Archives

1

Substantive discussions through December 2015 have now been archived. Please start any new discussion as a "New section" below. Thank you, TheBlinkster (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheBlinkster congratulations you won an Amazon voucher of £25 in this year’s Take the lead’s lucky dip. Could you please email me at karla.marte@wikimedia.org.uk to send the prize your way? Thank you. --Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed, many thanks! TheBlinkster (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blinkster. I'd like to thank you personally for the massive amount of work you have done to improve this article. You might wish to add your support at its ITN nomination. With only four "cite needed" tags remaining, I'd suggest it was now ready for main page. Hard to believe that anyone could not see the big improvement in the article since his untimely death. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your support. I did already vote on the ITN nomination and left a comment noting that I was trying to fix the biggest unsourced section. Some of the folks are concerned about sourcing for the "uncredited" stuff in the list of what he played, I probably won't be able to do anything about that, but the idea is just to make the article look decent enough to get it through ITN since the man certainly deserves to have his death mentioned as RD. There are other areas of the article that could use more sources as well IMHO but they aren't tagged CN right now so hopefully that can wait, as there's only so much one has time to do with an article in a couple of days. Thanks again. TheBlinkster (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, so you have, and very eloquently too. It seems to me a slightly strange requirement to have to give sources that other works, on which a piece is based, have not been credited. This doesn't seem to me to be the sort of notable fact that a reviewer would ever want to include. Credits might appear later, and not on the record label or sleeve. Yes, there is only so much one has time to do. But it's not very encouraging to see one's efforts dismissed as representing "no signs of improvement." I sometimes think a !vote at ITN, even a negative vote, should require an editor to make at least one single edit to help improve an article. I'm not sure when exactly it becomes "too late" to post at RD - Sir George has been there since 8 March, and some folks often last a week. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes too late once three RDs are on there which are more recent that Emerson's. So far, it's one down, one about to go up, so that's why I'm saying time is short. Your "one edit" idea has some merit, I'll make that edit now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I don't suppose if we fix this up enough within a few days, we could re-nominate him? His death is unlikely to be quickly forgotten as he was extremely famous on a Cover of the Rolling Stone level, I would say at least as much as George Martin and probably more since George was not a performer. I agree with the one-edit idea and jumped in because I felt it was hypocritical to vote "support" without helping the article. Unfortunately once I get into these articles I get interested and can't stop easily. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the point I made at ITN was an attempt to activate some of the drive-by supporters who don't ever actively help with content. You are not one of those. But, to the article. This will currently not make it ITN in any shape other than RD, and I've already explained how that works in terms of "being late". If more support for a blurb was forthcoming, that would still have merit since older stories are still on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blinkster, I see that the whole section about the Newcastle City Hall "The organ is located at the rear ... with only the Hammond L-100 functioning", has been copied over from Pictures at an Exhibition where it also has no source. I've searched the web for any support, but without success (although one WP:SPS I found said that the power problems at the hall caused the moog to go out of tune). I think we may have to remove this little story for the time being. What do you think? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely been copied off some fan discussion list or made up by the guy who added it everywhere. You can get rid of it - I would actually favor shortening that whole section and just noting the supportable instances where he played the pipe organ (there are several, including the Albert Hall ) and also noting that the pipe organs didn't always work (there are at least one or two incidents of this with actual support, including on the Nice's 2002 tour). I will take a look at that later but right now trying to deal with one of the "didn't credit classical composers" paragraphs. TheBlinkster (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I looked back over the history of the Pictures article - perhaps User:Djdaedalus could help us, before I trim it out. Maybe he was there? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC) ... no info forthcoming, so I have now trimmed.[reply]

Yes, I was there when the power failed, but I can't offer any corroborating evidence. There might have been a review in the local paper, but I doubt any of the national music mags wrote anything about it. Djdaedalus (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha. That's a shame. If we can't find any source, local or otherwise, then I think the Pictures article will also need to be trimmed. But thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Blinkster. Well done for your continued good work over at the Emerson article, which I see is now nominated for a GA review. I noticed that it currently says: "He played the Royal Albert Hall Organ at one of the Nice's last shows in 1968..." Does the autobiography, on pages 102-103, use the phrase "one of the last"? I don't have the book to be able to check. But looking at set-list sources such as this one, suggests it really wasn't one of their last at all. What do you think? They were given a lifetime ban for the flag-burning, by the way. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I've gone ahead and made the change, with a note on the Talk Page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the change. Believe it or not I *just* got the notification of your talk page comment. For some reason, Wiki seems to send some notifications within about 12 to 24 hours after the comment is actually left, rather than shortly after it's left, so I apologize if you comment and I am not promptly responsive. I believe a source did say "one of the Nice's last shows" but (a) at this point I am not sure if that was a different source than the one I ultimately cited due to the huge number of sources, (b) regardless of what the source said, I agree "last shows" is questionable in view of your info as well as the later Nice reunion tour down the road, and (c) better to just leave out "last show" as it is not necessary to the gist of the article. I am fine with the change and thanks as always for your help. I reformatted the cite just to make it look like the others as I'm trying to get them all consistent for when this eventually (hopefully) gets a GAN review. Cheers, TheBlinkster (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks "Blinky"! No worries, I thought you we're just busy elsewhere. And thanks for aligning that cite format. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC).... great to see the wonderful Reese Wynans rocking out on his Roland RD-800 and his Hammond B3 here. A superb performance from a guitar master. Hope you enjoy.[reply]

Yo Blinky. Do you know this album at all:[1]? A favourite of mine (it's on Manticore) - "L'Albero del pane" (second track) is a bit of a prog masterpiece. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, I wasn't familiar with Banco so held off answering till I had time to check out a few cuts on Youtube. I can def see the resemblance to ELP in their 70s and 80s keyboard-driven stuff - it seems like more recently they are using horns in live performance which makes the songs sound really different IMHO. That keyboard player certainly does owe a large debt to Emerson. TheBlinkster (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Diamond-Hard Blue Apple of the Moon Barnstar
	For your diligence and persistence at improving Keith Emerson. Nice work! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your respect in your latest edit. I won't argue the change but I will say that I disagree with the wording. In the world of open source software being publish to a private repository with the understanding that your work must comply with the laws, I don't believe there is such thing as "consent." Ultimately it is always up to the owners of this private repository to decided what is and is not ok, user consent doesn't apply when the rules are being enforced. I of course have no intention of reverting your change if you feel strongly about it but I wanted to let you know why I removed it originally. Thanks! lunisneko^(talk) 19:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your edit on the section (which I wrote way too early this morning so your adds are most appreciated). I understand the issue as my work deals with the software field and rights on a daily basis. However, while people are likely to take a strong position whether developer consent is or is not necessary when you're using a private repository (as the developer did when he got mad and pulled all his stuff and you just did when you said it didn't apply), to me the fact that it's an issue that people think is either important or not important means it needs to be mentioned for neutral NPOV (no need to make a big deal out of it but do need to mention it). Also, without including it, the reason why the developer unpublished everything is less clear. So that's why I put it back in. I would also note that the only reason "angry" was mentioned was because the sources say he was angry, but I am fine with taking that out as it does verge on non-NPOV and it is not crucial to describing the incident. I hope you will feel free to add to the article in the future if this should develop more since for some reason the Kik page gets thousands of hits a day but very few non-vandal edits, so please don't take my putting back the three words as any sort of discouragement. Thanks again, TheBlinkster (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from and I think I totally agree. Glad to have collaborated with you on this! lunisneko^(talk) 19:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jessica Savitch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public affairs. 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) 09:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 April 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Merle Haggard, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Back Street (1932 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gold digger. 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) 09:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Keith Emerson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie333 , responding here as your talk page says if you messaged me you will be watching my talk page. Thank you for picking up the GA review for the article. I have a commitment coming up that will likely reduce my Wiki availability for the next couple of weeks, so if you message me I may not respond right away, but I will be available to look at your comments later in August. I apologize for any inconvenience or delay, but due to the length of time the articles now sit in GA (that one has been waiting for a few months) it's difficult to make sure one is going to be available when the review does happen. i haven't bailed out on it though so I will respond, it just might take me some time. Cheers, TheBlinkster (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about halfway through. There are a lot of comments, but hopefully most of it is fixable so the article can meet the GA criteria. Perhaps Martinevans123 can help? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Keith Emerson you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Keith Emerson for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I concluded there was just too much work needed to get it to GA at this time. Give me a ping when you're less busy and some of the issues are resolved, and I'll see if I can tackle another review of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, will do. Responded on the GA review page as well. TheBlinkster (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't have a "reliable" source, I have no choice but to let your undoing of my revision stand. That being said, I do have to point out that the skynews source currently in use, however "reliable" it may be, is rife with incorrect information. In fact, the author gives an incorrect screen time for each and every one of the seven performances mentioned. The article does nothing but perpetuate common Oscar-related screen time myths that I have spent nearly a decade trying to disprove. Again, there isn't much I can do here, but if I let wild inaccuracies like this go unchecked, then all my hard work is for nothing. Stoogetins (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Stoogetins[reply]

Sorry about that, and I'm not crazy about the Sky News source either. What's your feeling about this Time magazine source? I'm inclined to change it to that because Time is likely considered more reliable than Sky News. TheBlinkster (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That one is better. There's no sense in spreading the wildly inaccurate myths about Hopkins, Niven, and Quinn, so I'm all for making that change. Stoogetins (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Stoogetins[reply]

I've changed it over to the Time reference. Thanks for your input! TheBlinkster (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Your addition to the above article was very close to http://www.thecompassnews.org/2011/02/how-the-church-faces-claims-of-marian-apparitions/, a copyright web page. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation, even if you cite the source. You need to re-state things in your own words; simply changing a few words in a sentence is still a copyright violation if the structure of the sentence is preserved. This was detected by automatic plagiarism detection software. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I will restate in different words and put it back in with the appropriate cite to Compass News, which I had cited. I may have intended to block quote it and forgot to add the quote, but in any event it's likely too big of a quote. Can rewrite. Thanks again. TheBlinkster (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new version checks out okay. Thank you for taking the time to do this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Ragman's Daughter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scrap dealer. 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) 09:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Margot Bennett, actress, 1965.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 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) 17:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elizabeth Wurtzel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited That'll Be the Day (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West End (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The 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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The 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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Graham Stark c. early 1960s.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 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) 17:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Pick-n-Pay Supermarkets 1970s 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) 17:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]