Ajoykt

Welcome!

Hello, Ajoykt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Please don't undo edits without explanation. GDP calculations include currency appreciation. The way the article does its calculation now, hyper-inflation would lead to hyper GDP growth. Which is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajoykt (talk • contribs)

September 2007

I was wrong, and wish to apologize -- I have no clue whether or not what was written there was true or not, but it was written like an essay, and does not belong. THe main reason why I was reverting was because the stuff you left was unsourced, whereas the previous reversions had sources. But I put it back to your version, and added a fact tag. I'm sorry for the trouble -- this was my fault. So... welcome, and happy editing! Gscshoyru 16:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK nomination of OPERA neutrino anomaly

Hello! Your submission of OPERA neutrino anomaly at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PM800 (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi there, Just a quick note to say thanks for reviewing the CNGS AFD and changing your mind, appreciated. Nice to see someone not entrenched in their position and willing to adapt. Best regards ^Khukri 16:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm done :) --90.184.154.70 (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

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 could also click on the signature button or 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) 22:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for OPERA neutrino anomaly

Thanks from me Victuallers (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal comments

With regard to [1], no, I only have one Wikipedia handle, and I’m not sure what caused you to think otherwise. In any case you ought to have directed your question to my Talk page. Strebe (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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 could also click on the signature button or 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) 17:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

OPERA neutrino anomaly#Measurement challenges

Un, I copied it straight from the arXiv article ("Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam", version 2), so could easily add citations; I just thought that paper was assumed as a general reference so it wasn't necessary to add point citations to it.

I could easily add some (with page numbers, even, if it would help), but before I do that, may I ask: did you delete my many hours' work because of dearth of citations (easily fixed), or some other reason that is not easily fixed, in which case I should cut my losses and give up on that section? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I should add, my goal was to give the reader some sense of how tricky much work thoroughly checking the results is. I thought I did that without *too* much bloat. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To answer the second question, putting it back is just a minute's work, so my deleting isn't that big a deal. I think the issue is here we use "secondary sources," which are reviews/comments/descriptions of a primary source in other places. We don't cite primary sources directly since it is impossible to know how right they are (Wikipedia is not edited by experts). I think the right way to do this is to bring this up on the talk page - a summary of what you plan to add (details of the experiment showing how difficult it is, using sophisticated and, at the same time, previously tested methodology - and how you plan to cite it. You should wait a day or two for responses, and then see. Ajoykt (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty damned discouraging to find it gone a few seconds after I finally submitted it without even a clear description of *why*. I presume if you thought it worth deleting once, you'd think so a second time, and unless I want to get into an edit war, I either need to throw more effort at it (not likely in my current tired and discouraged state) or give up on it entirely.

I understand the preference for secondary sources, since they generally provide better synthesis and overviews, but I think that for the things that a primary source *can* provide (e.g. the claims of a person or, in this case, an experimental collaboration), it's just fine. Plenty of times I've cited "on date X person Y said Zzzz" with a link to the mailing list archives where they said it. You just have to be careful not to confuse "person Y said Zzzz" (which can be easily primary-sourced) with an assertion that Zzzz is true (which needs a second opinion if the statement is at all controversial).

P.S. did you notice that you deleted a figure that was in the article before I edited it? I just thought a figure illustrating the timing chain belonged in a section describing it. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I really think you should bring this to the article's talk page. Start a new section with a summary of what you plan to add. If nobody else objects in a few days, go ahead - at least I won't revert. The reverse, adding a completely new section and then waiting to see who would take it out, seems the wrong way to go. The trouble with primary sources it is difficult to be sure if the summary captures the original without distortion, which is why we wait for secondary sources to do such summaries for us. Ajoykt (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And thanks for noting the figure got whacked. Ajoykt (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice the latest comment I added on the OPERA-neutrino-anomaly talk page responding to your posting there? Ajoykt (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If you mean your November 22 edit, yes I did; I just thought a half-referenced section looked a bit odd to cut & paste. It's not a strong objection; I figured if you felt strongly about it you'd do the move yourself. Also, I've been a bit busy to keep up with the consequential "edit aftershicks" that would invariably ensue. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel it is ok for me to submit all the work you did under my name. Ajoykt (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

GAN of OPERA neutrino anomaly

Unfortunately, this GAN failed because of multiple issues which are detailed on the review page, and to be frank this article is not close to GA standard right now. Feel free to nominate it again once these issues are fixed, however, and it will get a thorough review next time. Thank You. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Your removal of non-peer reviewed references

Hi. You recently removed the references I added to the page OPERA neutrino anomaly on the ground that they are not peer-reviewed. I agree with you that peer-reviewed references are expected in an encyclopedia. The problem is that there is almost no peer-reviewed reference in this page. And this for a good reason: the OPERA experiment itself has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal ! So, I think that a few years are needed before starting cleaning this page from unsafe references... James.zweistein (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems you do not look at your talk page ? To be more specific, the statement "Two facets of the result particularly criticized by the neutrino community were the GPS synchronization system" needs at least a reference (not given in the Nature News of Eugenie Samuel Reich), so that the reader can get a chance to check it by himself. Again, I agree that a peer-reviewed reference would be the best choice. But, since the OPERA result was made public last september, there is still none of them... James.zweistein (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The exact quote from the Nature News article: "Two elements of the experiment receiving particular scrutiny include the GPS-synchronization system and the profile of the proton beam that generates the neutrinos as a by-product of colliding with a target." That is a credible secondary source. For a primary source to be credible, it has to be peer-reviewed. Ajoykt (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cern1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cern1.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. Skier Dude (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:OPERATimeBin.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:OPERATimeBin.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:TimeBin.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:TimeBin.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cern1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cern1.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cern2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cern2.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cern4.pdf

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cern4.pdf. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cern3.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cern3.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:LNGSTiming.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:LNGSTiming.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Developmental psychology, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Skinner and Watson (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) 10:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited OPERA neutrino anomaly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CPT (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) 10:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Pacemakers, Caudate, CA1 and CA3

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Bypassing redirects

[2]

A link through redirect is perfectly valid and sometimes even preferred condition. There is a consensus that redirect bypassing in links does not worth even one edit – see WP:NOTBROKEN. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Functional magnetic resonance imaging, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bell curve and Transcranial stimulation (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) 10:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. When you recently edited Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly (OPERA experiment), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Ellis (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) 09:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Federer wording and why it mattters

Dear Ajoykt,

it seems that, along with a few other Federer enthusiasts, you construe my demand for precision with some sort of petulance. I agree TOTALLY that Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time. I do not have a problem with this assertion - for, like you, I do not consider it an assertion, but a simple fact of life. Rather like the sun coming up tomorrow is a fact of life. However, I ask you to please consider the following grammatical construction, the one that you took it upon yourself to reimpose by reversing my own construction:

"Roger Federer is a Swiss professional tennis player who is widely regarded as the greatest of all time."

The greatest WHAT of all time, I ask you? Do you know what that says, in your version that you insist on reimposing? It says that "Roger Federer is widely regarded as the greatest Swiss professional tennis player of all time." In your insistence on deleting my wording, you are actually vastly diminishing your and my hero's stature. It is a grammatical fact of life, a simple rule of the English language, that you must have "Federer is a Swiss professional tennis player who is widely regarded as the greatest tennis player of all time" (at this point I cede your point about not needing "male" in there), if YOUR meaning is to stick. It is not - I repeat, not - repitition to have that wording in there.

Schpinbo (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

When you say " . . .the one that you took it upon yourself to reimpose by reversing my own construction . . ." when exactly did I do that? Here is the sequence:

1. You fixed the issue.
2. I did try changing the sentence to "Federer, a Swiss, is a professional tennis player who is the greatest ever. " to get around the problem you mentioned
3. Somebody took out the commas, and we ended up back at square one.
4. You fixed the issue by duplicating "tennis player."
5. Somebody else took out the "tennis player."
6. You put back the "tennis player."

I haven't been involved in the reverts for a while. I agree with your step 1. Ajoykt (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification - and your own most recent edit. Schpinbo (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion for the Federer Article

Ajoykt, I think you did an excellent job editing the first paragraph of the Federer article. However, I notice that under the second footnote there is only one citation ("Federer named greatest ever by Tennis Channel"). Shouldn't there be a few more citations under the second footnote? Here are a few if you're interested (notice the Laver reference is recent):

Roger Federer greatest of all time, says Rod Laver: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon-2012/interviews/Roger-Federer-greatest-of-all-time-says-Rod-Laver/articleshow/14691290.cms

Sampras: Federer is the "best ever": http://www.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/06/08/federer.great.tennis.sampras/index.html

Federer the best of all time, says Agassi: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/tennis/federer-the-best-of-all-time-says-agassi-20110605-1fn5q.html#ixzz20jhR1eBb

Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem with many citations is that it blocks readability. If people ask for citations, maybe we can add more. Ajoykt (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I added back the citations to Fed's article that you had deleted. You cannot delete these sources since the claim being made (that Federer is the greatest of all time) is a highly contentious one. As a compromise, I've bundled the citations at the bottom "Notes" section, so they won't hinder readability (since only one footnote will be in the main section) while providing the article with reliable sources. Is that alright? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I am surprised the claim is so contentious since it has been repeated by practically every newspaper and sports mag. But, yes, bundling works fine. Ajoykt (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Bloom: while the claim that Federer is "the greatest tennis player of all time" is surely tenable, and, in my estimation, correct, other ardent fans of the game would disagree with it. Thus, the phrase "widely regarded as the greatest player of all time" needs ample documentation. I do think the Laver quote that I offered above should be included. Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You can go ahead and add it to the bundled notes; that solves the readability issue. Ajoykt (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

stop revertingthe

The article is about whatever the article is about. the WP:LEAD is a summary of the article, always. the article has a few paragraphs about Holmes, therefore the lead needs to have a few sentences summarizing those paragraphs. just how it works, and happy editing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should discuss on the article's talk page, since I am not the only one reverting. Ajoykt (talk) 04:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

James Holmes

This page is NOT editable currently for more than another day, compared to the 2012 Aurora shooting which should have important info allowed that is properly sourced. Why are you refusing to allow important info to remain in the linked article on his prior drug usage before the shooting? Are you afraid of the truth or something? Please stop deleting and reverting a point made by another poster (that I was trying to put back) days ago. If you refuse, I will take this up with someone else because you are being unreasonable. Katydidit (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It is editable. Go to the talk page and submit a request. Ajoykt (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, it still is NOT editable. Quit saying that when you know it isn't true. "Submit a request?" That proves it isn't editable by definition, as most people on WP understand the term, but not you. Katydidit (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ajoykt... even if you are right, do you need to be so aggressive? Mfhiller (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

You tell 'em! He was aggressive and unreasonable. Katydidit (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In this case, with the Holmes page locked, yes. That locking was from aggressive action. Ajoykt (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That other page has nothing to do with trying to edit the main page on the shooting itself. His (JH) page is entirely different. Katydidit (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, but please recognise that others are trying to make good faith edits and there is no need, especially on a talk page, to such down a discussion. Mfhiller (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

That's exactly what he was doing, and he was entirely unreasonable and haughty. I'm glad someone else on 2012 Aurora shooting got through to him, and he let the changes finally stay instead of continuing his repeated reverting a legitimate post. Katydidit (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James Eagan Holmes.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! CTS talk 13:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OPERATimeBin.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:OPERATimeBin.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) 23:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)