User talk:CeltBrowne

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 3.

File:Ninette de Valois.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ninette de Valois.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Alex Windsor

Hi, I'd like to ask you if this photo of Alex Windsor is ok to be uploaded with the wizard tool. I saw this photo of Okada that you have previously uploaded under the 4.0 license and I assume that their depictions of wrestlers such as official portraits are free works but I don't want to generalize. Can you please tell me more about AEW portraits and under which circumstances can they get uploaded? In Okada's example, I saw the file was reviewed by a VRT member. Same goes fo a file of Jay White I'm seeing. Can yoy give me some advice about this process please? Thanks! JeyReydar97 (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than likely will not be able to upload that file. The AEW files I uploaded came through a special relationship I developed with someone on AEW's online staff, who is no longer there. That person gave permission from AEW to upload the files, and then sent on supporting e-mails to the Commons to confirm that permission had been given. I might be able to get more AEW stuff in future but right now I don't know for sure.

VRT is a team on the Commons that double-checks that files which state they have been given special permission really do have that special permission. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I guess I'll just stick to Flickr relationships. It's easier. Best of luck with AEW stuff in the future. JeyReydar97 (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:UCC Soccer.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UCC Soccer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 01:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association Football Crests

Hey @CeltBrowne, just wanted to thank you for the stellar image work you've done on Irish football - a lot of your recent uploads have enhanced pages I've been trying to uplift in quality so I really appreciate your help with this. If you have any tips for me that could help you, I'm keen to assist! ElfmanWriter (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Taylor Lorenz.

You misrepresented the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 479. Uninvolved users there specifically stated It may be problematic to cite analytical statements to Puck as these may be of inappropriate tone or content and the specific source used in the Lorenz article ... probably shouldn't be used for BLP purposes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC) edited 23:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not misrepresent the discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 479 and I find your use of this template to be highly aggressive (Two of the three cited sources are rated as generally reliable on Perennial sources). In my reading of the discussion, User:Longhornsg clearly stated they found Puck to be reliable, and the other two uninvolved users gave nuanced answers which explained that they they were against the podcast, but open to a written source from Puck (which has now been provided).

@Chetsford, ActivelyDisinterested, and Longhornsg: Your comments from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 479 are being cited by Sangdeboeuf in order to revert this edit. Do you believe that the sources cited (The New Yorker, Puck and Politico) to be "unreliable"? They are being used to support the statement while Dylan Byers reported that the Washington Post "determined Lorenz violated the paper’s standards and had no desire to continue employing her" and asked her to leave. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the New Yorker was "unreliable" in this context. See Talk:Taylor Lorenz § Dylan Byers. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Longhornsg stated was Obviously, we should pay attention to whether a piece is reported journalism or more of a newsletter-style opinion, especially when it comes to BLPs. The source is Byers' "In the Room" newsletter, and is manifestly an opinion piece. More than that, it's the wrong opinion piece. Here's the section talking about Lorenz in its entirety, for the sake of those who don't feel like signing up for a free trial:

Extended content

Taylor’s Version: This week, former New York Times and Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz came under fire for ostensibly celebrating the murder of Brian Thompson, the UnitedHealthcare C.E.O. who was shot and killed in Manhattan on Wednesday. “And people wonder why we want these executives dead,” Lorenz, stunningly, wrote on social media. She also shared celebratory graphics relating to the murder of the 50-year-old father of two, and posted the full name, title, and headshot of another health insurance executive. Lorenz later wrote an essay defending herself against the “pearl-clutching” outrage of her critics. I’m not here to weigh in on the grotesqueness of celebrating murder—Lorenz’s reputation precedes her—but it is interesting to see her show her true character after the Times and then the Post invested so much time and energy trying to defend that reputation. As I’ve reported, the Post severed ties with Lorenz in early October, graciously allowing her to “resign to pursue a career in independent journalism” after it determined that she’d misled them about a social post she shared in which President Biden was labeled as “a war criminal.” (Lorenz disputes this account of her departure.) When the Post first began investigating the matter, in August, Lorenz appeared to claim that her post had been doctored: “You people will fall for any dumbass edit someone makes,” she wrote on X. In November, weeks after leaving the Post, Lorenz made her true feelings known, writing on X: “Joe Biden is a war criminal who should never know peace.”

In light of Lorenz’s recent exploits, a relevant and previously unreported detail has come my way. In 2023, Lorenz was featured in Glitch, a documentary critical of the once-hot HQ Trivia app. In the film, Lorenz claims that shortly after interviewing the show’s host, Scott Rogowsky, for a piece she was writing for The Daily Beast, she received an email from the app’s co-founder and C.E.O., Rus Yusupov. Apparently, Yusupov protested her attempt to profile Rogowsky. “At 6:00 p.m., an email comes in from Rus,” Lorenz says to the camera, “and he’s like, ‘This is an unauthorized profile. You can’t write this story.’” The film shows a screenshot purporting to be the email from Yusupov to Lorenz with that exact quote.

Glitch, which was produced by Left/Right Productions, was acquired by CNN Films and premiered on CNN in March 2023, before being made available on Warner Bros. Discovery’s Max service that July. The next month, the leadership at WBD, HBO, and CNN Films received a letter from lawyers representing Yusupov, informing them that the screenshot purporting to show his email to Lorenz had been doctored, and alleging that it was therefore defamatory.

In the real email, a copy of which the lawyers provided in their letter, Yusupov had written only the following: “Hi Taylor, Thanks for reaching out. We are not making Scott available to discuss his involvement with HQ with the media/press. I am happy to talk to you over the phone to give a comment on what we’re doing.”

Shortly after hearing from Yusupov’s lawyers, WBD pulled Glitch from the Max streaming service, and it has not appeared there since.

WBD and CNN Films declined to discuss the matter, and both the founders of Left/Right Productions and the director of the film did not respond to requests for comment. A producer on the film declined to talk by phone but said she would take questions by text, though she did not reply to those questions, including one that specifically asked about the source of the email displayed in the film. (On Friday night, in a post on her Substack seeking to preempt this item, Lorenz wrote, “Everyone I spoke to who actually worked on the film, said that they sought to tell Dylan that I had nothing to do with the film and certainly nothing to do with any fact-checking errors or false graphics on screen.” In fact, no one involved with the film has reached out to me on Lorenz’s behalf by phone, text, email, or direct message).

Reached by text, Lorenz initially told me she did not doctor any emails and that Rus’s attempts to prevent her story on Rogowsky took place over the phone, not in an email. She later said she never watched the documentary, and attributed the screenshot of the email to Glitch’s producers, who, she said, seemed to have taken what Yusupov “said by phone and made it into an email instead.”

When informed that in the film she’d said that she received an email with that exact quote, Lorenz told me: “I must have confused email with phone call bc it was 4 years prior 🤷🏻‍♀️ but I have the emails that I sent to Russ [sic] and his whole outrage was by phone. That I’m 100% sure of and it’s in my story correctly.” (Indeed, in her story about the exchange with Yusupov for The Daily Beast, she says his protests to the article took place during a phone conversation, not in the email in question.)

“I told them what I remembered and that was that,” Lorenz later said. “It’s not my job to do reporting and fact checking for them!”

Note that this source does not contain the quote "Lorenz violated the paper's standards" and is not the same source that Politico and The New Yorker are referencing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's taken me hours and hours of using search engines, wayback machine, archive sites and other means, but I finally have it: The original, not accessible directly anymore, pay-walled article url. I cannot stress how difficult this was to obtain and I am unbelievably annoyed with both the New Yorker and Politico for not directly hyperlinking to the original article in their articles:

https://archive.li/t6nUZ

It reads:

Elsewhere in the nation’s capital, The Washington Post has severed ties with Taylor Lorenz after determining that she misled them about an Instagram post on her account in which President Biden was labeled as “a war criminal.” The Post conducted a review of the matter and, though its findings have not been made public, I can confirm that the paper determined Lorenz violated the paper’s standards and had no desire to continue employing her. In a statement, the Post very delicately stated that Lorenz had “resigned to pursue a career in independent journalism.”. This is not Taylor’s version [of the story], of course.

We now have the original Puck article, a second Puck article where the underlying claim is reasserted, and both The New Yorker and Politico (which are generally reliable perennial sources) noting those claims.

And to be absolutely clear: This part of the article is NOT being presented as an "opinion". Byers is stating this as factual reporting. They are stating as fact they did some kind of investigation/contacted sources within Washington Post and discovered that information. Byers reporting was/is credible enough that is it noted by both the New Yorker and Politico. The very same New Yorker article which references Byers is already extensively cited in the Lorenz Wiki-article.

I should hope that any reasonable editor should see at this point that I have made a clear, good faith effort to properly source and verify the statement and abide by Wikipedia Guidelines. This statement, which by the way, I am not seeking to place "as fact" in the Wikivoice, but simply note as one version of the story in the article, as per Wikipedia guidelines regarding contested claims.

I would like now to move forward without further issue. CeltBrowne (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one is questioning your good faith, but users can't just wave their hands and move forward without the consensus of the community. The material here is still unduly weighted. It doesn't matter how Byers presents his claims; his personal newsletter lacks meaningful editorial oversight and relies on anonymous sources; it's basically a gossip column. It should also go without saying that Byers citing himself is not an independent source. You also left out the following passage: In a statement to me, Lorenz called my framing of her exit “an extremely stupid attempt to manufacture controversy.” She added: “A big part of why I decided to go independent and found User Mag is so that I can speak directly for myself and not have to deal with bad-faith anonymous ‘sources’ trying to smear me in the media.” If you want to include Byers' allegations, then you have to include Lorenz's response as well, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 479, Puck is edited by Jon Kelly and Danny Karel, with Longhornsg noting they have an editorial structure in place. WP:BLPGOSSIP advises caution, not a ban on anonymous sources. We are being cautious; our use of Puck is buttressed by the fact major publications with editorial staff such as the New Yorker also noted Byers' claim (based on anonymous sources) and we are citing those major publications in conjunction with the original source.

I am happy to include Lorenz's response, just as Byers responsibly did in his reporting. CeltBrowne (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a newsletter, which Byers calls my twice-weekly private email on media and media people. I don't see any evidence of editorial oversight. Even generally reliable outlets still publish opinion commentary that is not subject to the same fact-checking as regular news and is therefore less reliable. Longhornsg even alluded to this, as I noted already.

As I stated at Talk:Taylor Lorenz, the Politico source is basically an opinion piece and therefore not reliable for factual claims; one unreliable source citing another unreliable source equals two unreliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Simonm223, who also participated in the discussion on using Puck as a source for BLPs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really changed my view on this from the RS/N discussion. The puck source is functionally self-published and inappropriate for a BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would stand by my comment that using articles by Byers published on Puck for BLP details (especially contentious details) could be problematic as he's an owner of Puck media.
In a more general BLP sense can I ask why we not using the New Yorker to quote what the New Yorker said? If they have not published that quote, and it is only found in a single source, then I would be uncomfortable including it regardless of the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: The Byers quote does appear in the New Yorker , but it is bracketed by Lorenz's denial that leaving the Post was a direct result of the incident, a statement attributed to the Post confirming that Lorenz chose to resign, and the fact that the Post carried out an investigation of her work for evidence of bias, but announced no findings.

I also dispute that we have multiple reliable third-party sources for Byers' allegations, given that the Politico source is another newsletter, which is to say an unreliable opinion piece. My argument is that this is all too much gossip-mongering for a BLP article, and that we should just summarize the known facts about Lorenz resigning to start her own podcast/newsletter. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Byers peice isn't reliable for the claim, as it's to close to being selfpublished. If the New Yorker includes more details those should be included for context, but whether anything be should be included is an NPOV matter best discussed on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Irving Goff.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Irving Goff.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 02:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Robert Hale Merriman.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Robert Hale Merriman.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 02:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Alvah Bessie Spain.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alvah Bessie Spain.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 02:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pinkpantheress

hey why did u crop her cover image it looks worse. Haloretailstore (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously because I thought it was an improvement; I cropped and centered so that we can clearly see her face. The vast majority of infobox images on Wikipedia are head and shoulder portraits, so the image is inline with that. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Tom Wintringham.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tom Wintringham.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 02:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:George Brown (Communist).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:George Brown (Communist).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 02:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bernard Ades.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bernard Ades.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 02:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Peter Daly.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Peter Daly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 02:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you upload the Iranian liberal and conservative flags image to wikimedia?

I've often seen you upload your produced image on Wikimedia[1][2] and apply it to the template in English Wikipedia.[3][4] Could you do the same to the liberalism and conservatism templates in Iran? ProgramT (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if possible, it would be nice to have a flag image of PRC's neoauthoritarianism (blue and PRC flag), New Left (red and PRC flag), ROC's conservatism (Naval Jack and ROC flag) and Japan's socialism (red and Japan flag). ProgramT (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fred Copeman.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hello. I noticed you recently added a media file (such as an image, audio recording, or video) which was AI-generated or tampered with by AI ("upscaled"). Such media files may contain inaccuracies and should not be used on Wikipedia (or indeed anywhere). Thank-you.

Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Cedar Lounge Revolution screenshot.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Cedar Lounge Revolution screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 17:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mark Killilea Jnr.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mark Killilea Jnr.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 17:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of ROSA (organisation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ROSA (organisation) 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/ROSA (organisation) 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 until the discussion has finished.

Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Conservatism in Taiwan

[5] How about changing the image a little differently? It would be nice to use KMT flag on the left and ROC flag on the right! ([6][7][8]) Because the color of the blue flag on the left in the current image is KMT blue, and KMT is very important in ROC conservatism. This image was created by Hstoops, but it looks like it needs to be updated. ProgramT (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggesting speaking to Hstoops again as while I can do a version, I'm not good at creating .svgs. Also, Hstoops has the flag template (which I should really ask him to upload), which makes it easier for him to switch flags in and out. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi CeltBrowne. Thank you for your work on Hope and Courage Collective. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this page for a civil society organisation that reaches notability through sustained coverage in a range of national news media over several years (sustained coverage). It would not be helpful to link it from other pages in Wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Michael X aka Michael Abdul Malik.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pluralism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Getting an updated lead image for PinkPantheress on Reddit was seriously so smart, I'm honestly surprised more people don't do it (I also don't like how passive aggressive the title of this barnstar sounds but it was the most fitting option :P) benǝʇᴉɯ 12:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much User:Benmite; with a bit of luck other users might pick up that simply asking around on subreddits is a completely viable way of sourcing images. It's crazy in this era when everyone has a smartphone with a camera that we on Wikipedia are still primarily only sourcing from places like Flickr. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Robert Klonsky.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Robert Klonsky.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 17:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]