User talk:Colonel Tom

Mammern
If you see a "real place" article tagged as speedy (usually because it's a one liner), by all means remove the notice and put on the talk page. Location articles are slightly above people and things in terms of how much "notability" has to be asserted - if the place exists, it's generally in, and will be expanded in the future. Nice one,  Dei zio  talk 12:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available
 After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Australia/Anniversaries
Hello Tom. I have created this new section, which hopefully will become a new daily section on Australia portal. If you think this is useful, you can say so at Portal talk:Australia, or simply start adding notable events to the subpages for the respective days. If it is enacted, then we have code, similar to Portal:Germany, which will change the daily subpage automatically. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC).

Dab redlinks
Whoa! check out WP:MOSDAB. John (Jwy) 13:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the short first note. It looks you were over-eager with at least Rafael Trujillo (disambiguation) and Ragnarok (disambiguation) and I wanted to make sure you knew about this part of the MOSDAB. . . John (Jwy) 13:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't read carefully the section you quoted. I operate under the assumption that a blue link related to the subject is useful, even if it doesn't directly mention the topic.  The reason NOT to have them is to make it easier to "eye navigate" to the item you are looking for.  I don't think an extra dab (pardon the pun) of blue here or there makes too much difference in that.  But I might be too liberal about it.  I completely support removing blue links when the dab term is blue!
 * My initial alarm was because on the only two articles on my watchlist that you changed, you removed all the bluelinks and I started thinking you were doing it automatically without regard to the MOSDAB redlink paragraph. Then I looked at your home page and contribution list and thought "oh my god, he's got a bot just removing all the bluelinks," so I was bit shorter and ruder in my hurry.  I see you are thinking it through - so please resume your good work - and again apologies for being alarmist.  And MAYBE consider being a little more liberal in keeping some blue links
 * ...oh, and my 13:58 reply above - was actually a clarification of my 13:44 msg, I hadn't seen your message yet. Turns out it worked fine as an answer! John (Jwy) 17:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All cool. But your response made me realize that I should have qualified it:
 * And MAYBE consider being a little more liberal in keeping some blue links when that dab line's article name is redlinked
 * I completely support getting rid of them elsewhere on the page. Cheers John (Jwy) 00:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You hit another dab page (Ream) on my watchlist. I usually leave a bluelink with each entry, so I would have left caulk.  I was about to say leave a link for borer as well, but I clicked the link. . .  Just food for thought, not a demand for action on your part.  John (Jwy) 16:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't feel strongly enough about Ream to change it. Since we are both MOSDABing, I'm mainly bouncing ideas off you about things in general rather than quibbling about individual pages. . .  John (Jwy) 22:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

wikilinks on disambig page per Manual of Style ????
Why do you remove the links? At least in this case it made the info much less useful (too complicated to explain). The reason of Wikipedia is to provide as much useful and exact information as possible, not to dance by the song of the day. Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek 18:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Since we just had a similar discussion just above, I thought I'd pipe in: I think the changes made the page more useful as a disambiguation page, while it might have reduced the amount of information.  Disambiguation pages are intended to get you to the page you want quickly.  As such it provides what information it is necessary to know which link to click and not more.  WP:MOSDAB explains things pretty well, I think.  John (Jwy) 19:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. I've copied the above to, and answered on, Pavel's talk page. Colon el Tom 05:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please help on Ancient Egypt
Posted by Pruneau 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team

Desk holiday
In case you hadn't noticed, Desk holiday has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Red-FM and WP:MOSDAB
Thanks for the info - wasn't aware of WP:MOSDAB. --Ckatz 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * hey, topic heading already here!
 * The mindless answer would be "I'm just following orders" in WP:MOSDAB. But I've read somewhere (and believe) that having the article links un-piped makes it easier to understand what is happening when you deal with the dab page and why you ended up on the page you do.  For example Red-FM might be disorienting.  The other thing is that the blue (and red) are easier to pick up, and if they include the useful dab information, navigation is quicker.  You'll see (India) quicker than India.  John (Jwy) 14:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question I asked { :) }, but you have answered the question I should have asked. Yes, it makes sense; I agree. Red FM (India) (93.5 MHz) in Mumbai is preferable to Red FM (93.5 MHz) in Mumbai, India or Red FM (93.5 MHz) in India. Thanks, Colon el  Tom 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Mining in Australia is the new ACOTF
Hi. You voted for Mining in Australia for Australian Collaboration of the fortnight. It has been selected, so please help to improve the article in any way you can. Thanks. Scott Davis Talk 13:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

MoS
You changed 1981 to 1981, but the latter is specifically warned against elsewhere in the MoS (as an "Easter Egg link"). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Stuart Brisley
Hi, thanks for kind words and getting in touch re. the above. The statement "widely regarded as the godfather of British performance art" is true and he is well known in the field, certainly needing an article. I've added a link to his work in the Tate gallery. The article undersells him, to say the least. He gets over 11,000 google hits and, although this isn't infallible, there are, for example, shows at the ICA and South London Gallery, which assert credibility.

In general re. artists WP:BIO states "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field". It then becomes a question of interpreting "widely recognised", which is problematic as most artits are not widely recognised by definition, reputations are often being known only within the field and not outside (Brisley being a case in point). The problem is compounded on Wiki by what appears to be a very small number of people editing articles on contemporary artists. I've started a number of articles on contemporary UK art figures that I thought needed to be covered, and have been amazed that they have largely remained exactly as I've left them.

Another drawback is the cultural difference between writing about art in the wider world and wiki requirements, so, for example, new editors often get clobbered for making statements without verifiable references, e.g. the Brisley ""widely regarded as the godfather of British performance art", which would be taken for granted in art writing, and yet possibly end up as AfD on wiki. The new editor then thinks wiki is an amateur shambles and leaves it. For these reasons, I advocate a certain caution, and think in the first instance that an attempt at patient dialogue with the article's originating/main editor would be beneficial. I have done this with several articles, and something which was a bit shambolic in wiki terms has ended up as a viable article. It wasn't the original editor's fault, just the initial difficulty of mastering a huge amount of wiki requirements.

Also artists don't have fans in the way that bands do, for example, when a fan is likely to start an article. Artists have galleries, collectors and art critics, who are all too busy making money to want to contribute to wiki. It may well be that the only person who contributes about an artist, certainly to begin with, is the artist, which falls foul of VANITY, though it should be noted this in itself is not a reason for deletion, if the subject is sufficiently notable. This brings us back to the original question of how to judge this. What wiki really needs is more people knowledgeable in the field, or editors willing to gain a greater knowledge of it. (I've certainly learnt a lot from through researching for articles.) This needs to be encouraged, and will only happen if there is an intelligent, tolerant and communicative stance from existing editors, certainly not by a knee-jerk and sometimes blatantly ignorant and insulting comments that I have seen in some AfDs on artists, such as "a way that can be replicated by any kid" and "something kindergarden kids do". Your approach to Stuart Brisley is a good example of proceeding with caution and seeking more research, which should be encouraged.

It would be good also to liaise with WikiProject Visual arts and WikiProject Contemporary Art to contact people with a declared interest in this area.

Tyrenius 14:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

division of Coburg, Victorian Greens
Hi there, I noticed that you removed the redlink to the division of Coburg on the Victorian Greens article because the seat no longer exists. Is not it irrelevant whether the seat still exists or not? It was an historical seat and many historical things no longer in existance in WP have articles about them such as the Third Reich and Ned Kelly.

Things happened in that seat, it was held by various people, votes were recorded. All of these are relevant facts for an encyclopedia. Grumpyyoungman01 00:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"eagerness to quickly delete new articles"
Hello. I saw your headline about "General wiki eagerness to quickly delete new articles" (as you wrote at a user's talk page).

I thought you may want to participate in Articles for deletion/Gabba (band), which now have a large body of external evidence (All Music Guide, articles in Mojo, Melody Maker, NME, etc.) and only my vote for "Keep", despite having paged the deleters about my providing the demanded evidence. Regards, -- 62.147.37.227 11:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson Jihad
Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT ( s-s-s-s ) 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Princess Superstar.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Princess Superstar.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2004 Australian Greens candidates
The 2004 Australian Greens candidates has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Peter Campbell 12:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pop Goes the Weasel cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pop Goes the Weasel cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Subliminal JWYTIWO cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Subliminal JWYTIWO cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Awolone speakerface cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Awolone speakerface cover.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Edan promo pic.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Edan promo pic.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of male performers in gay porn films
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of male performers in gay porn films. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (5th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Howdy
So you don't like The Epoch Times. Fair enough. Your point was noted...twice now. But honestly, your refusal to actually read the many other sources, what they wrote, read about their editorial pages, their reach in readership, ...to fail to do your job as an editor and voter in such a way, and yet to then post your opinion anyway, as though it has truly considered the evidence, is, well...shocking. Just once, would you please go to PopMatters. Google it right now. It is cited several times on the page, yet you have ignored it. Go to it now. Imagine you are into cool music, for one second, and look at that site. Look at the editorial page. Look at the two pieces written on Chancellorpink there, the two pieces that are not written "in passing" in the least. Also, look at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, read about its long journalistic history, one of great integrity, reliability and independence, read the three pieces written on Chancellorpink there as well, and read about the pres member who wrote them, about his outstanding journalistic history, and how he specializes in MUSIC. Two sources right there, 5 pieces, all detailed, all independent, all written about this artist. That meets the standard right there And I could go on. Nothing is fluff or overstated about my arguments. I am only arguing the facts and applying the standard that you cited. I do wish you'd reconsider. You seem an intelligent person. Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reconsidering and toning down your initial post on my talk page.
 * I had already read the two pieces on PopMatters. They're album reviews, not a piece on the artist per se. As another editor had already commented in the AfD that reviews are not proof of notability, I didn't feel the need to repeat that comment.
 * If you find my continued unwillingness to agree with you that the citations in the article are evidence that the artist meets wikipedia's standards of notability shocking, so be it. That wasn't -and still isn't - my intention. Colon el Tom 20:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Tom, of course if you actually believed that poppycock about reviews not being a valid writing to indicate notability, you'd have said so to begin with re The Epoch Times. But I will give you this -- you sure backtrack well to protect a completely untenable position.  Cheers!  Bubblegumcrunch (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC).


 * I was trying to show that the Epoch Times itself was not a reliable source, which is a position you still seem to hold. My apologies for not sufficiently documenting my thought processes. I'll continue to disappoint in this area, I fear. Still, Wikipedia will stumble along ... Colon el Tom 21:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as you are here contributing to Wikipedia, indeed it will stumble, and often. Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (I've added my comments on Bubblegumcrunch's talk page here in sequence, for the sake of completeness. On the off chance that anyone actually cares, the discussion was in relation to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chancellorpink .) Colon el  Tom 01:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
... for the barnstar. The love and appreciation of total strangers who can have no possible advantage to gain by expressing said love and appreciation is always a wonderful thing to experience. Cheers, from one Aussie celt to another. -- Jack of Oz   [your turn]  18:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Campbell (journalist)
Hi. Thanks for your note. It wasn't an easy one. There are more than just the arguments in the comments marked "Weak Keep", that suggested sufficient notability (although it would seem most feel that it is a weak claim to notability). I also didn't completely dismiss Brandonfarris's input, anymore than I did Garth M's. I did not get the impression that most who considered him not notable enough, were suggesting that he was completely non-notable. So we seem to have a group who consider him not quite notable enough, and other who consider him just notable enough. It seems that most people understand the guidelines but, as always they have their own interpretations of the facts. In the absence of definitive arguments in terms of proving or disproving notability, I believe that "no consensus" is the right decision. Hope that clarifies my thinking somewhat. TigerShark (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone
I don't feel comfortable with your thinly veiled personal insinuations on the PMI article Talk page. They are not appropriate. Please familiarise yourself with WP:AGF --Brandonfarris (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your discomfort is noted. Every editor has the right to feel safe and comfortable.  I shall bear this in mind when I make future contributions there.  Colon el  Tom 20:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Melbourne Meetup
Hi there. Just inviting you to the Melbourne meetup this Sunday at 11am, to celebrate our 11th anniversary. Details on that page. Hope to see you there! SteveBot (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (on behalf of Steven Zhang)

Minor - Major issue
yeah they were marked as minor cause nothing major things have been done. one page was moved. please read the wikipedia help pages properly I am sure you can have some knowledge then. Thanks for taking ur time to write me. Avaloan (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you will read the wikipedia help pages properly prior to write me back on my page again. Avaloan (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * After I've directed you to the relevant page, you chose to mark the above post as a minor edit. I'm bemused, to put it politely.  Please, again, I ask you to read WP:MINOR and the sections of it that I posted on your talk page, so that you can correctly identify when to mark an edit as minor.  Adding text or content (as you've done here) is not a minor edit.  Colon el  Tom 10:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have got work to do than babbling with strangers. if you have anything else to say write that on my talk page, I will read them later. seeya.! Avaloan (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Clube Atlético Paranaense
User:31Julho1985 person who cheers or applauds Coritiba club, team antagonistic Clube Atlético Paranaense. your intention to diminish, reduce article Veloster (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * did not add anything. just reversed. Veloster (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Who was added false information. User:31Julho1985 Veloster (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.furacao.com/80anos/historia/1924.php - fan club, unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veloster (talk • contribs) 07:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

By keeping editing User: 31Julho1985. will not be the reality Veloster (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC). he has to show sources Veloster (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

February Melbourne Meetup
Hi All. Just letting you know that we have another meetup planned for Melbourne, on Sunday, 26th February at 11am. More details can be found at the meetup page. Pizza will be provided. Look forward to seeing all of you there :-) SteveBot (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup
Hey all, just a reminder that there's a meetup tomorrow at 11am in North Melbourne. There are more details at the meetup page. Hope to see you tomorrow! SteveBot (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Meetup invitation: Melbourne 26
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup next Sunday (6 January). Details and an attendee list are at Meetup/Melbourne 26. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 05:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Victoria)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Orphaned non-free image File:Necro Gory Days cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Necro Gory Days cover.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) 17:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)