Dear Ich. I looked a bit at your contributions: interesting stuff that you are doing! I noticed that you corrected the "location" parameter of the Citation template in the article James Hamilton, Duke of Châtellerault from "publication-place" to "location". I thought "location" was on its way to deprecation and replaced by "publication-place". There are many other occurrences in articles that I edited where I replaced "location" with "publication-place", but if you can show that "publication-place" is incorrect or that "location" ought to be preferred, I will without any hesitation change it all back. The documentation for the Citation template says "publication-place (or place or location)". With greetings Johannes Schade (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: - Thanks for the info. I have been using the citation tool Wikipedia:UCB and see a bug report here: User talk:Citation bot/Archive_19#Erroneous move of publication-place to location. As far as I can tell, the two are effectively aliases of each other and I couldn't find any info about deprecations. I also found this discussion: Help talk:Citation Style 1#publication-place, place, or location and their proper use. I usually assume when relatively "established" bots make changes that they're changing articles to conform to a style guide (like turning "dead-url=y" into "url-status=dead"). Thanks for the note!-Ich (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I have never used this "citation tool" or "UCB". It seems to require a special permission. I recently got permission for Auto-Wiki-Browser (AWB), another bot frequently used by Wikipedians. I agree there is no deprecation notice for the "location" parameter, but I think "publication-place" has been added quite recently. I would think that replacing publication-place with location is not right. I would agree they are aliases, but I feel publication-place should be preferred. These bots seem to misbehave quite often. I found out that AWB reformats dates according to some Wikipedia standard, which in principle is fine, but it does it also with dates appearing inside quotes, which is definitively wrong. I got some more experienced user to report it as a bug for me. Luckily, one can switch this replacement off, which I do when I run AWB. To be a bit blunt: can you please revert your replacement in James Hamilton, Duke of Châtellerault or would you allow me to do it for you? With thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: I've reverted the location-place changes on the page. As for UCB, the special permission is something you grant to the UCB script and doesn't require anybody to authorize you, as far as I know. This can be done at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences under § Editing: "Citation Expander". This lets you (among other things) create a ref template using only an isbn, doi or Google books URL, and when you click on the button that appears next to "Show changes", it automatically pulls metadata from various resources to populate any missing fields. Of course it's not perfect, but about 95% of the time, if I can find a book on Google Books, the author, isbn, title, and publication date automatically are filled in, which makes cleaning up citations quite easy.-Ich (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Ich. Very decent of you. Thank you very much. I have had similar problems with other people. You are the first who actually reverted. Johannes Schade (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"The antisense oligo golodirsen was approved for medical use in the United States in 2019 for the treatment of cases that can benefit from skipping exon 53 of the dystrophin transcript" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your edits to "Ephemeris time". This article did not use any citation templates. According to WP:CITEVAR you should not introduce citation templates to an article that does not use them without gaining consensus on the article's talk page first. I can assure you there will be no consensus to change some of the citations and leave others in the established style. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: that's fine. If you don't object; I could also change them all to use templates, but I'm not invested in any particular outcome. If nothing else, I found an online version of the JPL report and re-added that (not with a template) because it took a little searching to find that link. The rest of the changes were not particularly involved.-Ich (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ich :) I was wondering if you could help me with improving this article to see if we can get rid of the ban (article has a multiple issues) which was placed few days ago. Please feel free to make an edits, I see you have a long experience with wiki. Thank you and have a nice day! Sausa (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your help! Sausa (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

...if I came across a bit pissy. EEng 18:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: No worries at all - I am primarily glad to know there's a page discussing the use. I generally fall into the "don't use" camp but will generally leave it alone when I see it now.-Ich (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't normally bother either, but in an article like the Floyd article, there are so many refs that it's a huge strain to insert, delete, or move anything at all because of the sheer bulk of the refs drowning the actual text. The linebreaks let your eye scan the left margin for the text you seek. EEng 09:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

When you add {{Use dmy dates}}, you need to retain the existing cite style. If this uses YYYY-MM-DD for access and archive dates, you need to include |cs1-dates=ly. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Robert Troyer, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 08:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lower_decks&type=revision&diff=969312932&oldid=892700942

Sorry but why redirect lower decks to Lower Decks? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

In ictu oculi I made the change because I figured most people typing in "lower decks" were interested in Star Trek, rather than general information about decks of ships (I don't have traffic information to confirm this). However the current hat notes suit me fine, too.Ich (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Really? Obviously, they didn't choose anything, nor change the size of bricks, they just converted the brick size used into cm. Likewise many things sold in jars still come in 454 gram jars. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Johnbod I think the regular brick sizes they left alone (or did a hard metric conversion), but their standard's cutoff between "brick" and "block" was defined in natively metric units; I was amused to see numbers like "337,5 mm" i.e. "3+3/8 decimeters" i.e. 13.28 inches. I had expected round imperial units, say, 14"x9"x5", or round metric units, like 350x250x120mm. I'm not sure why it amused me - maybe seeing how the (imperial) tendency to think with fractions was carried over when coming up with native metric units. (As an American living in Germany, metrification fascinates me in general.)-Ich (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps the sizes use other pre-metric units, or go back to older definitions of "inch", foot etc. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC).

You had a very nice mohawk at your high-school, may I ask on which age you began to wear one? have you shaved it off? why? what was its largest length? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.85.93 (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ich—your edit here undid my previous edit. Based on your edit summary, which stated you were only doing ref work, as well as the fact that part of my edit contained uncontroversial grammar fixes that there would be no justification for reverting, I'm guessing it was unintentional. If you encountered an edit conflict and copied and pasted your text, please don't do that, as you are overwriting others. If there was some other bug or cause, please let me know. (please use {{ping|Sdkb}} on reply) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb Sorry about that; I thought I caught all the changes and integrated them into my version. I'll be more careful.-Ich (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ich,

Thank you for creating Port tongs.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Interesting article, thank you

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Joseywales1961}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

JW 1961 Talk 22:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It's very helpful. Please would you consider tagging them as minor edits so they don't appear in the watchlists of editors who filter out minor edits? Cheers. soibangla (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Soibangla: - It's nice to be appreciated; happy to flag as minor going forward (i.e. I'll try my best to remember).-Ich (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Please read my arguments in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sonderkommandos_of_Einsatzgruppen and reconsider your conclusion . Slav70 (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I found your page on from your edits on the Gypsycrusader Wikipedia. I am not sure if you are familiar with “Catboykami”. He is a streamer similar to Paul Miller but is more popular with Russian viewers. I admire your determination against Nazi Germany on your page and you’ve been on Wikipedia longer than I. This is why I ask if you may help me create a new Wikipedia article for Tor Gustafson Brookes (Catboykami). MiguelRaza (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

MiguelRaza I've never heard of him. I spent a few minutes googling and don't think he passes Wikipedia's threshold for notable persons. I've only found one ABC.net.au article that engages with him as the main topic, and a few passing mentions elsewhere (note: the Daily Mail is banned as a source). Probably best to wait and see if he does anything else that merits press coverage by reliable sources before writing an article; the source material right now is too thin. Thanks for the message though.-Ich (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for your tireless efforts across the project to bring needed clarity and accuracy to the ways we describe the murders of George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery. I can't get a real count on the number of edits, but it's definitely in excess of 1,500. I am deeply grateful. Firefangledfeathers 18:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers 18:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Reissdorf Logo klein.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) 18:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Earyn McGee, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earyn McGee (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joan (given name), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jovanka and Jann.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Sternburg beer logo.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) 03:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Würzburger Hofbräu Logo.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. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ich. I acknowledge your point of view on your user page, but mass changes to articles should normally be carried out with consensus and in accordance with reliable sources. I've raised this at the project talk page and you may wish to participate in that discussion there. Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Bermicourt: Thanks; I've seen that. I've responded first on Talk:Sonnenstein Euthanasia Centre and will respond shortly on the project page.-Ich (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Hermes Logistik Gruppe 2008.svg. 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) 02:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:1597 establishments in Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

A wikignomes work too often goes unsung, so thanks for cleaning up all those references NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy Thanks; I find it to be relaxing work.-Ich (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Controlled flight into terrain, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I am @GrandmasterLiuHu and I noticed your change to the article for the Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Removing the term "Third Reich" actively makes it more difficult for people cross referencing other key phrases to find the page. It is also improper, because the official name of the German state at the time was in fact "The Third Reich".

Rather than deleting "Nazi Dictatorship" and replacing it with "The Third Reich" again, I have edited the page to read "During the Nazi Dictatorship of the Third Reich".

GrandmasterLiuHu (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@GrandmasterLiuHu:: Hi, thank you for your message. I will disagree, however: the term "Third Reich" was never the official name for the country. I think "under" or "during Nazi rule" (depending on context) is a good formulation. I have also updated the essay on my user page to include this point.-Ich (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thank you! I have looked at your essay and I can see that from my perspective the strongest argument for your position seems to be that the German government officially banned the term. I must however present some things for your consideration:

1: We still call the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom the THK, even though nobody believes their claim that Hong Xiuquan was the Chinese brother of Jesus. It is typical to refer to groups how they refer to themselves. This doesn't indicate that you accept their ideological claims when you use the name. The USA southern rebels are still referred to as "Confederate States of America" for the most part on Wikipedia and not simply "Traitorous forces" for example.

2: As you yourself point out, the term is extremely popular with English writers, and many of those writers are professional historians. Removing the term from wikipedia would make it harder for a person reading older material to find related updated material on Wikipedia.

3: I propose that instead of abolishing the use of the term "Third Reich", the primary article for Nazi Germany should have a section exploring the Nazi logic for the use of the term and contrasting that logic with the actual historical reality of the world. A section with a title about "Misconceptions about the term Third Reich" would be ideal.

4: Although the Nazis did eventually ban the use of the term, the term originated with Nazi propaganda. It was an official state term, and that term became popular in the United States. It is used among Americans for cultural reasons because of the American "Battle against the Third Reich" which was so often portrayed in propaganda of that time period. Official US Government propaganda identified the enemy as "The Third Reich" on numerous occasions, often taking a mocking tone, and I believe this bears some of the responsibility for the popular use of the term among English speakers.

5: Unrelated to this discussion, but your change of "Died in holocaust" to "Murdered in holocaust" seems very sound and reasonable. I will enforce this if I see it in other places. GrandmasterLiuHu (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@GrandmasterLiuHu: Thanks for your responses. I want to point out that this is a personal essay and I don't expect other Wikipedians to join my quixotic pursuit; I mostly want others to understand why I'm wasting my time on this endeavor. The German article de:Drittes Reich is enormously detailed about the history, use, and criticism of the term and if I ever have far too much time on my hands, I will translate this into English. Many of the points are taken from that article.

1. The name we use to refer to historical periods is often not the one that was used contemporaneously. The name "Weimar Republic" really only stuck after WWII (see de:Weimarer Republik#Bezeichnung); this is the term that historians, both inside and outside Germany, have settled on, and I know of no objections to the term. The Nazis never officially referred to their government as das dritte Reich, and Hitler's reasons for banning the terms were apparently a mix of Hitler preferring other terms, like the "Germanisches Reich deutscher Nation" and "Großgermanisches Reich", while also considering his Führer-Staat not having much in common with Arthur Moeller van den Bruck's conception of a "third Reich". (Moeller van den Bruck was a critic of Hitler as well.)

2. The term was also popular in Germany for decades after the war in part because the Nazis hadn't firmly settled on an official name. It fell out of common use in the 1980s because historians and the public re-evaluated the term. I'm not sure I understand the exact point you are making here, though.

3. The article Nazi Germany has a brief mention of the term's baggage, but the article is already very long: any deeper explanation of the term would go onto a different page linked with "Main article: Third Reich (term)".

4. Even if the US popularized "Third Reich" (mockingly or uncritically) during the war, I don't see it as a reason to continue using it today. The US produced anti-Japanese propaganda using the words "Jap" and "Nip", which were not seen as especially problematic at the time but are now rightly considered unacceptable ethnic slurs. Broadly put: we should be willing to leave terms in the past as we gain further perspective, knowledge and context. I only try to change minds but I am not in a position to dictate language to anyone.

5. Thank you; I am glad you find the essay persuasive.

Thank you again for your time and thought on this.-Ich (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:SchneiderWeisse.svg. 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) 17:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HHS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton High School.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Minerva 93 Berlin Logo.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) 18:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Green track, is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. There are large sections which are wholly uncited. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

onel5969 Hi, how about now?-Ich (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

See below. Nice job. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Green track, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Gedenkbuch, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Gedenkbuch, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Hello! How do you feel about it now? I tried my best to include some English-language sources.-Ich (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice job. I've moved it back to mainspace. Also, don't worry about English sources, while they are nice for foreign language-challenged folks like me, they are not required. And usually, machine translations can do a decent job in evaluating them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Sportfreunde Stiller - You have to win Zweikampf.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) 05:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I would just like to know where abouts the photo was taken 2604:3D08:5F8C:4000:78C6:F4BB:BF19:F158 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@2604:3D08:5F8C:4000:78C6:F4BB:BF19:F158 Hey, as best I remember it was at Checkpoint Charlie, a tourist hotspot, across from the McDonald's, facing north (towards East Berlin). If you look in the upper left corner, you can see the famous sign. The booth probably isn't there anymore though. 52.5074 N, 13.3904 E looks about right. Ich (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)