User talk:GoddersUK

Removal of paragraph by me in article on suicide risk among LGBT youth
Just wanted to say thanks for your reply. I was actually in the process of replying when you replied to the wrong person. I put in my explanation of what i had done moved your reply in after mine which I then flagged that i had edited the record that way and then I made a reply myslef

the conversation can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suicide_among_LGBT_youth#Hate_Speach_-_masquerading_as_.27psychology.27_.26_.27Balance.27

and i moved the offending paragraph to its own article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Suicide_is_no_higher_for_LGBT_youth_than_any_other_group and then linked to it the references at the bottom of the references so the information is not lost - its placed in a better context

Obviously you might want to reply to what I have said in my talk post or edit what you have said now you understand the context thanks X-mass (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment here. That explains why the talk page comment and edit summary didn't match up! I'll drop a reply on the article talk page. Thanks :) GoddersUK (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User:175.110.139.126
Are you an Admin? You've been dealing with this editor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_NOTHERE_except_to_promote_ISIL Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Legacypac. No, I'm afraid I'm not an admin; I've just encountered them while patrolling recent changes. GoddersUK (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St Birinus School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chilton. 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) 09:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Code42
Hi Godders. I was wondering if you had any interest in considering some proposed updates to bring the article up-to-date. There's been some recent reviews in The Wall Street Journal and PC Magazine that can expand the Reception section, as well as some recent trade press on the Shareplan service, which could use just a bit more explanation in the article. CorporateM (Talk) 17:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CitrixPresentationServerClient.png
 Thanks for uploading File:CitrixPresentationServerClient.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. Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Western Main Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Langley. 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) 09:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Irom Sharmilla
about your reverting my revert on page of Irom Sharmila so long as it's more than one editor it's your club your rules. I am not going to revert a revert which has a second opinion i am cool with that. Take care now78.17.55.197 (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi 78.17.55.197, I moved your comment into a new section. Sorry, I think I was a bit quick with my mouse there! I thought "Doc Crazy" was an abusive moniker, not the guys actual username! (Generally we shouldn't mess with others' talk page comments unless they're abusive, spam etc., I may not have made the right judgment call there...) That said there's never really any call to use an obscenity in talk page comment. As for the rest of your discussion, I haven't looked into what it's about... Thanks for stopping by! GoddersUK (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

[Addition, much after the fact ftr: "I moved your comment into a new section" refers to the talk page comment here, rather than the one on the talk page under discussion GoddersUK (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)]

No that's fine if you can read up on some of the concerns I have had some have been removed. But I don't feel strongly enough to press them. I appreciate in places where there are formal rules of conduct you can destroy your case by reverting to obscenity just as those who learn all the acronyms even if they don't really understand them can make this their own kindom. My concern was that people used to living in the west talk do not understand the problems of verifiability when dealing with matters in a third world police state where all communication is censored. That is why they have so many prisoners of conscience there and why so little is really known about their struggle. Some people think that is a valid point and aids discussion of the page about a third world prisoner of conscience others think it is WP NOTFORUM. It's your page. If you have an opinion on the problems of verification in a third world police state where there is endemic corruption you can join in that discussion if it is allowed or not. Thanks for explaining why you removed the comment if you put it back i think few read. I thought you had read the discussion and were picking a side. It seems more likely few read and care less. wiki is a reflection of the real world. I go now. got no quarrel with you you don't appear to have any agenda either.78.17.55.197 (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was doing what we call recent changes patrol- looking out for apparently malicious edits - and have no interest in taking a side. I will explain some of the reasoning behind what appears to be the problem the other editors have, though, so that you can see why things are done they way they're done. There are two issues at play here:
 * 1) is the "BLP" (biographies of living persons) policy. Wikipedia has very strict rules about what can be said about living people, and what sources are needed to back that up. In part this is courtesy - Wikimedia (the organization ultimately responsible for Wikipedia) staff don't have the ability to check every allegation in depth (unlike, say, a newspaper), and the consequences of malicious (or otherwise wrong) information can be very severe - but, more importantly, there are legal reasons. If Wikipedia is used to spread inaccurate (or merely unprovable) information about an individual that individual could seek legal action against Wikimedia which would be costly to defend and costly to lose - and could see access to the encyclopedia, or parts thereof, cut off in some countries (or even the encyclopedia shut down!).
 * 2) is the verifiability requirement. With publically editable information the only way you have to be sure it's reliable is for everything to be verified in trustworthy third party sources. While this means that, at times, the encyclopedia will lack information (or contain information that some editors believe to be incorrect) depending on the sources. You can think of it as attempting to build a repository of the current state of accepted knowledge, rather than a repository of complete truth (which would, of course, be impossible). While individual articles may lose out through this policy the net result is an overall more reliable and accurate encyclopedia.
 * Unfortunately this means Wikipedia is unsuitable for some forms of information, including those where obtaining reliable sources is difficult.
 * I hope this can go a little way to explaining the position of the people you had a dispute with. GoddersUK (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this means Wikipedia is unsuitable for some forms of information, including those where obtaining reliable sources is difficult.
 * I hope this can go a little way to explaining the position of the people you had a dispute with. GoddersUK (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope this can go a little way to explaining the position of the people you had a dispute with. GoddersUK (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Mention 78.17.55.197, so they get a notification!GoddersUK (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC) The problem is with conflict of interest with medical wikis it's done usually to push one form of drug treatment over another and is about money. With political wikis it's to get people killed. And the problem as you say is no one takes reponsibility for checking. I gave verifiable reports which were removed. By verifiable wiki means published for example by newspapers which have some kind of editorial sifting. it doesn't have to be true or reliable just verifiable. Wiki doesn't try to define truthfulness and if reports vary you put it under a controversies section and provide references to different version. This isn't happening here but most of the abuses have been ironed out by the new guy.

Wiki is more likely to be shut down in third world police states because it tells the truth but usually there are ways around censorship. I don't really want to get into a long discussion with you. You removed a text because you agree now you misread it. If you want to undo your edit do so if not don't. You won't get involved in editing another editor's mistakes because you want to get along. But on the theory of encyclopaedias you have a point. The reason you have COIN and other groups is you know false information is being peddled here. One editor told me many articles are reduced to what he calls rubbish. It's not your job singlehandedly to check the veracity of articles but why did you get involved at all. If you are worried that Sharmila might sue wiki I can provide you with full legal cover but that isn't your concern. What I find irriating is if I ask why something is removed and am told its because of X and then I point out I have fulfilled that condition they say they meant because of Y or Z. It is very difficult for an editor without any specialist knowledge to edit an encylcopaedia entry on a specialist subject. But that was always a downside of allowing anyone to edit. In practice you grant access to editing not to specialists in the subject but wiki enthusiasts. It's what it is. I chatted because you did. I dont agree with any of hte theory it's not being implemented very well but if you don't look at the facts of this case which you admit you aren't doing how could you possibly know one way or another.

But if you are busy and everyone is. I think there are far more egregious abuses of information going on in wiki and maybe get involved in the ones you have time for or not. For some this replaces video games or porn surfing and is probably a healthier option although there are counterviews which are both published and verifiable I am sure you could do all three.78.17.55.197 (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello again 78.17.55.197. I'm going to reply to your comment in chunks.


 * The problem is with conflict of interest with medical wikis it's done usually to push one form of drug treatment over another and is about money. With political wikis it's to get people killed. - To be fair, bad edits on a medical article could easily have lethal consequences too.
 * And the problem as you say is no one takes reponsibility for checking. I gave verifiable reports which were removed. By verifiable wiki means published for example by newspapers which have some kind of editorial sifting. it doesn't have to be true or reliable just verifiable. Wiki doesn't try to define truthfulness and if reports vary you put it under a controversies section and provide references to different version. This isn't happening here but most of the abuses have been ironed out by the new guy. - I don't know the details of the issue in question, but if you feel there is an editing dispute here you should seek the input of the community - if you don't feel the article talk pages are going to get you a fair hearing then you should use the WP:RFC process to do this.
 * You removed a text because you agree now you misread it. - Yes, but I didn't replace the text because, as I said previously, other parts of that text still contain language that I feel constituted a personal attack. You could easily have rewritten it without the obscenities. (I'll grant alone they probably didn't warrant removal, I wouldn't oppose you reinstating the comment if you wish, but I'm not going to reinstate it myself)


 * If you are concerned about the consequences of the information in the article being available, I suggest the following:
 * Check WP:BLP - this has information on Wikipedia policies relating to articles about living people, including privacy, and how to request changes under these policies. You may raise concerns at WP:BLPN.
 * If it's an urgent request you may contact the Wikipedia oversight team here: WP:RFO
 * If you have good reason to believe that information published has created an imminent danger to person or property then, in addition to contacting oversight, I would strongly suggest that you, or a suitably qualified representative, contact the Wikimedia legal team. Information is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal#Legal_Team_Email_Contacts

GoddersUK (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nureongi‎
Hi GoddersUK. You recently made an edit over at Talk:Nureongi‎ where you reverted an edit by an IP. Please have a look at their contributions. I suspect they might be a sockpuppet. DrChrissy (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi DrChrissy. Perhaps. They seem to have ceased activity, for the time being, though. GoddersUK (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

TV licensing
Re TV licensing WOIRA. I have issued TV licensing with sevral 'WOIRA's, verbally, by recorded delivery, once via the police (who do not take ANY complaints about TVL, perhaps I'll add something about that, too. 8 years on, TVL still visit. So when you revert my edits saying that they do not respect WOIRAs, you are quite wrong. I could fume merrily about TVL after 27 years of harrasment and still with no end in sight, but I'm keeping it factual.

I do not know how to 'reference' their ignoring of WOIRAs. I only know that TV licensing do not respect WOIRAs by the fact that I have issued them with several over the past 8 years at the same house, but their 'agents' (I am keeping it civil!) STILL knock on my door. I doubt that I am alone. I can understand there being a processing lag, but this is getting towards a decade after sending the first one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictsidhe (talk • contribs) 15:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Pictsidhe. It wasn't me that reverted that edit, it was 195.194.15.4. Nevertheless, A few helpful points:
 * As Wikipedia and its editors can't determine truth, the most important thing its editors look out for is verifiability. This means you must provide credible, notable sources for your statements. See WP:V for more on that.
 * On that article, as stands, there is one good source (DM article that says they do) and one less-than-ideal (non-notable) source (FOI response that says they don't in Scotland). If you wish to add information to the contrary you will need a good source to that effect.


 * Thanks for stopping by! GoddersUK (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * To be more clear, to reference the fact they don't you would need to find a newspaper article, or similar, that mentions it. This ensures the information is both accurate and important enough to be included. I understand it's frustrating that you can't reference your own experience, but the alternative would be anarchy! GoddersUK (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Pictsidhe. One further addendum: they way you have edited the page now is even worse than uncited information! Because you didn't change the citation, the page now misrepresents what the DM article says! This means people that look at the page, but don't check the source, (most readers!) will now think this has been reported in a major newspaper, although we have no reason to believe it has been. Because of this I'm going to change the way you've worded them a bit. I'm not going to revert or them, though, because I think I'll be sailing too close to WP:3RR if I do! GoddersUK (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about ranting abouty this on your talk page, wasn't sure where else to do it. I hope I've given you enough clues to go on that TVL do ignore WOIRAs. I can see why you would like some evidence. I signed in and if you look, you'll see I don't have history of writing crap on wikipedia, just occasional minor edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictsidhe (talk • contribs) 16:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries, we try and always assume good faith. Talk pages are always the right place to discuss edits - all articles and all editors have them - and discussing changes is always right if you disagree with a change another editor has made to some of your edits! GoddersUK (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I added some links here to sites saying that TVL now ignore woiras, but they've gone. Found with googling 'TVL ignoring WOIRA' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictsidhe (talk • contribs) 16:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Rollback
I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AGoddersUK granted] the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. 15:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)– Gilliam (talk)
 * Thank you Gilliam. I will be sure to use with care! GoddersUK (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey I did mess the page up.. but why?
Because the entire list of Edinburgh acts (which thrived and pushed Scottish Hip-Hop to new levels) has been removed. A certain Glasgow group has removed EVERYTHING that isn't connected with themselves and put their name in blue... You know this page is going to go nuts with edits of people trying to get correct information on. I urge you to reset it back 6 months when it was honest and real. Now it's just bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.231.138 (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi 62.31.231.138. You make malicious edits, I remove them. That's how it works. If you have a problem with the content on that article I suggest you take it to the talk page. If you don't think you'll get a fair hearing there then follow the instructions at WP:RFC. Sorry for messing up several edits to your talk page in a row, btw... GoddersUK (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Blanking
In most cases, users are free to blank notices from their talk pages. Note also automated software detects any warnings that were removed &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  17:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi User:MusikAnimal. OK, thanks for the heads up! GoddersUK (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Forest Heights Community School
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Heights_Community_School

Hi those undos were me without an account trying to undo back to what that page was before some vandalism. I have created and account now and manually edited.

J-rock87 (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi J-rock87. Sorry, some (very obvious) vandalism from the same IP was included in that revert (it's a shared IP registered to the school so likely has many, many users) - apologies if I took out some: constructive edits too. Thanks for creating an account - it's the best way to avoid such issues! GoddersUK (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Annoying user
Hey GoddersUK! I here to tell you that, there been an annoying user who keep reverting edits that have something to do about music genres. Article like "679", Blacc Hollywood, O.N.I.F.C. and The New Classic. Can you at least block that guy or something? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi TheAmazingPeanuts. I'm afraid I'm not an admin, so I can't block them or anything. You should take the guy to WP:AIV or WP:ANI for genre warring. As I recall I gave the guy a level 4 warning last night so they've been fully warned and can be reported directly. GoddersUK (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although only take them to WP:AIV if they are active at the time you report him there. Otherwise WP:ANI is the way to go. You can also consider asking for page protection at WP:RPP if they only target specific pages.GoddersUK (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ResellerRatings - Chime in if you can
I'm attempting to include other facets of this business in the article on ResellerRatings. I invite you to participate on Talk:ResellerRatings. Previously, you attempted to improve the article by removing company PR inserted by user Techimo (who is obviously affiliated with the company and keeps anything which he considers unflattering from appearing therein.) I'm trying to rectify that and make the article more well rounded. ZeroShadows (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Nokia lumia 610.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nokia lumia 610.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chiltern Edge School Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Chiltern Edge School Logo.gif. 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) 17:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Visual Studio 2013 EN.png
Thanks for uploading File:Visual Studio 2013 EN.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) 03:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chiltern Edge School Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Chiltern Edge School Logo.gif. 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) 18:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Oxfordshire county council coat of arms.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Oxfordshire county council coat of arms.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) 17:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Live at Edu light Screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading File:Live at Edu light Screenshot.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) 18:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Live at Edu Screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading File:Live at Edu Screenshot.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) 18:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Command prompt icon (windows).png
Thanks for uploading File:Command prompt icon (windows).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) 03:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Visual Studio 2013 EN.png
Thanks for uploading File:Visual Studio 2013 EN.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) 18:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)