User talk:Oiyarbepsy/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

And hello back.

Nice to meet you! I'm totally green around here. What's a fairy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartianCat (talk • contribs) 08:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@MartianCat:A fairy is a magical creature popular in fiction, having a human form, but with wings, about 8 cm tall in most works. Most famously, Tinkerbell from Peter Pan. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh! I thought you were using some wiki lingo I wasn't saavy to. Thanks, --MartianCat (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, there is Wikipedia:WikiFairy, but that's not what I'm referring to :) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160221

Lost Cause of the Confederacy

Hello. I noticed that about 2 days ago you reverted my edits to the page Lost Cause of the Confederacy," in which I removed the following statement from the introduction:

"The Lost Cause belief was founded upon several historically inaccurate elements. These include the claim that the Confederacy started the Civil War to defend states' rights rather than to preserve slavery, and the related claim that slavery was benevolent, rather than cruel."

I have reverted it back. I should have notified you before doing so, but I shall state my reasons now. First, there was a somewhat wider states' rights issue at play that led to the Civil War. These included the question of tariffs on imports, which were seen as unfairly harming the South while benefiting the North. These tensions reached a high point during the Nullification Crisis. Although by the time the war began slavery was indeed the greatest issue to be settled within the context of state vs. Federal sovereignty, it was certainly not the only one. Secondly, the idea that slavery was "cruel," rather than "benevolent," may seem obviously true to you, but it is up to us as Wikipedia editors to present both sides of the argument. If you add the sentences back in, while replacing the word "inaccurate" with something less partial, I think things should be fine. I thank you for your work and wish you well. Display name 99 (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Slavery was an issue taken within the context of states' rights. You claimed in your last revert that each state cited slavery as its primary reason for seceding. Did Robert E. Lee cite slavery as his primary reason for joining the Confederate army? I hope you don't mind, but I really want to get this issue settled. With all respect and no offense intended, is it possible that some other recent contributors to this article-Rjensen and North Shoreman-could give their opinions as to whether the above 2 sentences should stay? If there is a consensus, I will obey it. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• An article about history must not hold any view as valid unless historians consider it valid. Similarly, only scientific view are considered of any value is articles like Evolution, Vaccine, and Global warming since these are scientific topics. Allowing non-science into science articles means undermining the actual science involved, and taking seriously the idea that the East is flat or that vaccines cause autism. We need to treat history articles the same way, since for many historical topics, there are active groups trying to distort history to fit their political or ideological ends.

No historian takes seriously the idea that the civil war was about anything but slavery. State's Right's was largely invented after the war, often by the exact same people who publicly stated they were fighting for slavery before the war. The few examples of state's right's dispute were all disputes about the right to hold slaves. Yes, there were tariff disputes and other issues, but these were similar to today's disputes about welfare and taxation, that is, nothing anyone will withdraw from the country over.

The idea that there was any benevolence to slavery is also not supported by any historians. It is a purely southern view, part of trying to excuse their actions instead of coming clean.

But you don't have to ask me. Let's look at what the Southern states themselves said when they seceded:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." - State of Mississippi

"They (the northern states) demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States." ... "They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture" State of Texas

"they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes" State of South Carolina

"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." State of Georgia

These are not cherry-picked. The full statements are 90% about slavery and various ways that the North had undermined it. The history is clear and the Lost Cause is wrong. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You may think that the Lost Cause is wrong, but you cannot edit based upon that belief. I object to some aspects of Lost Cause philosophy (going a bit too far in defense of slavery, claiming it had nothing to do with the war, blaming every general with whom Lee disagreed for helping lose the war, denouncing every Union general as a barbarian or alcoholic, etc.), others I am more sympathetic to. But I try not to edit based upon those beliefs. The war was in fact about states' rights, as it was over the question of to what extent the Federal Government take action in the affairs of the states. Regardless of whether or not the institution was benevolent or not-I occupy something of a middle ground, but again, it's not my job to say so in the article-we must give a representation of the position of these people without denouncing it as wrong. Leave that for the readers to decide. I also add that I noticed that I'm not the first person to object to this part of the article. If you want opinions from historians, I suggest you read these words from Shelby Foote, which were deleted from the article. Foote, a Southerner, is widely recognized as one of the greatest Civil War historians in history.

"There's a great deal of misunderstanding about the Confederacy, the Confederate flag, slavery, the whole thing. The political correctness of today is no way to look at the middle of the nineteenth century. The Confederates fought for some substantially good things. States rights is not just a theoretical excuse for oppressing people. You have to understand that the raggedy Confederate soldier who owned no slaves and probably couldn't even read the Constitution, let alone understand it, when he was captured by Union soldiers and asked, What are you fighting for? replied, I'm fighting because you're down here. So I certainly would have fought to keep people from invading my native state."

Clearly, that soldier fought because he wanted to preserve the sovereignty of his native state. He was not thinking about fighting to keep some rich man's slaves. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• There was certainly an element of those who chose to fight for the Confederates because they decided to side with their state whether than their government - Robert E Lee himself, for that matter. But they had that opportunity to decide because the state decided to fight to keep slaves. As far as state's rights, the south was largely upset that the northern states actually had state's rights that they used to oppose slavery. State's rights, in any debate, is a canard - they support the state's rights that they like and not that they don't. Finally, Foote pretty much entirely rejected the Lost Cause anyway. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Display99 Does not rely on any reliable sources, which leads to garbling key issues. For example he says that the tariff issue was part of states rights. No reliable source states that. There was tariff issue, but it was a grievance held by the northern industrial states against the South. The tariff in effect in 1860 was written by Southerners for the benefit of Southerners, and designed to hurt the industrial states such as Pennsylvania, NY and New England. Rjensen (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

All I care about regarding Foote in this discussion was that the quotation above gives a reliable insight into what most Southerners fought for. I'm not concerned here with what else he may have said. Foote did not accept many aspects of the Lost Cause, and neither do I. But he knew how to write impartially, and I think that he would agree with me right now. Rjensen, you have said that "no reliable source states" that "the tariff issue was part of states rights." I don't see how the confrontation between Calhoun and Jackson over whether or not South Carolina had the right to nullify a Federal tariff law was not part of the question surrounding states rights. There is mention of it made here. I suggest that we change "historically inaccurate" to "controversial" or that "many historians now consider inaccurate." Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The key thing about South Carolina's tariff fight is that it never left South Carolina - no other states were really interested, and it was not really a precursor to the civil war. While Foote's quote might accurately portray why some soldier's chose to fight, it didn't really explain why there was a fight in the first place, and many of these taking arms for their states just did so out of loyalty whether than being guided by the politics behind the war - with Robert E Lee the classic example. Also, Foote's work was primarily military history, and he didn't much discuss the social and economic issues behind the war.

As far as my opinion on the article, the wording should be strengthened, not weakened. I think it should have a section similar to this one or this one, listing the facts and which ones Lost Cause supporters deny.

And I finally would like to mention the sense of horror I felt when you said you hold a "middle ground" on whether slavery was good for slaves. It's terrifying that these ideas even exist. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me propose this:

"The Lost Cause was founded upon several controversial elements now considered inaccurate by many historians. These include the claim that the Confederacy started the Civil War to defend states' rights rather than to preserve slavery, and the related claim that slavery was benevolent, rather than cruel."

This does an adequate job of explaining how most people today see the Lost Cause movement, as well as some of the basic tenets of the movement's proponents. Also, I was looking at the Wikipedia page for the Morrill Tariff of 1861, which some blame for starting the war. It includes a quote from British writer Charles Dickens, which reads in part:

"[T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel." I don't agree with it entirely-slavery was an issue-, and I know that Britain had economic interests in the South, but it shows that there were differences in opinion as to what caused the war. The revision that I have placed above seems entirely accurate and unbiased, and is to me a reasonable compromise.Display name 99 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• The elements are not controversial, but settled historical facts, so the word controversy is not acceptable in this case. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

What you say is false, but can we still use the phrase without the word "controversial" in it? Display name 99 (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Also drop many. But, then why not simple say it's inaccurate? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Lost Cause proponents tend to exaggerate when they say that slavery had nothing to do with the war. I personally see it as the primary reason. However, it is also an exaggeration to say that it was the only cause-and that tariffs such as the Morrill Tariff were not a concern. There is still a level of debate as to the relative importance of all the things listed here. We have been having one. The term "states rights" covers both tariffs and slavery, and many other things as well, dating back to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

• Though the idea that slavery was cruel rather than benevolent may seem obvious to you, as it does to nearly everyone, it is yet still a moral opinion that cannot be endorsed in any way on a Wikipedia article. Although it may be tempting, we should not treat it as historical fact, especially when explicitly dealing with a group that may disagree. Most people will decide that it is cruel anyway without us saying it.

I do not want to drop the word "many." Foote said, in the same interview quoted above, and linked here, that "The causes were so nebulous and so diverse." Display name 99 (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

As it has now been over 36 hours since I have heard from you, I will make the suggested edits. Display name 99 (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• My above comments made clearly obvious that I disagreed. My silence was not consent. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please don't tell me that Shelby Foote is not a historian. Read the quote! (Also, how is stating what most historians think, rather than what we Wikipedians think, considered pseudo history?)Display name 99 (talk) 02:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy is correct when they state that every Confederate state that gave reasons for secession gave slavery as their primary reason. Tariffs had been a source of disagreement in the past, but as Alexander Stephens made clear in his arguments against secession, that issue had already been resolved. No Confederate state listed tariffs as a reason for secession and the Morrill Tariff didn't pass the US Senate until over two weeks after the Confederacy formed. The Fugitive Slave Law, the LeCompton Constitution, and the Dred Scott Decision show that politicians from the slaveholding states were quite willing to trample on States Rights so long as it preserved and expanded slavery. Lee's reasons for joining the Confederate army are irrelevant, since they do not say anything about why the Confederacy was formed or why they attacked Ft Sumter. The reasons individual Confederate soldiers fought are irrelevant was well, since they do not say anything about why the Confederacy was formed or why they attacked Ft Sumter. Wikipedia is not required to "present both sides of the argument", it is required to present the view of the majority of historians. There is no requirement to present fringe views, such as slavery being "benevolent", and if they are presented, they must be clearly shown to be fringe views. "Historically inaccurate" is the correct way to refer to the Lost Cause, though it probably should more accurately be listed as "the deliberate falsification of history". Edward321 (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Edward321, you have said that Wikipedia "is required to present the view of the majority of historians." Do you realize that this is exactly what I did by referring to "elements now considered inaccurate by many historians?" In addition, here is a quote from Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View:

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes."

Display name 99 (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You state above, "With all respect and no offense intended, is it possible that some other recent contributors to this article - Rjensen and North Shoreman - could give their opinions as to whether the above 2 sentences should stay? If there is a consensus, I will obey it." Well Rjensen has checked in and disagreed with you; I'm now doing the same thing. There is no academic debate going on questioning either the significance of slavery in secession or the malevolence of slavery. To play off your language, ""Wikipedia describes disputes; it doesn't make them up." You need to do much better than citing an interview by Shelby Foote. His trilogy is a great read, but the fact is that this work has only a few pages on the causes of secession and they reflect the standard issues regarding slavery. I'm not aware of any published works by Foote that show he has researched the politics of the antebellum era. Until you get another editor to agree with you, there is no purpose in carrying this discussion any further. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As consensus is against me, I suppose I'll have to let you revisionists have your way for now. But be prepared for someone else to object to the content, as I am not the first. Display name 99 (talk) 11:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160224

2016 March 19

Thanks for commenting as I am still experimenting with editing text and finding the best places to put it as I just wrote a relatively large paragraph related to writing styles with little punctuation and I'm not entirely sure where it went. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markostri (talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Markostri:"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." - Blaise Pascal. I have learned over the years that when people are not understood, it's usually because their statement is too long, and not too short. Writing something short takes more time, since you have to gather your thoughts and truly understand what you're saying. Also, see my response at the idea lab. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

My present work is not so much related to what I'm writing as where to put it and am enjoying the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markostri (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160319

Neelix

I declined your speedy request for Agreeability and Agreeably because I didn't see anything about them that woudl fit G6. But I notice there may be a wider issue here. Has there been a discussion to delete all of these "Neelix" redirects? --Tóraí (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Tóraí, there isn't an agreement to delete all Neelix redirects, but ones that don't make sense. Nearly every -ly that's made a visit to RfD has been deleted. And I have no idea what Agreeability would even mean. (Challenge: use it in a sentence). Maybe it would make more sense to put these redirect deletions under G5, banned users? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry A5 doesn't apply since these pages were created before his topic ban. And without a community decision to delete these redirects, they don't fit under CSD.

If I was you, I'd try not to think about them. Agreeably and Agreeability were created in 2008. They existed in the database for 8 years without worrying anyone. I suggest it's a waste of admin time to go "cleaning them up" now - and the thousands more like them. --Tóraí (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Tóraí: Consensus says otherwise. There were more than 50,000 of these at one time. It's specifically written into CSD Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Doh! Thank you. I didn't see this. Both deleted now. Ping me with a list of any more you want gone. --Tóraí (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160417

Zaques and Zipas

Hi Oiyarbepsy, thanks for reviewing. The terms zaque and zipa are the terms for the rulers of the northern respectively southern areas of the Muisca in Pre-Columbian Colombia. The terms are linked in the text and also explained in the See Also chapter in the article Muisca rulers. I try to be as complete as possible. Thanks and cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• User:Tisquesusa - I'd maybe say that "Hunzahúa was the first ruler of northern Muisca, known as zaque, in modern-day Colombia." This makes clear what he ruled, where it is located relative to the modern world, and gives a quick definition of zaque with a link to the article. Also, rather than name giver, I think you mean to say that he is the namesake of Tunja. Thanks for editing, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160420

PBB

Thank you for your closure at Template talk:PBB, but I'm not sure that you've addressed the outcome of the discussion in your close. No-one on the deprecation side, as far as I can tell, is advocating deletion. Your closure as "keep" is accurate in that there is clear consensus to keep, but it doesn't really address the question being asked. The "deprecation" side was advocating marking the template as deprecated to discourage additional usage and basically alert editors that there will be a transition soon. When I explained the purpose of deprecation and the fact that deprecation does not mean deletion in the discussion section, multiple editors who "voted" don't deprecate agreed that deprecation without deletion was appropriate. Would you mind revisiting your closure to make sure it addresses the actual deprecate vs. don't deprecate issue? Thanks for taking the time to read this and for closing old discussions. It's badly needed! ~ Rob^Talk 06:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I'm not necessarily encouraging you to close in favor of deprecation. I'm not commenting on that because I'm certainly involved. But I do think the close should address the heart of the matter, whatever the outcome is. ~ Rob^Talk 06:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13:My interpretation of the consensus was that whether to deprecate the templates or not is a moot point to be decided later. So, whether to deprecate or not deprecate no longer is the issue, since it seems the decision was that it doesn't matter yet, and you couldn't properly decide it anyway until the Wikidata stuff is done. That's how I read the discussion section that appeared below the voting sections. Did I understand it incorrectly? BTW, if you want outside editors to comment on your discussion, it really will help to have documentation pages for templates that actually explain what they do and how they work. Complex templates like PBB & Infobox gene shouldn't have essentially blank doc pages Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I think most editors don't get what deprecation is. I think you misunderstood, but I also think most people in the discussion as a whole misunderstood, so maybe "no consensus" on deprecation with consensus to keep is the best outcome. Anyway, deprecation is basically just a notification on the template documentation that states the template is on the way out, more-or-less, to be replaced with something else. It's pretty much a statement of fact at this point that the template is deprecated. All those who said "don't deprecate" pointed to the upcoming Wikidata solution; a solution which will replace the current template. That basically makes the template de facto deprecated already. The reason editors (myself included) were advocating a deprecation notice on the template is because it can either (a) encourage editors to move to the new solution now, making less conversion work later (this isn't really applicable here) or (b) prevent future confusion when the template is suddenly converted to the new solution. B is the applicable part here, since we have the upcoming Wikidata solution. I don't think we did a very good job of explaining deprecation. Discussions between the template crowd and content creators tend to go this way because the template crowd uses terminology that the content crowd isn't familiar with without defining it. And yes, I agree about the documentation, but that bit isn't my fault; I've never edited this particular template. I stumbled upon the discussion based on the ANRFC notice, I believe, but had strong enough thoughts on deprecating these sorts of templates that I contributed instead of closing. ~ Rob^Talk 06:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• @BU Rob13:I'm not changing to a deprecate result, since none of the people who opposed deprecating struck their votes after discussion. Part of the problem is that nobody ever proposed what text would be included on this mythical documentation, so how would you ever expect anyone to consent to anything anyway, aside from a magic word that non-technical people don't understand. I'm willing to reopen for clarification if you have some specific wording proposed for the template documentation. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• I'll add that the more I think about this template, the less I understand what deprecating it even means. Does it mean a mass-delete? Does it mean to to remove transclusions? Does it mean not to create any more of them? Or something else? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Deprecation means "discouragement of use of some feature, design or practice, typically because it has been superseded or is no longer considered safe, without (at least for the time being) removing it from the system of which it is a part or prohibiting its use." In other words, it means slapping {{Deprecated template}} on it and waiting. ~ Rob^Talk 20:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13:I didn't ask for a definition. I asked what deprecation would mean in this specific instance. Would this mean disabling the bot that creates the pages, for example? (Keep in mind that I'm hobbled by not having a clear understanding on how this works). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
    • It means what I said in my last sentence. Literally slap a {{Deprecated template}} on the documentation page to let editors know a change is coming and wait. No disabling of the bot, subpages can still be created in the meantime, and no scheduled deletion at any point (that would require another discussion). The advantage is in editor awareness of the impending change. In my opinion, the appropriate close here would just be "Consensus to keep, no consensus for or against deprecation because it appears both sides were talking around each other" more-or-less. The original RfC question didn't do a good job defining what deprecation of a template means, and editors on the "don't deprecate" side were arguing against something other than the proposal. There was never a full discussion actually related to what was being proposed. I'd be satisfied with such a close. ~ Rob^Talk 05:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, that's not what deprecation means. As far as I know it means that old stuff can stay but don't make any new stuff. If you're still making subpages and running a bot, then you haven't deprecated anything. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160507

Photo licence details.

Moved to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 20 § File:Bhante Vimalaramsi Mahathera.jpg

Hi,

I have updated the article about a Monk and Nun. I added 2 Photos one each in the article. One photo was given to me by the Nun herself. Khanti Khema. I have sent her a email asking to give me permission to use the photo on wiki.

Other photo of B. Vimalaramsi is used from the website but I have a implicit permission to use this photo.

I am unsure of the why copyright rules work. But I assumed that if we are using a photo of the person in a article about that person it would not be a problem.

Please let me know that if a email is sufficient to fulfil this criteria of permission to use on Wikipedia.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcolombowala (talk • contribs) 15:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Mcolombowala:For both photos, we need written explicit permission. And this is not just permission to use it on Wikipedia, but it is permission for anyone on Earth to use the photo for any purpose. Some licensing options include releasing it to public domain or using Wikipedia's standard license, WP:Creative commons. When it comes to promotional photos, a lot of companies are not willing to do this. If you can't get these permissions, another option, if you know these people personally, is to take a photo of them yourself.

We typically allow seven days for you to send in the permissions for the file before they are deleted. If it takes longer than that, we can undelete the files later.

Thanks you editing, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160508

Uberisation

Hi, I've noticed that you seem interested in the article Uberisation. I would really appreciate your help in improving the article, since you seem quite adept. This is an increasingly significant topic, and I think it's important to ensure at an early stage that its coverage on wikipedia is NPOV and of good quality. Thanks!!Hendrick 99 (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Hendrick 99:As I already noted on your talk page, I don't see why this is different than sharing economy. And I don't really think the short article at uberisation has all that much to add. I think redirecting to sharing economy is the best option. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160508 (2)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the information given on the licence details of images, I have accordingly changed one image and will do so for the other also. Mcolombowala (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160508 (3)

Orphaned non-free image File:Team Melli Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Team Melli Logo.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) 02:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160516