User talk:Iranian86Footballer

Hello, "Fatcud" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

Peruse Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and associated pages, such as
You can experiment in the Wikipedia:Sandbox.
Sign talk page entries with ~~~~, which is automatically converted to a name and date.
If you have any questions, see Wikipedia:Help, or you can a question at the Wikipedia:Help desk.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

-- Infrogmation 16:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 16:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Semi-automated template substitution

This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Tawker 21:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video game articles

I saw you've been creating a lot of video game articles. However, they have a lot of common mistakes in them, so I'd like to invite you to check out the computer and video games WikiProject. Andre (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, I just though you might be interested in the project and its standardization measures. Andre (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dinoninja.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dinoninja.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dinoninja.JPG

Hello, Fatcud. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Dinoninja.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Fatcud. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

With regard to your comments on User talk:Eagle 101: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Миша 13 19:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bellends.jpg)

Orphaned Fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Bellends.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Миша 13 14:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling

Trolling by cussing, insulting others, and wishing people ill is not acceptable on Wikipedia (examples: [1][2][3]). Neither is creating images to do so [4]. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, such behavior must stop immediately, or you will be blocked. Dragons flight 15:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dagmara Kojda

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Dagmara Kojda, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Dchall1 03:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break Machine

See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Break Machine. Anthony Appleyard 21:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Tyree

A tag has been placed on Tyree, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Phgao 17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article and moved it to User:Fatcud/Tyree. You can improve it at your own leisure. Once you dress it up so that it meets WP:MUSIC criteria, just move it back to Tyree. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules

Please keep in mind that wikipedia is not a chat board and writing wikipedia articles requires following cetrain rules, in style and in verification of information. If you have any problems in undesstanding, please ask questions. `'Míkka 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning

Re : your undo. Once again, please refrain from adding information to wikipedia without proper references. Any unreferenced information may be deleted at any time. The piece you reverted was marked with request for reference since september. `'Míkka >t 22:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third warning

Please avoid phrases like "Your just bitter because your wife died" and other personal insults, if you want to continue editing wikipedia. Once more, please learn wikipedia rules, such as wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:CITE. `'Míkka >t 01:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack warning

With regard to your comments on Talk:Flat Earth Society: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Zbp 1screen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zbp 1screen.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:DOKIDOKIPANIC.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:DOKIDOKIPANIC.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Fury

Article talk pages are for discussing the article. If you wish to have a general discussion about Tyson I suggest you go to a boxing website. regards --Vintagekits (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Another Definition of Real

The article Another Definition of Real has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I found zero sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Joe Chill (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Another Definition of Real

I have nominated Another Definition of Real, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Definition of Real. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Another Definition of Real. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. And no matter what, the article will still be listed in WP:AFD so removing it doesn't stop the nomination. Joe Chill (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Joe Chill. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Joe Chill (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:Joe Chill. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Joe Chill (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edits/Unprotection

If you feel that there is sufficient reason to unprotect an article, then make your request in the correct section at WP:RFPP. Your best idea is to draft an article in your WP:SANDBOX, then check with a number of editors/admins to see if it meets Wikipedia's requirements. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Amesbury. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I'm not sure by what definition you think a youtube video with 600 views is viral. Please stop adding unsourced and trivial information to Wikipedia. Simple Bob (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Amesbury, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Last chance or you get report to admins and get banned. Simple Bob (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob - your not an admin. I provided ample sources. Not only did the youtube video contain a link to a news article, but I posted a article to 'The Times'! You have no authority to object to every edit I make - I request a real admin asses my edits. I feel mention of the theft is relevant and will revert the page back to it previous state until a decision is made.

August 2010

You have been blocked for a period of 1 week from editing for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SpinningSpark 18:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iranian86Footballer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am so shocked - I don't have a clue what your talking about, please explain what 'factual errors' I added to articles. I added facts regarding some historical figures - you had two different information on the same person! And I requested an admin decide whether the astrology sections should have a section on personality types, that is after all what astrology is used for! Please unblock me I don't deserve this, I've been a member of wikipedia for years now, laid down the foundation for many articles and constantly tidy up. I feel there is some misunderstanding please review my ban.

Decline reason:

Your comments above indicate that you are unfamiliar with how to deal with an editing conflict- you ask for an admin to assess your edits, then say that you will repeatedly revert your edits until that happens. Administrators don't assess edits or referee edit conflicts; we simply help enforce the rules. And repeatedly reverting edits when you know others disagree with you is disruptive. Instead, when your block expires, try discussing your desired changes on the talk page until you and others form a consensus on what should be in the article- then someone can make the changes you agree on together. Since you weren't willing to stop and discuss your desired changes, the block was necessary. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iranian86Footballer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for your response FisherQueen. However you still haven't told me what I did wrong. I was blocked for 'factual errors' - what were these? I will try and use the talk pages more in future. This was not, however, what I was blocked for. I am totally confused by this 'ban' - it is disproportionate, why not tell me on my talk page that my understanding of the admins role was wrong?? I just want someone to clarify what I did wrong...

Decline reason:

In view of the discussion below, you will likely only be unblocked if you convince us that you understand our policies WP:V and WP:NOR, and how your previous edits failed to meet these standards. ("What I heard on TV" is not a reliable source, and with respect to this, it seems more likely to me that they used some sort of chemical battery rather than a steam engine, but you may only write what you read in reliable sources, not what you think might be true.) Sandstein 14:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, I can't speak for the blocking editor, but I notice that you were adding comments to certain astrology articles that seemed based in the idea that stars really do determine people's personalities, which isn't correct. It's a little like adding "Jesus rose from the dead" to the article on Jesus, or "The moon is composed of green cheese" to the article on the Moon. Only information that can be verified to be true is useful in an encyclopedia article. I don't know if that's the objection or not, though; it's just my opinion- you could find out by discussing it with the people you were disagreeing with- I saw you'd left a message at User talk:Someone963852, and checked to see what she'd said, but all you left was an invalid vandalism warning, so it was removed and no discussion happened. Something like "Hey, I see you disagree with me- can you tell me why?" would probably have gotten you information you could use. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personalities

I also do not know why you are blocked, although the reason given seems to me to be self-explanatory. I note that is several places you state, quite dogmatically, that the existence of personalities associated with various zodiac signs is common knowledge. This is absolutely not so; it is only a belief, held with no supporting evidence, and whether it is common or not is only a matter of opinion until evidence can be produced to back up the statement. Insisting on your POV will almost certainly lead to further blocks. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really common knowledge, either- I certainly have no idea what personality traits are associated with my astrological sign- in fact, I don't even know what my astrological sign is. It's only 'common knowledge' among believers. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FisherQueen and Anthony.bradbury - thanks for replying, I hope you get this (I can't post on your talk pages). I know astrology is not a 'science' and only relevant to those who believe. However there is a common consensus on what the star signs mean between those who practice astrology, for example 'Libra' will always be idealistic, 'Pices' indecisive etc. There are ample sources for this - look up "star sign attributes" on google. I just want the personalities to be included, fact or not they are relevant. -Fatcud

To elaborate on my reasons for blocking. It was not especially for the user's edits to astrology articles (although they looked problematic). Rather, it was particularly for these two edits [5][6] to electric telegraph articles which I believe to be made-up nonsense. I have read Cooke's account of the telegraph development and he talks about batteries right from the very start, and there is no mention of steam engines or hand-cranked paddles. It seemed to me the user was on a spree of disruptive edits so I blocked to bring it to a halt. Of course, if the user can present sources for any of this I will unblock myself along with a profuse apology. SpinningSpark 23:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you explained- I didn't even notice those edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying Spinningspark, I also hope you get this as I can't post on your talk page. For the record those edits were, to my knowledge, fact. I wanted to find out about the Victorian power source for telegrams and discovered that the first power station was built in 1882, but Cooke and Wheatstone's telegram was invented in 1837. Therefore they couldn't have just plugged it into the mains. There was no mention of a power source on the wiki page so I added what I heard on TV, that the telegrams were powered by a handle. I didn't intend to 'vandalize' anything, just provide absent information. Its ridiculous that the page dosen't explain how they powered telegrams when there was no commercial electricity. I apologize for any disruption caused, but my intentions were not malicious. -Fatcud

Telegraph power

Please stop adding speculation to articles as you did here. If you have solid information from reliable sources you may add it. Guessing is not acceptable. SpinningSpark 16:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly referenced the wikipedia page with the information regarding battery power, I even quoted the text. You are a bully Spinningspark and I will be contacting the appropriate authorities about this, stop harassing me you sad petty individual - you don't like my edits but offer no explanation as to how telegraphs were powered yourself.

You cannot reference one Wikipedia article with another Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. This is especially true when you have inserted the information yourself for the purpose of referencing it in another article. If you do not have sources available it would be best if Wikipedia just did without the information until they are found. I suggest you undo those edits yourself. You must also learn to start a discussion when you are reverted, rather than just make the edit again. You are in danger of edit warring. SpinningSpark 20:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you I didn't 'edit' the Charles Wheatstone article to support my other edits (check the history). As no one has objected to the original material on the page I referenced there must be a source confirming it as true. I will try and reference this source instead of the wiki page and start a discussion as appropriate.

That is fallacious reasoning, just because no one has objected does not prove it true. Every article needs its own references. Ok you did not edit Charles Wheatstone but you did edit Electric telegraph and Cooke and Wheatstone Telegraph. Yes, you have got the right answer, but only by a process of elimination of taking wild guesses and making a mess of the article as shown by your previous attempts. The right way to do this is to go and read the sources and then write what you find there. Not from other Wikipedia articles or what you heard on TV, then you would not have to use weasel words like "probably". SpinningSpark 21:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In no way am I trying to justify my past edits, I already apologized for those and have made efforts to do things properly. Why are you so unforgiving? I referenced a section of a wiki article that has already been sourced, I'm not trying to mess things up - I want an answer to the question which has caused all this trouble!

More deliberate misinformation

This edit is a clear-cut case of misrepresentation of your sources in order to insert factual errors into articles. Take this as a final warning, you will be blocked if this continues. SpinningSpark 21:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what is your problem? I added a criticisms section to the page. Another user told me I was mistaken about Darwin and so I REMOVED that part from my edit. If I misinterpreted that information then it was a MISTAKE. Either way, the criticisms were real and relevant.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iranian86Footballer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Spinningspark has a grudge against me, he will not allow me to make a single edit without trying to trap me. He knows I have aspergers syndrome and is using his position of administration to emotionally torment me. Please review my talk page for evidence, I have apologized profusely for my inadequate past edits, however this is not enough for Spinningspark - he assumes all my edits are malicious.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Please also see WP:NOTTHEM. - Vianello (Talk) 22:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Fair use rationale for File:Burntime5.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Burntime5.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Big Nose Freaks Out for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Big Nose Freaks Out is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Nose Freaks Out until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Coin945 (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of A Glass Eye at a Keyhole for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Glass Eye at a Keyhole is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Glass Eye at a Keyhole until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dronebogus (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bnfo5.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bnfo5.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) 17:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]