User talk:TheHoax

Disambiguation link notification for May 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Political party strength in Connecticut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Murphy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MagicISO Icon.png
 Thanks for uploading File:MagicISO Icon.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. --B-bot (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

File:MagicISO Icon.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MagicISO Icon.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. 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. B (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree and similar templates.
Just wanted to note that templates like are mostly intended for closing discussions. It's not really for discussions trying to come to a consensus or for !voting—at least on en-wikipedia as other wikis might use an equivalent to and. If you want to see symbols in !voting/RfC discussions consider using User:Ais523's votesymbols.js. See Deletion review/Perennial requests and User scripts. PaleAqua (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
I know there is an ongoing discussion, but I wanted to give you a heads up that you're close to violating WP:3RR on Microsoft Surface. agt x 19:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Microsoft Surface. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. PaleAqua (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * PaleAqua, Ians18 is trigger-happy and he undo my edit (which fixed redirects) that wasn't controversial. TheHoax (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Preview button
Hey, I just wanted to encourage you to use the Preview button more, before submitting your edits. Specifically on Talk:Microsoft Surface, I notice you tend to follow up your responses with a number of incremental edits, which a) make it hard to reply without ending up with an edit conflict, and b) clog up the page history. So if you could take the time for proofreading and rewording before submitting your edit, rather than after, that would be much appreciated. Thanks for your time! Indrek (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, Preview button. Please? Indrek (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ians18 (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ians18 Please attend a writing class. Thank you. TheHoax (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am so glad that you are violating your own promise not to edit the article until the discussion is closed. You want me to read what you said? Here it is: "I agree, until the discussion has ended and a consensus is reached, I will not edit the article." TheHoax (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you can't see that we've reached consensus. Reaching consensus does not mean everyone is satisfied. It means most people are satisfied. Ians18 (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ians18 Here you go. You like this one better?: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Surface&diff=678406216&oldid=678405656 TheHoax (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't even read the consensus, we agreed that when there is enough context we will not need to add extra fluff. Ians18 (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And exactly how do you determine what the "fluff" is? TheHoax (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is entirely subjective. TheHoax (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "When possible, use Surface instead of Surface (first generation) throughout the main article when there is enough context e.g with other device as in the timeline or sidebox" Ians18 (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you doing this? Do you just hate me for some reason? Ians18 (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And how do you the context provide enough information? Are you able read the minds of every Wikipedia readers? TheHoax (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ians18 Oh, let see. After a lot of name-calling, I don't see any reason at all that I should hate you. TheHoax (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

When it's a list, that has enough context or listed next to Surface 2. You're the one calling me names. Besides Wikipedia is a community of humans not a community of bots. I don't hate you, but I'm annoyed that you would result to edit warring and vandalism after we've reached consensus. Remember, the community together decided, not just me. However, you are the only one in a handful of editors that wants it called Surface RT for some reason.Ians18 (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ians18 And how are you able to determine consensus when you haven't addressed the Wikipedia guidelines WP:NC and WP:NATURALDIS ?
 * The fact of the matter is that not all of the issues have been addressed. TheHoax (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't close discussions you're part of
Please don't do this:. NE Ent 23:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

North Carolina gubernatorial election, 2016
This election hasn't been decided yet. Please be patient. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * GoodDay  Cooper has 10,000 lead. It's over. TheHoax (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So what. The election hasn't been declared over yet. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The threshold for recount is 10,000. TheHoax (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, as we've yet to have sources providing that Cooper has been declared elected Governor. McCrory is still challenging the results. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * McCrory can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court or whatever, but it doesn't change the results. TheHoax (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cooper hasn't been elected Governor, at least not yet. Please be patient & wait. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

February 2018
Your recent editing history at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion, What are you talking about? I did one revert.  Mandruss  did three'''! TheHoax (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Mandruss knows the rules, I'm making certain you do too. Given that their reverts are based on an interpretation of BLP, it's not as clear-cut. Please gain consensus for your change first.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a clear WP:AGF violation and approaches a WP:NPA violation. This was wholly inappropriate, as it's routine to join a survey after it's started even if you've already made your position clear in open discussion. That's the point of the survey format. I'll ask you to discuss content and not editors, and stop trying to start shit on that talk page. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  02:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. @TheHoax: please moderate your approach to interactions with other editors on contentious topics. We keep a close eye on subjects and talkpages like that to head off trouble.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * '' Acroterion   Mandruss  I already omit his name. What more do you want? TheHoax (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Stop accusing other editors of bad faith, please. My comment has nothing to do with the police officer.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass shooting category
Per WP:BRD, please don't edit war on this, and get a consensus before spamming this new category into multiple articles.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You don't need a consensus on every tiny thing. TheHoax (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Illegal operation.png


The file File:Illegal operation.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Gun control discretionary sanctions alert
El_C 04:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible canvassing on Victims list proposal
Please tell me you did not just inform users who support inclusion in your mass message (in itself, problematic) — the only ones I recognize are ones who do. I hope you have not just tainted the proposal with canvassing before it even began. El_C 17:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am just informing them that there is a discussion going on of a new rule. That's all TheHoax (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not an acceptable response. It i simply too vague. Please answer directly and specifically. Until I am satisfied with your answer, I am topic banning you from all Gun control topics, broadly construed, including but not limited to mass shootings. El_C 17:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will say exactly as you told me to say: I did not just inform users who support inclusion in my mass message. TheHoax (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C, I have now done as you've asked. TheHoax (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The ratio of include or omit in your mass message has yet to be determined. If it is seriously skewed, then that would be a problem. El_C 17:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, let's assume it's a duck. It is obvious that TheHoax only sent this message to people who agree with him on the subject. In fact he sent them in order according to their responses in the !voting section of the Saugus article, from Locke Cole through Joseph A. Spadaro, while omitting everyone who !voted to remove the names. That would suggest that he also lied to you in his comment above. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't lie. I said what I was told to say, to the word. TheHoax (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And there you have it, El_C. He said what you told him to say, even though it wasn't true. I know how I would react if someone did something like that, but this is your call. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you said, "Tell me you are a squirrel" and I said "I am a squirrel", then I didn't lie. I just said as you've asked me to. TheHoax (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You should have put it as a question: "Are you a squirrel or not?" TheHoax (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What a specious and disingenuous argument. I'm with MelanieN, and I think I know how she would react. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * TheHoax caused a lot of damage to the fairness of the process. I'm seriously considering postponing the proposal for a month or two due to this canvassing. What do you think? As for TheHoax's unfortunate gymnastics: I, too, am seriously dissapointed. Naturally, the topic ban will stay in place and they will simply have to edit in other area of Wikipedia. I also blocked them for a week for the sheer tendentiousness of it all. El_C 18:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the proposal. It may be necessary to postpone, all right. Let's wait a few days and see if we get a flood of unhelpful commentary from his pen pals. And then make that decision there. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why did you only mass message users who supported inclusion, TheHoax? El_C 18:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically, I don't support or oppose inclusion anymore. I retired at the idea lab. Then my notice of retirement was repealed by a lost stranger. I reminded him of the Golden Rule and he hatted that. I tried to explain, but he wouldn't hear it. This war is too complicated. We should drop our (metaphorical) swords, all of us, and go home. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:05, November 19, 2019 (UTC)
 * So.. just so we're clear, you blocked an editor for informing editors that already interacted on a talk page about a discussion that was refactored from that very talk page to another page? Because I find it hard to believe the !voters on that page wouldn't have gone to that discussion on their own in short order anyways. FWIW, since this has denigrated down to "now the conversation is biased" (which as I already pointed out, it's most certainly not), I'll likely not participate there anytime soon. So if anything, the alleged canvassing has had the opposite effect (at least for me). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For only informing the editors that agreed with him. Skewing the discussion in his favor because then the ratio between the editors actively discussing the new proposal get skewed towards those more likely to support include. Its like a government with only republicans, or a government with only democrats. History has shown before that we needed a good amount of both sides to create an ideal governing body. We need to create a more neutral representation so that we can veer discussion towards a consensus. Generally we shouldn't be discussing things based off of "I like it" and "i don't like it" and this form of canvassing taints it by only including people who just "like it". --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This was nothing like American politics. We had three sides to our story. Include, Exclude and Needs More Recount. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, November 24, 2019 (UTC)
 * Bonus Fact: The closest your House has come to even in the last century were 1917-19 (anarchists scared everyone), 1953-55 (communists threatened national security) and 2001-03 (the terrorists won). And how did each Congress handle each case of repressing domestic dissent, civil liberties and subversion? Some approved, some didn't, but coming together historically seems to breed fear and anger in the elected American elite (or arguably vice versa). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, November 24, 2019 (UTC)
 * Your bonus fact is bringing fear to me! Fair play though . If Hoax wants to continue editing on wikipedia though i personally think someone should show him how things work around here. And he should maybe learn to keep his WP:COOL because not communicating rationally (as shown above) really only digs yourself a deeper hole around here. Perhaps instead of discussing what was done wrong or even If it was wrong it would be better to tell him what is most certainly Right. You seem to be a good judge on how wikipedia operates too. Maybe you two would get along. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Right you are, Elite. Hoax, next time you rage against the machine, remember, the rational, cool and traditional response to a lawful order from above is "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!" You may still be knocked into next week, but this way you can at least take solace in knowing what you did wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:23, November 25, 2019 (UTC)
 * That works.. I guess :P. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, trout me later for stating this but, the way he conversed with El_C and Melanie above does seem very immature. Almost as if he's WP:NOTHERE. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it clear that WP:Canvassing is a bad thing? Couldn't it be argued that canvassing brings more people to a discussion, the result being that any conclusion the discussion reaches is more meaningful than a discussion based on a small turnout of participating editors? People might summon other people that support their position but isn't this likely to be expected by people on both sides of an argument? Lastly we are not just voting. It is not just sheer numbers that determine outcome, but strength of argument. Summoning a bunch of idiots who say stupid things in support of your position should not move the needle one iota if we are truly looking for strength of argument rather than for sheer number of participating editors supporting a position. Bus stop (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Canvassing is actually a two-sided coin. There is a CORRECT way to canvass, but it is generally frowned upon mostly because more often than not, canvassing is done with a Biased message, sent to Partisan editors, and in Mass. Even if done completely neutrally sent to various uninvolved editors you should limit how many people you bring in. You'll find better clarification at WP:Canvas itself, but good intentions or not it should be avoided, and I'm sure you too can agree that canvassing can make proper discussion difficult if done wrong. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should we care if it is "done with a Biased message, sent to Partisan editors, and in Mass"? Wouldn't both sides be expected to massively contact partisans using biased language? Wouldn't it balance out? We have a policy (WP:CANVAS) so we are required to follow it. But I'm questioning the wisdom of it. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not the first, by a long shot. And I'm likely not "qualified" to get into the deep of it as I didn't participate on any big discussions involving WP:Canvas. First, I don't see how anyone would expect both sides to involve a ton of partisan editors in mass, mostly because that would make wikipedia more like a Popularity Contest, And wikipedia isn't meant to be a democracy. I do also see that it would likely be harder to get a discussion to flow smoothly, and harder for other editors to build on ideas when any upcoming idea may be more prone to mass criticism on the get-go. The main point is no matter what even if its about the strength of the argument it'll likely be tainted just by having a mass of people all supporting one idea showing up. Wikipedia doesn't have this one special person or selective group of people who get to decide what argument is the strongest. Things can and will be seen in different perspectives, people will have differing opinions, and people can and will be influenced by the majority. (I'm just trying to share with you what I feel about this, and you/anyone else should be welcome to contest what i believe for the sake of argument.) --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If this were Korean, Afghan or Great War-era America, someone would've bussed in fewer than a dozen countervoters by now and things would be back on even keel. But yeah, things naturally move slower in virtual communities, hard to get the word out. Maybe if the Includers all ping an old adversary, starting tomorrow, and ask if they're still interested, the whole gang can tentatively begin playing fair by early July! Maybe I'm an idealistic maroon. But legend tells The Hoax did it fast once, so anyone can theoretically show up and do it whenever, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:05, November 26, 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point you guys would be more productive trying to change WP:Canvassing itself because theres not much we can do in here about it. If you claim that there is no wrong way to canvas I'm sure there are other people that agree with you, just like there are people who don't (obviously because I'm here) . --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's been a reviews of WP:CANVAS in the past if you want to look at what came from it. I just don't think that anyone can get much done if all anyone does is argue that a policy/guideline is unfair, because at the end of the day its still there. Now say if someone were to get rid of it, I could mass ping my entire 9yr old army and get them all to comment whatever on something I want them to. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for disruptive and tendentious editing. El_C 18:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.

—I know you meant well. I'm saddened to see the consequences of what I think was a deed with good intentions. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Powerpoint Mobile 2010.png
Thank you for uploading File:Powerpoint Mobile 2010.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ★ Bigr   Tex  21:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Powerpoint Mobile 2010.png
Thank you for uploading File:Powerpoint Mobile 2010.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dragon NaturallySpeaking.png
Thanks for uploading File:Dragon NaturallySpeaking.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) 18:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Microsoft Office Mobile 2010 hub.png
Thanks for uploading File:Microsoft Office Mobile 2010 hub.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WP7Bing.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:WP7Bing.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) 18:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Microsoft Paint screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading File:Microsoft Paint 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) 20:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)