User talk:Jamen Somasu

Pictures Liga Deportiva Universitaria de Quito

I think you should get photos from your league so you can see in Spanish pleas

Recopa Sudamericana FLC

I think you may have jumped the gun by renominating straight away. When a featured nomination fails, it is useful to contact those who raised issues to ask whether they think the issues have been resolved. Otherwise, there is a risk that the same objections will be raised when it is renominated. Your idea of resolved might be different to that of the reviewer! A good method is to open a peer review, and politely ask those who raised issues to comment there. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamen, Oldelpaso is trying to help you. Saying that he "shot [...] down" your nomination is hardly going to help. You were indefinitely blocked and several members of the WP:FOOTBALL community came out to vote in favour of you getting another chance. Don't blow it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Jamen I've opposed it and I'm sorry to see this occur. Sandman888 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, Jamen Somasu, how does your creation of {{Copa América Champions}} today fit with your agreement on 26 June to stay away from templates? Bencherlite ^Talk 21:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamen, quite reasonably imo, probably saw it as staying away of existing templates. I don't know if you can create a sandbox template, but he shd be so allowed. As long as he stays away from linking them on any articles w/o mentors permission. Sandman888 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No hair, no soup, forget it. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jamen, thanks for your reply. I don't think you quite understand the breach of guidelines here. What you've done is put article content in the template namespace. That's a breach of Wikipedia:Template namespace, specifically "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." As for Sandman's reply to my question, it's not been used as a "sandbox" template at all. Jamen's very first edit after replying to me was to add the template to Copa América, so without his mentor's permission (contrary to Sandman's hope). As for Sandman's suggestion that the limitation on Jamen's activity was only for existing templates, I don't think that Oldelpaso made such a limitation on the limitation in his words "So my first suggestion is to ignore the template namespace for now", did he? Bencherlite ^Talk 22:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a table like that one isn't something that should be implemented using templates. I've put the table directly in the article without the template, as is also done in similar articles like FIFA World Cup#Results.

For what its worth, I would have no problem with Jamen sandboxing. For example, creating an example template at User:Jamen Somasu/Example, and then initiating talk page discussion about whether its inclusion would be appropriate. What I want to avoid is a situation where Jamen makes the same mistakes that got him blocked, that is, getting involved in edit wars on templates. I want him to get into the habit of discussing major changes, preferably before doing them. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa 2010 names

You added names in other languages.[1] Do you have a source supporting that these country-year combinations are used for the 2010 FIFA World Cup in those languages? I couldn't confirm it with Google. I will post more details to Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup#Other languages. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copa América

What do you intend to do? If you are certain that no-one could reasonably object to your changes, go ahead, but if it is a major change or a potentially contentious one, it would be best to explain your reasoning at Template talk:Copa América. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Copa Libertadores

I'll be honest with you, that's not unusual in the least. Reviewers choose the articles they want to review, and they can't be forced to review others. A month isn't that long - I've had to wait over two months on occasion for reviews.
I'm flattered you think I'm a "main reviewer" - I review only when I nominate an article myself to keep the backlog down. Is this something you've considered doing? Several reviewers will prioritise articles nominated by others who review regularly. A "quid pro quo" system so to speak. If there's less of a backlog, it's also more likely yours will get reviewed quickly.
Articles do not need to be GA to be nominated at WP:FAC. It'd probably be a good idea to have your article undergo peer review first however. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not need to be GA to become an FA. No-one is in charge of the GAN page. If you wish to nominate your article at FAC, simply remove it from the GAN page yourself and go ahead. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling. No problem. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second above. I hate how a lot of recent reviewers are working from the bottom of the backlog instead of the top. The 5-6 oldest nominations have been the 5-6 oldest for weeks. My last nom actually was reviewed the next day, the reviewer couldn't understand why I was annoyed at that, lol. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copa Libertadores

Please review this edit Fasach Nua (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey knows his stuff. Few are as experienced as him when it comes to both writing and reviewing featured sports articles, so it is usually well worth paying attention to his comments.

Useful resources on preparing articles for FAC include:

This guide to sourcing - the section on "Responding to queries about reliable sources" is particularly pertinent.
User:Dweller/Dweller,_on_Featured_Article_Candidates
Several of the pieces linked from Wikipedia:Featured content dispatch workshop
and for a more irreverent outlook, User:Giano/A_fool's_guide_to_writing_a_featured_article
My feeble (and incomplete) attempt at making a football-specific guide is at User:Oldelpaso/On Football

Oldelpaso (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on what the video is, and what it is being used as a reference for. There's nothing stopping a video being used as a reference, but it must meet the reliable sources guidelines like any other media.

The nomination looks as though it will fail I'm afraid. FAC is very a very demanding place, and it gets more demanding with every month that goes by. At a minimum the article needs a copyedit by a native English speaker (your English is very good, but there are several passages where the phrasing looks out of place, and FAC is very tough on that kind of thing). I'd advise holding off on nominating any more articles for a while, and we'll take a detailed look at what it needs for Copa Libertadores to have a successful nomination next time. I know you were frustrated by the wait for a GA review, but getting good quality feedback takes time, as reviewers are perennially in short supply. Preparation is everything at FAC, particularly when you are trying to get your first successful nomination. Once you have your first successful one under your belt, subsequent ones are much easier, as you have a better idea of what people are looking for. As a rule of thumb, it is only time to nominate when you think you cannot possibly do more to improve the article.

I'm short on time today, but either tomorrow or Thursday I'll start to go through the criteria in detail, and what Copa Libertadores will need to do to meet them. Perhaps sourcing would be a good one to start with, given that you were asking about it. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the featured article criteria look simple enough, but those few lines have all kinds of hidden complexities. I'll get a quick one out of the way first: images.

Argentina's short copyright term for photos means you have plenty of suitable free use images in the article. The only non-free image is the logo, and that has a suitable fair use rationale. Only one of the images looks like it requires further investigation, File:Internacional CL-2006.gif. This claims to be a Creative Commons image, but also indicates that it is from the CONMEBOL site. All images on CONMEBOL's site are marked all rights reserved, so it could well have been uploaded with an incorrect license.

On to sources (1c, 2c). Following the advice on sourcing in the first of the links I gave above leads me to ask for more information about how the following are reliable:

historiayfutbol.obolog.com is a blog. Is the author an established expert in the field, or anything like that?
Same for avoidingthedrop.com
historiadeboca.com.ar appears to be a fansite. What makes it a reliable source?

It isn't compulsory by any means, but putting the books used as references in a bibliography can be useful for readers. See Bert Trautmann for an example.

Make sure each of the links in the external links section is suitable per WP:EL. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put my next batch of comments on article talk. These aren't about one specific area, just what came to mind as I read through the first couple of sections. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Champions League

This article is not a featured list, so I don't know why you submitted it to WP:FLRC. Please be more careful in the future. The best place to discuss whether it is a list or an article is the talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purge your cache; it will disappear. Also, if an article or list is really featured, there will be a notice on the talk page that says so. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just an old cached copy of the page. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean; that FLC has been open for 9 days; all FLCs are kept open for at least 10 days, and most are not closed until nearly three weeks have passed. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "special consideration"? The nominations are independent of each other. Besides, you haven't addressed all of the comments in the current nomination. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait a few days, There is no deadline. Similarly, don't demand at FLRC that lists get demoted RIGHT NOW, that will only antagonise people. The goal of FLRC is improvement, not removal, and the world will not end tomorrow. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jamen Somasu. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page.
Message added 21:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 21:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE:PROD

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be merged or deleted. On the contrary, I think there is a decent case for deletion, and if it went to a deletion discussion I would make the case for considering a merge. All I'm saying is that a change so big cannot be done without discussion. If you wish to pursue it, take it to WP:AfD, and explain (as you did in the PROD, to be fair) why you think a merge or deletion would be good for wikipedia. Regards, WFC (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Copa Sudamericana winners nomination

No problemo. Give me some time, I'm quite new to the process (and I'm on summer vacation). Digirami (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1

Hi, I note that this review is till open after a month. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that did you didn't complete the review, just listed it. That really is not good enough. I shall nominate at WP:GAR

Regarding my recent FLC closure

Hi Jamen. I understand that you are frustrated over my recent archival of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Recopa Sudamericana winners/archive2. I have opened a review of my action at WT:FLC, and would appreciate your input. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the FLC issue has blown over, but I was a bit concerned to see this thread. Do you really think I have a systemic bias? If you believe I do, I really do want to know so that we can work out any misconceptions. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Estudiantes and Boca Juniors Honours

Hi, I just saw your recent edits to the Estudiantes and Boca Juniors Honours sections and I was wondering how is it that some of the tournaments (Intercontinental Cup/ FIFA Club World Cup, Supercopa Masters, Copa de Oro and Interamerican Cup) were placed as Minor competitions, when the only way to qualify to those competitions was to win a Major title, wouldn't that make them Major titles as well? Regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, sorry I didn't reply earlier, but I been a bit busy. I would like to say that although I see what you mean, but at the same time I would think that neither Boca or Estudiantes would call any of those Cups a Minor Cup, also by your standard only the Copa Libertadores would have any merit to be call Major, all in all this would probably fall under WP:POV, isn't better to called them just what they are International cups or tournaments. By the way I saw that you recently moved the Boca Juniors article to Club Atlético Boca Juniors and I was wondering, shouldn't there be a consensus before that move was made specially since there was a consensus at the talk page of the article? Anyways, My best Regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know that most feature articles don't have a full name, but rather the F.C. at the end of it, ex: Chelsea F.C., Everton F.C., Aston Villa F.C. just to name a few, in Boca's case that wouldn't work since it would be C.A. Boca Juniors, which would make it worse, that's why the consensus that was reach, decided to name it Boca Juniors as per common name, also more than 1,000 articles point to Boca Juniors. As for the 1968 Intercontinental Cup, I don't know much since it happen before my time, sorry. My regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:1978 World Cup logo2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1978 World Cup logo2.png. 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False positive report

The other day you submitted a false positive report because you found yourself unable to edit someone's talk page. If you have not already seen, it was due to an accident in the code of a particular edit filter which was quickly fixed by the MediaWiki software itself. The code has been reverted to the last good version and this should not happen again. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, however; if people hadn't reported it we wouldn't have known there was a problem. I have removed the false positive reports as I felt it was easier to just go to the people who submitted them directly. —Soap— 23:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humberto Tozzi

I have reverted your move of the page Humberto Tozzi as it was undiscussed. Please see WP:RM for advice. Regards, Giant Snowman 06:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

Yes you did with this edit here. 91.106.111.31 (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's been added again. I put it back. 91.106.111.31 (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intercontinental Cup 1968

Hi Jamen. I really don't want to get into an edit war with you over the citation needed tags on Intercontinental Cup 1968 article. Wikipedia policy (WP:CITE), states: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged"; which in my opinion includes the information to which I added the tags. I'm going to raise this point on the appropriate discussion page, where we can discuss the issue further. Best, Tom (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamen, I look forward to watching the video, would you mind linking me to it when you have uploaded it? Until then, I've posted some more comments to the article discussion page. Thanks, Tom (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When material is clearly contentious, you need to include explicit attribution in your sourcing. To take a couple of examples from a featured article on a match from the mid-20th Century, take a look at refs 49 and 55 in 1956 FA Cup Final. The first quotes the source directly in the text, the second provides the text from the source in the footnote. Either method would be preferable to the approach you are taking now. Oldelpaso (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you agreed to endeavour to maintain 1RR when you were unblocked, but I'm not seeing that here. Secondly, and this point seems to be being ignored, contentious material such as that you are adding needs proper inline citations. The external links section is meant for further reading, and is not meant for use in lieu of inline citations. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to read WP:PRIMARY properly. It clearly states that primary sources are not appropriate on their own, especially when secondary sources are available. – Pee Jay 09:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube Video

What exactly is the youtube video supposed to be proving? I've watched it, but what information are you using the video to verify? Tom (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Jamen, do you understand what inline citation means? It is not sufficient to simply list sources at the end of the article. You must put a citation next to the information in the article, not just in the references section. Tom (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You spoiled your last chance. Also. Further investigation revealed that you are a soc-puppet of indef-blocked SuperSonicx1986 (talk · contribs). Rettetast (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Ok...first of all, this is my ONLY account. I don't know who that guy is but he and I aren't the same person. Go ahead and check with your IP checking devices. The fact that my youtube account has the same name is this guy is just bad luck. Before today, I have never even heard of this guy. And upon looking at that guy's contributions, the bulk of it seems to be on FIFA tournaments (which I really don't care about). As for the 1RR thing, I gave my mentor a message right before this whole thing started that a user was censoring information and that I needed help (which was eventually solved through discussion). Can I give an admin my password for my account so I can prove I am not the guy above? I don't want to put it here right in the open.

Decline reason:

Just bad luck? That you somehow randomly chose "Supersonicx1986" as your youtube username? Please. All of your accounts combined, this must be, what, your 12th edit warring block? "They don't agree with me" is not a reason to edit war. I really can't imagine the unblock request that would result in this account be re-activated. Kuru (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

I have no clue as to who that guy is! I know how it looks but that is not me. My IP address is 192.168.0.100. Does that help for anything or are certain people just looking to kick me out because of a certain page I edited recently? If I would have known a user in wiki had the same screenname that I do on youtube, I would have changed by youtube account's name. Supposing I was the same guy, I wouldn't be stupid enough to show a youtube account with the exact same name as to a previous wiki account. Seriously, this is worse than the Linda Dolloff's case...it is just a matter of using common sense. (Never mind...youtube doesn't allow it)

Decline reason:

You're side-stepping the 1RR portion of your block - that still needs an explanation. Secondly, regarding the sockpuppetry, "that's not me!" isn't a very convincing argument. Please formulate an unblock request that addresses these concerns. TN X Man 14:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not inclined to deal with the unblock request (at least, not in a way that would be favourable to you) but to answer some of your questions, in case you want to amend or expand your existing request:

Your IP address is irrelevant for deciding whether to unblock you. Only those with the checkuser right can see whether you're correct or not, and checkuser isn't used to verify claims of innocence.

Of course...and Kuru has that capability.

You'd be surprised how stupid people using Wikipedia can be, so the fact that your Youtube name is the same as a previously blocked WP user who also had an interest in football does not of itself mean that you couldn't be the same person.

Well, I am not that stupid. I can tell you that much. For example, in that Linda Dolloff case any idiot with half a brain could know she didn't try killing her husband. Likewise, I ask for common sense to be used here. Really, it doesn't take much.

Why not also try addressing in your unblock request the fact that you were unblocked on a 1RR restriction by which you've spectacularly failed to abide?

Because I gave notice to my mentor, before the supposed 1RR (which was really trying to put factual and source information coming from primary sources) might be a problem because a user was trying to censor the information. The matter has been resolved for 2 days minimum.

Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 14:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I let my mentor know that I would need some help dealing with a user that tried censoring legit info on a page. Two users were trying to remove that information (another unlogged user also came into the mix). My mentor warned me that the events might or might not qualify as an 1RR. Seeing the happenings on that page, I assumed good faith that anyone with enough sense would know that the happenings weren't edits to screw with the page (if that is the logic of some in here, then wikipedia could never exist). Regardless, the issue was resolved, after much compromising on both sides. Instead of congratulating users on coming to a compromise or resolution, it seems some in here are more concerned with keeping tabs at how many reverts/edits/changes someone does. The only basis of this sockpuppetry thing is that I have the same name on youtube with someone who used to be here. Common sense goes a long way here. If I would have known a user in wiki had the same screenname that I do on youtube, I would have changed by youtube account's name. Supposing I was the same guy, I wouldn't be stupid enough to show a youtube account with the exact same name as to a previous wiki account. I gave you my IP address, I am offering my password for any admin to check whether I am the guy or not. I know wikipedia has IP checking abilities. What more could you possibly want? My SSN???!!! Do you know Bencherlite is talked about on some Sri Lanka forum? Don't ask me why someone would create a username on one of the most iconic cartoon characters of the 1990's. Tell me how I can prove I am not him!

Decline reason:

{{subst:unconvincing explanation. I suggest you appeal to the arbitration committee ban appeal subcommitee if you wish to take this any further.arbcom-l‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org }} Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

I request a community discussion, and if need be, the intervention of Jimmy Wales.

Decline reason:

No, and in any event you wouldn't be unblocked to allow that to happen. I am the fifth administrator to block or decline your unblock request this time round. Quite enough people have looked at this already for me to be able to say that there is a good consensus that your block was justified. Jimbo Wales is most unlikely to want to get involved on such a humdrum matter. Personally, I'm more than prepared to decline your unblock on the basis of the edit-warring after your previous indefinite block and return on a 1RR restriction, leaving aside any suggestions of sock-puppetry. Saying that you gave your mentor notice that you might have to breach 1RR because other editors might be trying to "censor" the article, and so it's somehow OK to breach your restriction, is a spectacular failure to get the point: someone on a 1RR restriction shouldn't edit-war, for any reason, let alone claim some sort of entitlement. As you were told when your third unblock request was declined, you might want to take this to the Arbcom ban appeal subcommittee. I cannot see further unblock requests on your talk page being any more successful than your previous ones. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned non-free image File:Copa Santander Libertadores logo 2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Copa Santander Libertadores logo 2.png. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:RecopaSudamericana2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RecopaSudamericana2.png. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:LDU Quito campeon de la Recopa 2009.PNG

Thanks for uploading File:LDU Quito campeon de la Recopa 2009.PNG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:LDUCampeonCS.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:LDUCampeonCS.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Internacional CL-2006.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Internacional CL-2006.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Copa América2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Copa América2.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CopaSudamericana2.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CopaSudamericana2.PNG. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification - CONMEBOL

Template:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification - CONMEBOL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:LDU Quito campeon de la Recopa 2009.PNG

Thanks for uploading File:LDU Quito campeon de la Recopa 2009.PNG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 03:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:LDUCampeonCS.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:LDUCampeonCS.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 03:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Libertadores femenino.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Libertadores femenino.png. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Copa América Champions

Template:Copa América Champions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Recopa Sudamericana logo.PNG)

Thanks for uploading File:Recopa Sudamericana logo.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Copa América2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Copa América2.jpg. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Supercopalogo.PNG)

Thanks for uploading File:Supercopalogo.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Copa Libertadores logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Copa Libertadores logo.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Gardelito.PNG)

Thanks for uploading File:Gardelito.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Tico.PNG)

Thanks for uploading File:Tico.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Guaso.PNG)

Thanks for uploading File:Guaso.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Choclito.PNG)

Thanks for uploading File:Choclito.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Torito.PNG)

Thanks for uploading File:Torito.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Tatu.PNG)

Thanks for uploading File:Tatu.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Tagua.PNG)

Thanks for uploading File:Tagua.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ameriko.PNG)

Thanks for uploading File:Ameriko.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Chasqui.PNG)

Thanks for uploading File:Chasqui.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Guaky.PNG)

Thanks for uploading File:Guaky.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Unafut oficial.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Unafut oficial.PNG. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Recopa Sul-Americana de Inter.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Recopa Sul-Americana de Inter.PNG. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Club Always Ready logo.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Club Always Ready logo.PNG. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Copa América Finals for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Copa América Finals 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/Copa América Finals 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.

Flix11 (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CopaLibertadoresfemenino.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CopaLibertadoresfemenino.PNG. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Copa Libertadores broadcasters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Copa Libertadores broadcasters 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 Copa Libertadores broadcasters 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 until the discussion has finished.

Let'srun (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]