are close near the date?)
The change as per the example in Option B is implemented.
A discussion is started on what changes can be made to the new implementation, such as using Elfast/Skyring's version.
IF after discussion, there is support to change to Elfast/Skyring's version, that change is implemented.

Seems a reasonable order of events to me. My concern is step 2 there is what will cause issues, if people are busy squabbling over how they think it should be implemented, when that is best left for follow up discussion rather than edit warring. El Dubs (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liz II, phase II

I suspect, there'll be a dispute over three versions of option B, in the coming hours & days. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think there should have been a period before the RfC of research over different options that could be voted on, so there's learnings to take from that. That said, most of the different ways of presenting it do at least have the same "spirit" in mind, that each Monarch should be represented once. It's just how to represent the states they ruled over during their reign that is the issue. El Dubs (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may have to step away from the RFC a bit, as a new concern has arisen at another article. GoodDay (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. While we have disagreements in our approach, I anticipate we both want what's best for the page, take care on whatever else you have to do. El Dubs (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The two RFCs, which said 'not' to include Barbados (along with other realms turned republics) was very clear. Why are you pushing one former realm, into the mix? GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways. I've pinged all the editors from the 'last' RFC, for their input. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand Incorporated - Draft Strategy 2022-2025 Feedback Round

Kia ora,

The Committee of Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand Incorporated have developed a draft strategy for 2022 -2025. Feedback from members of the Wikimedia User Group of Aotearoa New Zealand that are New Zealanders or residents of Pacific islands without an established chapter is encouraged. The draft strategy can be read and commented on at this Google docs link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XoqMupo_5TlLs_6xuMU-3KU5_Lzks8unwFRo4QuDVM4/edit?usp=sharing or in the discussion page of the Wikimedia User Group of Aotearoa New Zealand by adding a New Topic. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_User_Group_of_Aotearoa_New_Zealand The feedback round closes at midnight Sunday 9 October 2022. Einebillion (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move discussion

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby line-up graphics

Hi El Dubs, can I ask for your assistance? I'm looking for information about how to create and publish rugby line-up graphics (like the image you included in the Template:Match report). Are you able to point me in the right direction? If that information doesn't exist, are you able to explain it to me? Ruggalicious (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruggalicious, I would direct you to someone far more skilled than I in this area, who seems to have created many of these graphics. Have a chat to @PeeJay, they've created many of these. El Dubs (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, El Dubs. I already asked @PeeJay on their talk page, but unfortunately I didn't receive a reply. Ruggalicious (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]