User talk:Quentin X/Archive 11

File:Coffy.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Coffy.jpg, 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) 00:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Club infobox dates
Hi, when updating club infobox stats you should update the club-update or pcupdate parameter by adding five tildes, which generates the specific time the update was made. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, didn't know that. Thanks. Quentin X (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Adventures of pinocchio ver1.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Adventures of pinocchio ver1.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Scream 2.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Scream 2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Working Girl movie poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Working Girl movie poster.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

"i.e.
You do know that "i.e." means "id est" or "that is" and not "you must do it exactly this way", right? BMK (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am aware of this e.g. (insert example here) Quentin X (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Stars
Not every actor listed in the billing box are "stars". When there are names above the title, only those actors are the stars of the film. BMK (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not according to Template:Infobox film. To clarify it says "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release, separated by Plain list. Do not add non-notable or uncredited actors and avoid filler text such as 'with' or 'featuring'". It doesn't mention whether this is above or below the title. Quentin X (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why the fuck do you think Jack Nicholson's name is sitting up there all by itself at the top of the poster for The Two Jakes? Because the printer thought it would be a good idea to put something there?  Because Nicholson came in the dead of night and added his name?  No, it's there because HE IS THE STAR OF THE ******* FILM, and for that reason only.  Please stop editing idiotically and robotically, following whatever nonsense you're told and use your damn brain. The billing box is for billing, if there's no one listed above the title (that's an actual contractual phrase), then those people are the stars.  If these is someone above the title, they and only they, are the stars of the film. Period.   This is not debatable, this is not a question subject to consensus, this is a "the sky is blue" fact.  Please help make Wikipedia factual and keep the "starring" section a list of stars, and not a list of actors in the film. Thanks. BMK (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please fix the inaccurate information you have added to multiple Wikipedia articles. BMK (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How does NO grab you? If you did that for this film, and Harvey Keitel has just as large a role as the other Jake, then you do it to all films. That would mean leaving Alan Rickman out of Die Hard and Robin Hood, Burgess Meredith out of Rocky and Mark Rylance out of Bridge of Spies. What you are doing makes it subjective, whereas I'm being objective. So, again, no. Quentin X (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Subjective my Great Aunt Fanny - IF THE NAME IS ABOVE THE TITLE IT'S STAR BILLLING - How objective can you be? Anyway, congratulations, you've done your small part in degrading the quality of information on Wikipedia. I'm not sure there's a barnstar for that. Your personal thoughts about stardom are, well, interesting, but irrelevant, since the size of the role has almost nothing to do with star billing. But, hey, I've only been in show business for 43 years, so what the hell do I know? I'm sure you watch a lot more films then I do, so we should go with your errant reasoning instead of established facts on the ground about what is and isn't a star.  Good work, Quentin X - when do you run for admin? BMK (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Anytime you want to nominate me, old chum. My regards to your Great Aunt Fanny. Quentin X (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm...Interesting dialogue, despite the unwarranted mutual disrespect. Of course, the hypeword "star" is merely a Hollywood commercial invention which in fact, as BMK correctly observes, was limited to actors with names billed above the film's title. The term was later generalised to denote any actor of note with a reputation based on one or more films. But does that entitle him to stardom in the sense of "stars of the film" (BMK's specific words above)? Of course not! Mickey Rooney was undoubtedly a "film star", but he certainly did not star in all of his films, e.g., Breakfast at Tiffany's, in which Audrey Hepburn was the star while George Peppard and Mickey Rooney were billed (below the title) as featured players. I notice that WP's infobox for that film also includes Patricia Neal and Buddy Ebsen as "stars" while not including Rooney, who is more prominently billed than either--very strange indeed.

You, Q X, base your view on the authority of (whoever created and documented) Template:Infobox film--which, of course, lacks MOS status and is thus open to amendment by consensus. Having done so, you must surely have read the words "with the exception that if there are names listed "above the title", these actors are the stars of the film." On that standard, the inescapable conclusion is that we list extraneously billed actors, "top-billed actors from the screen credits", and "[o]ther additions by consensus" ONLY when names listed "above the title" are "unavailable".

So, please, Quentin X, look again and withdraw gracefully from your position of hubris. Alternatively, we can shun the word "star(s)" and replace it with "notable player(s)" throughout those unnecessarily cluttered infoboxes. Bjenks (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Bjenks. Thanks for the message. I was a bit concerned that I had read Template:Infobox film incorrectly previously, so went back to it and checked the history. It transpires that BMK added the words "with the exception that if there are names listed "above the title", these actors are the stars of the film" during the above conversation.


 * Obviously I appreciate that that the template lacks MOS status. It was after seeing the infobox for The Expendables 3, which looks tremendously "top heavy", for want of a better phrase, that I noted that the vast majority of recently released films, especially those that can considered to be major releases, have all the names of all the actors mentioned on the poster in the infobox. I feel this saves arguments as to who should and who shouldn't be listed. Actually, the example that you give, Breakfast at Tiffany's, should probably have Mickey Rooney in the infobox as the size of his billing on the poster is arguably as big as George Peppard's.


 * I'm probably never going to convince BMK about this however, but it would appear that his is a singular view. Quentin X (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Absolutely Fabulous: The Movie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lulu. 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) 11:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Football copyright edits
I was confused by one of your edits, so I looked into the issue: the premier league did try to get their fixture lists copywritten, but this was struck down...initially by european, but then also british courts, then they condeded the issue and...tried to make it sound as if they were giving them away when really they'd been told they were talking nonsense in the first place. tl;dr - your edits along those lines are unneeded. 79.74.26.221 (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're absolutely right. I must have missed that. I've reverted the Bournemouth article. Don't think it was a "nutty" edit mind :-) Quentin X (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NYPD Blue logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:NYPD Blue 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Thechaseposter.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Thechaseposter.jpg

Please also consider updating other files you created or uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log].

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 14:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Legend of bagger vance ver2.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Legend of bagger vance ver2.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Quick and the Dead (1995 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Conway. 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) 09:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Glass Shield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don Harvey. 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) 09:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Cast lists
I get that you are a single-track minded editor who wants to change everything for consistency, but please leave the links alone. There's no reason to make the infobox huge to include every billed person in an ensemble film. It links to the cast section with plenty more information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Uniformity is good as it saves arguments. I think that was Marx.... Quentin X (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Uniformity is not a valid reason to change anything, as we've established endlessly on Wikipedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you'd find Marx would disgree. Or was it Mugabe? Anyway, if you want to change all the Star Treks, including the reeboot series which has the plainlist, then I won't complain. Make sure it's tidy though. I hate untidy things. And best do the same for all other ensemble films, like the MCU and Star Wars, because those casts lists can be MASSIVE! Quentin X (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Original gangstas poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Original gangstas poster.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Angelas ashes ver2.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Angelas ashes ver2.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

your edit at Blade (film)
I'm not sure why you removed this note? I thought I'd ask for an explanation before I restored it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I removed it because it was repeated information as the same note is at the top of the actors credit list. Quentin X (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes quite a bit of sense. Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Harry nikki leo 2.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Harry nikki leo 2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi QuentinX. I've readded the template you removed from the file because reverting back to a pervious version does nothing to address the non-free use concerns I've raised. I still don't see any justification for this type of non-free use in the article, and what the reasons I given in the template apply just as easily to both versions of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was under the impression that the new version was the problem. I'll have a look. Quentin X (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. Actually, the new version was a problem, but for a different reason. Typically, a "new version" of a file is one that is essentially the same content, but which has been changed in some minor way such as cropping, lightening or resizing, etc. This new version, however, was completely different and thus it would have been much better for it to have been uploaded as a completely separate file. This is especially true for non-free content because proper sourcing, etc. is needed for copyright verification per WP:NFCC and the new version's use in the article may not properly reflect how the version it replaced was being used in the article as required by WP:NFCC. Another potential problem is that, unlike in the case of freely licensed files, older versions of non-free files are eventually deleted per WP:F5, which can make it hard to compare different versions when there's some disagreement as to which is best. FWIW, I know you did not upload the "new version" of the file, so I'm not suggesting you did something wrong.
 * Anyway, my concerns with the file have to do with the fact that it seems to be primarily used in a decorative manner to simply show the cast, or at least the cast at one point in time. There doesn't seem to be any connection between this particular image (regardless of version) and what is written in the article, so there's really no reason for the reader to see it. If there's was some sourced discussion of this particular image in the article, which shows that it was something that reliable sources were discussing, then there would be a much stronger justification for non-free use. The fact that one cast photo can simply be replaced by another cast photo kind of shows that its use is mainly decorative. If this is kind of vague sounding, then perhaps the recent controversy about the use of digital scanning in Rogue One of Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher which is something that has received significant coverage in the press provides a more clear example of the point I'm trying to make. If a non-free image improves the reader's understanding of content found in the article to such a degree that omitting the image would be detrimental to the understanding, then non-free use seems appropriate. I just don't see anything like that in this particular case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Request
Hi, I've made an edit to Birmingham City F.C. to move Solomon–Otabor into the loaned out section, but it seems to have gone a bit wrong, but as far as I can tell, it should have worked. So I'm not sure what's happened, any chance you can take a look? Skemwarrior (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Took me a couple of goes to see it, but I've got it to work now. Quentin X (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks pal, if an experienced editor took several goes to find the error, I had no chance! Skemwarrior (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Bolton
Here. Can't see a reason to have it included in the first team season article. Kante4 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Pardon my ignorance, but what has captain stats to do with whether pre season reserve team friendlies should be included in an article or not? Quentin X (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's just the header for the discussion... I also included the other "things". Kante4 (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wild orchid poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Wild orchid poster.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Welcome To Mooseport.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Welcome To Mooseport.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) 19:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Sandlot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brandon Adams. 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) 10:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited All About My Mother, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fernando Guillén. 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) 10:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bats poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Bats poster.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) 17:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2017–18 Bolton Wanderers F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ken Anderson. 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) 09:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sock
Let's just let him sit in pending until he's blocked and then revert. This is just clogging up the article history now. Also pinging,. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  12:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice. Quentin X (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for openion
Article Legitimacy (criminal law) has been requested to be moved to Legitimacy (law) requesting your openion at Talk:Legitimacy_(criminal_law)

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment
Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sherlock holmes ver5.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sherlock holmes ver5.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) 18:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:What About Bob film.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:What About Bob film.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) 18:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lovelace film poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Lovelace film poster.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) 18:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Howling (1981 film) poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Howling (1981 film) poster.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) 17:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thomas and the magic railroad ver2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Thomas and the magic railroad ver2.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) 17:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)