Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Replacing removed image

In the page List of African-American women in STEM fields, I added the image Marjorie_Lee_Browne.jpg for the entry about Marjorie Lee Browne. I obtained this image from Wikipedia where it is currently being used in the Wikipedia article about Marjorie Lee Browne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Lee_Browne). The image shows Fair Use. This image was rejected from the page List of African-American women in STEM fields. Reason listed:

"No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation."

I need to understand how the image is okay in one Wikipedia article and not another. Please explain. Polymath Want To Be (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Polymath Want To Be}} (I like that username, by the way), the details can be found at the nonfree content usage criteria. In this case, the operative ones are number 1, since presumably it would be possible to use freely licensed material about the subject of African-American women in STEM fields, number 3; we use nonfree material as little as possible, and 8; in an article about a different subject, the photo is essentially decorative and is not critical to understanding that article's subject). In this case, since she is deceased, no free images of her can be created, and none seem to currently exist (at least I couldn't find any with a quick check), so one nonfree image is acceptable in the article about her. However, that doesn't mean it can just be used wherever she's mentioned; use in a list or the like would not be appropriate. The nonfree content rules are meant to keep use of nonfree content to an absolute minimum, and are quite deliberately much stricter than US fair use law. Since Wikipedia is a free content project, we do not want to make substantial use of nonfree material, and it's kept to an absolute minimum. In addition to that, if you look at the image description page, you can see the nonfree rationale for use in the article about her; such a rationale is required for each article any nonfree image is used in. But in this case, it would not be possible to write a valid rationale for the list, since use there would fail three NFCC criteria. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the quick and thorough response. I will be more cognizant of these rules in the future. Have a great day!Polymath Want To Be (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade In any other usage, I would agree; however, with this particular image it seems somewhat suspicious as to whether or not it has been uploaded correctly under its current criteria; considering the "source" is this: [https://www.nopestproductions.com/driven-out/]. Not to mention the second usage of the image was for an article page that directly refers to the subject on WP. Furthermore, this particular image can be found online under: "FAIR USE IMAGE" [https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/marjorie-lee-browne-1914-1979/], [https://nmost.org/women-who-made-history-mathematics/]; and I would dare say this could be uploaded to WP with the criteria that there is no copyright markings or attached copyright on the actual photograph. Considering the subject was born in 1914, I would surmise that this photo does not have a copyright since it is the one most used out of the 3 photos of Browne online and in print without any credit to a photographer or date / place of creation: [https://www.google.com/search?q=Marjorie+Lee+Browne+phtograph&client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=e2a660d80d6ce184&udm=2&biw=1399&bih=766&sxsrf=AE3TifNf1cW5r-jcoCP3b-PSd1auRCvIlw%3A1749243349460&ei=1VVDaOTrG7iq5NoP2d65yQc&ved=0ahUKEwikquGj192NAxU4FVkFHVlvLnkQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=Marjorie+Lee+Browne+phtograph&gs_lp=EgNpbWciHU1hcmpvcmllIExlZSBCcm93bmUgcGh0b2dyYXBoSJQNULEDWKoLcAF4AJABAJgBY6ABxwaqAQE5uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIDoALPAcICBBAAGB6YAwCIBgGSBwMyLjGgB7oIsgcDMS4xuAfHAcIHAzItM8gHDw&sclient=img#vhid=WXh2J-kEMKn38M&vssid=mosaic], [https://www.google.com/search?q=Marjorie+Lee+Browne+image&client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=e2a660d80d6ce184&udm=2&biw=1399&bih=766&sxsrf=AE3TifN40gV2xyJB8ODD8hl7UEKBUd40fQ%3A1749243370639&ei=6lVDaLHhJpCs5NoP3Knh0A8&ved=0ahUKEwix_u2t192NAxUQFlkFHdxUGPoQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=Marjorie+Lee+Browne+image&gs_lp=EgNpbWciGU1hcmpvcmllIExlZSBCcm93bmUgaW1hZ2UyBxAjGCcYyQIyBBAAGB5IhQlQ5ANYsQZwAXgAkAEAmAFuoAHfA6oBAzQuMbgBA8gBAPgBAZgCBaAC7gPCAgUQABiABMICBhAAGAgYHsICBhAAGAUYHpgDAOIDBRIBMSBAiAYBkgcDMy4yoAepE7IHAzMuMrgH7gPCBwUwLjQuMcgHDQ&sclient=img]. Discussing the terms of nonfree content usage criteria is one thing; but discussing this particular photograph is another. @Polymath Want To Be I do not believe the licensing tag (Non-free historic image) is correct in this situation. MacTutor History of Mathematics claims the image is not under copyright: [https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Browne/poster/lived/]. Universities, Institutes, Organizations all use this image with no copyright claim or credit given. This could easily be re-uploaded under: This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1930 and 1963, and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewal licensing, i.e. [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marie_Maynard_Daly.jpg]. Maineartists (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi. As of 2020, the USPTO changed its mind and found that the Dead Kennedys' logotype was after all [https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/dead-kennedys-dk-logo.pdf protected by copyright] (in addition to trademark). Wikipedia has only a pretty bad bitmap of the logo, uploaded prior to the decision, and Wikimedia Commons only has a photo of someone wearing it on a T-shirt, also predating the decision. I just ran across this because I saw the crappy bitmap and was going to upload a vector version, then went to check on the fair-use, and found the USPTO decision.

So, does all this recommend any particular course of action? Leave things as-is? Replace the bitmap with vector? Remove the bitmap? I started a talk page for the bitmap image. Bill Woodcock (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

My problem: I would like to upload images (spherical panoramas) of the interior of the Federal Administrative Court. However, according to an enquiry to the press office of the Federal Administrative Court, the images may only be uploaded and used under a CC BY-NC licence. The press office refers to the domestic authority.

My question: Can I upload these images to the English Wikipedia as ‘non free / fair use’ and under the ‘CC BY-NC’ licence and use them in the Federal Administrative Court article?

Many thanks in advance for your answers and best regards --Joachim Köhler (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

PS: I am a user on the German Wikipedia - see my German user page. Joachim Köhler (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

: Hi {{u|Joachim Köhler}}. Creative Commons NC-ND licenses are too restrictive for Wikipedia's general licensing; so, anything licensed as such is going to need to be treated as non-free content. This means each use of such content is going to need to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, i.e., all ten non-free content use criteria listed :WP:NFCCP. Assuming you're asking about using these images in :Federal Administrative Court (Germany), it's hard to say for sure without knowing more about the images themselves and how you intend to use them; however, just from looking at the article, I think you're going to have a really hard time justifying the use of any non-free image of the interior per :WP:NFCC#1 (:WP:FREER) and :WP:NFCC#8 (:WP:NFC#CS and :WP:DECORATIVE). Perhaps if you provide a link to the one image you think would best satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and a brief explanation as to where in the article you want to use it, then maybe someone could give you a more detailed assessment. Finally, just for reference, I took a look at :de:Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Deutschland) out of curiosity, and there are several "free" images of the exterior and interior of the court uploaded to Commons found in :c:Category:Interior of Reichsgericht Leipzig. I don't know whether these are OK for Commons to host per se per :c:COM:Germany, but they could, in principle, be used in the English Wikipedia article (assuming their copyright licenses are correct), which would make it pretty much make it impossible for any similar non-free image to meet WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hello {{u|Marchjuly}}, thank you for your reply. If the images really have to fulfil all ten criteria for the use of non-free content, then unfortunately I cannot upload these images to the English Wikipedia. - To explain what I wanted to do. There are already six spherical panoramas of the interior of the Federal Administrative Court on Commons. For example this one:

{{PanoViewer|2024-04-06_140334_Leipzig_Bundesverwaltungsgericht_Kuppelhalle.jpg|upright=1.3|2=Domed Hall Federal Administrative Court}}

::But there are people on these spherical panoramas, the resolution is low and I think I got the exposure better (with HDR). That's why I wanted to upload better spherical panoramas. I'd rather not ask here whether the users have all asked the Federal Administrative Court for permission. I asked and unfortunately received the answer that only a CC BY-NC licence is possible. So I can no longer upload these spherical panoramas. Too bad, but thanks again for your answer and best regards --Joachim Köhler (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Joachim Köhler}} Whether you can upload such files to Commons might depend upon :c:COM:FOP Germany and how it applies to the Federal Administrative Court. For countries that allow full :freedom of panorama for the exteriors of buildings (e.g., the United States), only the copyright status of the photograph itself is relevant when it comes to Commons; for countries that don't allow freedom of panorama for buildings (e.g., France), not only the copyright status of the photograph but also the copyright status of the building itself needs to be considered. In the case of the court, it could be that photographs taken by the it's press office are licensed as NC-ND because that's what the press office wants to do, but photographs taken by private citizens can be licensed anyway the photographer wants. So, it might be a good idea to ask the press office about this kind of thing if you're interested in pursuing it further. As for the files already uploaded to Commons, lots of people mean well but simply don't really do their due dilligence when it comes to assessing the copyright status of their own photos; they assume that any photo they take automatically is OK for Commons because they're copyright holder of the photo without even considering whether their photo is a derivative work incoporating copyright protected content created by others. In addition, there tends to be different rules for interior photography, and Germany's freedom of panorama doesn't seem to extend to building interiors; so, some people might mistakenly assume that freedom of panorama applies to both the exterior and interior of buildings in Germany. I guess there could be buildings in Germany that are so old that even their interiors are no longer eligible for copyright protection or with interiors that are too simple to eligible for copyright protection; so, such photos might be OK for Commons for reasons other than freedom of panorama. The photo you linked to above could be such a case depending upon the age of the building or the simplicity of its interior design. The court, of course, might have its own house rules regarding interior photography that are unrelated to German copyright law, but such things aren't really a concern of Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Hello {{u|Marchjuly}}, thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, according to German copyright law, freedom of panorama does not apply indoors, only to outdoor views under certain conditions. I have asked the press office several times and put forward various arguments, but in the end I have not received a reply for about four months. They invoke their domiciliary rights, which must be observed in Germany. They demand that interior shots be published under a CC BY-NC licence, but this is not permitted on Commons. It's a real shame that the Federal Administrative Court has created an insurmountable hurdle here. Thanks again and best regards --Joachim Köhler (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::You might want to ask about this at :c:COM:VPC or on German Wikipedia. The press office can pretty much say anything want, but what they say and what Germany's copyright law says might not be exactly the same thing. The court might have its own house rules against interior photography, but those aren't necessarily related to the copyright status of the interior. Standard or utilitarian features like doors, windows, floors, ceiling, stairways, atriums, pillars, etc. might not be considered creative enough to being eligible for copyright protection, unless they're ornately decorated or unique in some other way; for example, a stained glass window or decorative mural on a wall could be eligible for copyright protection, particularly if still too new to not be ineligible for copyright protection because of its age, but a standard window (pane and framing) or a plain undecorated wall is probably not going to be eligible for copyright protection regardless of how old it is. The press office could be trying to protect any commercial interests it has selling photos or whatever of the inside of the court, but that doesn't necessary mean the interior is eligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od|5}}

Thank you for your answer. I have already asked on Commons. I don't think this is a copyright issue, but a problem with the owner's rights. The owner of the building can decide whether photos may be taken (which is permitted) and under what conditions they may be published. And they strictly require CC BY-NC, which is not accepted on Commons. Best regards --Joachim Köhler (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:Just for reference, Commons most likely isn't going to care about the "house rules" of the court when it comes to hosting any such photo; it's only concern will be the copyright status of the photo and whatever is photographed as explained in :c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography. So, you won't probably won't have to worry about your Commons account getting blocked or anything like that. Out in the real world, though, things could get messy, especially if the press office knows who you are and decides to go after you. The press office could try to seek redress for reasons other than the photo being a copyright violation. Given that there seems to be several other photos of the court's exterior and interior already uploaded to Commons, the possible real-world risks of trying to upload another one might not be worth it. Finally, this might be a Hail Mary type of suggestion, but you could try emailing the WMF or its designated agent about this via :Wikipedia:Contact us/Licensing. You might get a response explaining the WMF position on such things. The WMF likely won't advocate on your behalf, but they might provide you with a more definite response or information that might be helpful. Plus, it will all be by email, i.e., just between you and the WMF. Everything you've posted on Commons, English Wikipedia or German Wikipedia so far is out in the :WP:REALWORLD, and it's there for everyone to see. I'm not suggesting you've posted anything wrong per se; only that what you've posted so far can be seen be all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Joachim Köhler@Marchjuly hello. I just passed by this discussion.

::I think the interior architecture of the building may be OK locally on English Wikipedia. Per a 2012 discussion which led to the creation of {{tlx|FoP-USonly}}, only US law matters on enwiki and enwiki has no obligation to comply with stricter laws that either limit exploitations of architectural works to exterior architecture only (e.g. Germany or Türkiye) or restrict liberal/commercial uses of all architectures altogether (e.g. France or the Philippines). Any restriction from Germany, whether with intervention from architects or not, do not apply to enwiki, and enwiki can freely host images of interior architecture of Federal Administrative Court. US FoP, for architecture only, doesn't distinguish exterior and interior architecture, as long as the building itself can be seen from publicly-accessible places. It's like, once a building can be seen by the public, the architects' image rights are denied in an instant. The architects or their assignees no longer have the rights to control the public's intents in photographing both the exterior and the interior of the building.

::Of course, the lex loci protectionis principle that enwiki and most other US-hosted sites uphold aren't yet tested by architectural complaints outside the US, but, WP:NOTCRYSTAL of course. Within US, though, a minority of architects don't seem to be in favor with "total surrender" of their rights to the public (see Freedom of panorama in the United States#Reception), but luckily, majority of architects there do not oppose panorama exception rights (unlike in the likes of France and Morocco where architect's rights are too strong to be resisted). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, it appears to be owner's rights. As per c:COM:Non-copyright restrictions, Commons only handles the copyright-related issues in the general sense. If the interior architecture is of a German building whose architect died for more than 70 years, then it can be freely hosted on Commons. Beware of newer pieces of works like murals and window/wall designs which may be treated as separate works under German law, but acceptable under US law as "architectural elements" and not distinct artistic elements. Such pieces can be hosted here even in highest resolutions (though I don't know if enwiki had received DMCA notices concerning unfree architecture or interior elements in the past.

:::If you're from Germany, Joachim, then it may be risky to violate non-copyright rules, though, based on my comprehension of the case files you shared here. It seems there is strong enforcement of moral rights and house rules in Germany. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Fox-Howl.ogg

I don't know where the sound originated from exactly (as that seems lost to time) but I definitely know that User:LokYYs did not create it, as this sound effect has been used in media since the 1940s. Currently you can license the sound from Sound Ideas. The original file name is "ANMLWdog_Coyote_HB02-78-4" and is on Hanna-Barbera Sound Effects Library disc 2. I don't think Wikipedia has the legal right to use this song on their page, but I'm not entirely sure what to do about it. Thank you.

Migsy1 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Migsy1 as the file is hosted on Commons, the place to ask is :c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. There's a number of possible factors such as did Hanna-Barbera register the copyright, if so did they renew it. Did they even own the copyright or does that belong to the voice artist who performed it. Nthep (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|Migsy1}}. Since file is uploaded to :Wikimedia Commons, any issues related to it's copyright status (e.g. whether it's a copyvio) are, in principle, going to need to be resolved over at Commons. You can try asking about it at :c:COM:VPC. Many people upload files to Commons as "own work", but often this is just a misunderstanding of :c:COM:Own work. In some cases, the uploaded content may have already entered into the public domain for some reason, and all that really needs to be done is to relicense the content in a more appropriate way and update its :provenance. In other cases, though, the content is still protected by copyright and needs to be deleted. Since the original recording seems to have bene first published in the US, if it's no longer eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law (see :c:COM:HIRTLE#Sound recordings), it might be OK for Commons to keep. That's probably something best asked about on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi - I blanked & redirected the Montmorency article to Montmorency series and moved the book cover photo (File:Montmorency (novel).jpg), but I don't know how to do the non-free use. The page says this image will be deleted after 16 June. Can anyone help? Thanks. Blackballnz (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Blackballnz}} The file was not being used when a bot flagged it for speedy deletion as "orphaned non-free use" per :WP:F5 because of :WP:NFCC#7. Since you subsequently have added the file to an article, it is no longer eligible for speedy deletion for that reason; so, you can go to the file's page, click edit, and just remove the syntax for the deletion template the bot added. You should leave an edit summary explaining why just to let others know.{{pb}}Now, having said that, it's still possible that someone might challenge the file's non-free use for other :WP:NFCCP reasons. While it's OK to use individual book cover art in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone about said book, I think it's preferrable to use the cover art of the series (if one exists) in an article about a series of books instead. So, if these books were sold as a series (e.g. a boxed set) which had its own representative cover art, then that one would probably be preferable to the cover art of a single book of the series. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for this. There seems to be several different covers for this series, but I can't see any cover art that would be "representative" of the series. I will remove the speedy deletion, and keep looking. Blackballnz (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I recently uploaded this image (a screenshot that I took of a video posted on Twitter/X of an amateur-recorded video) highlighting the recent Israeli airstrikes on Iran. Would this fall under copyright, and if not, would it count as public domain? Thanks!

TwistedAxe [contact] 01:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Unless the user on Twitter/X says the video was under a free license, we must assume its copyrighted. Masem (t) 01:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::Ouch, that's my mistake then. I'll remove it in that case. Having some difficulties with removing it, if you could remove it that would be great. Thanks, and once again apologies for the mistake. TwistedAxe [contact] 01:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{done}} After a few edit conflicts, I removed it from June 2025 Israeli strikes in Iran. It'll be deleted on June 20 if no other action is taken, or you can add {{tl|db-g7}} to the image's page if you'd like it deleted sooner. hinnk (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello.

I recently edited the UK law page Ivey v Genting Casinos, the infobox was without an image, and it seems standard practice in these circumstances to use the emblem of the court that decided the case.

I used Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2024).svg, which I found in the article for the UK Supreme Court.

User:JJMC89 bot deleted the image for being "non-free content".

I do notice now that the version on the Supreme Court page lists its source as the UK government, but the version used on the page Paul v Wolverhampton says it is "own work" of User:Sodacan

I assume there is some sort of rights issue in using the actual badge of the Supreme Court on anything other than its own article? Can someone explain this to me so I can avoid similar mistakes in future?

Many thanks. Hand Of Eunomia (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Hand Of Eunomia}} First of all, the bot didn't delete the file, but rather removed it from an article where its use wasn't satisfying Wikipedia's non-free content use policy as explained here. That particular bot always leaves an edit summary when it removes a file, and that edit summary contains a link to :WP:NFC#Implementation. Did you see the edit summary the bot left and look at the page it linked to? Bascially, all non-free content is required to have two things: a non-free copyright license and a non-free use rationale. It pretty much all cases one copyright license is sufficient for a file regardless of how many times it's used, but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and there are ten criteria that each use of non-free content need to satisfy for the use to be considered OK. One of these criteria (actually one part of one of the criteria) is critierion #10c. This criteria states that a separate, specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use of the file. Most likely you add the file to the article from which it was removed, but didn't add a corresponding non-free use rationale to the file's page. JJMC89 bot is tasked with finding files that aren't in compliance with criterion #10c. When it finds a file, it removes said file if it's unable to fix the problem itself. So, you can stop the bot from removing the file again by adding the rationale required for the use to the file's page and then re-adding the file. However, adding a rationale for a non-free use is :WP:JUSTONE of the aforementioned ten criteria, and the file's non-free use can still be challenged by someone if they feel the use (even with the rationale) still fails one of the other criteria. Generally, non-free logos are OK to use for primary identification in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about whatever the logo represents; using the logo in other articles or in other ways, on the other hand, becomes much harder to justify in terms of Wikipedia policy. So, a non-free logo for a court is probably fine for primary identification purposes in the main article about the court, but probably isn't OK for use in other articles even if they're related to the court in some way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{hidden ping|Hand Of Eunomia}}I didn't catch that your question was a two-parter. The file being used in :Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (:File:Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2024).svg) and the one used in :Paul v Wolverhampton (:File:Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg) are different in terms of how they're licensed and where they're uploaded; so, they're not subject to all the same Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The one used in the Wolverhampton article is uploaded to Commons and isn't licensed as non-free content. It appears to be its creator's rendition of official version of the court's logo uploaded locally to English as non-free content. The court's logo could be argued to be more of a coat-of-arms than logo per se, and coat-of-arms (COA) are treated differently than logos by Commons as explained in :c:COM:COA. This mainly has to do with how the copyright status of a COA is assessed. There are two elements of a COA, the :blazon and emblazon. Since the blazon tends to be nothing but a written description/definition of what the COA is supposed to look like, it's not considered to be eligible for copyright protection on its own; the emblazon, however, is a visual interpretation/rendition of the blazon, and thus can be eligible for copyright protection with the copyright being held its creator. There can be different emblazons created by different individuals based on the same blazon, and each embazon can be eligible for copyright protection separately from the other. So, the emblazon by the court is its interpretation and the one created by {{u|Sodacan}} is their interpretation so to speak; as long as Sodacan's embazon is considered different enough to not be considered a slavish/mechanical reproduction (i.e., a copyright violation) of the court's emblazon, it's probably OK for Commons from a copyright license standpoint. If you have concerns about that, you would need to discuss them either with Sodacan themselves or at :c:COM:VPC since copyright-related issues with Commons files need to be discussed on Commons. For what it's worth, an emblazon could be too old to still be eligible for copyright protection, too simple to have ever been eligible for copyright protection, or otherwise be declared to be within the public domain by law, but I don't think any of those things apply to the court's emblazon per :c:COM:TOO UK; so, unless the court decides to release its emblazon under a license that's free enough for Wikipedia's purposes, Wikipedia will treat it as non-free content. Whether Sodacan's version is a good enough emblazon to be used in Wikipedia articles about the court's cases isn't really a copyright-related discussion per se, and is probably something that should be discussed either at the individual article talk page level or at the WikiProject talk page level. You could start a discussion about it at :WP:FFD if you want, but I suggest trying one of the other two places first to get a feel of what others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::I dont condone any of this. To be hacked & dictated to.is illegal. I have everything here & i certainly didnt agree to a single thing. I want my devices back to normal & not be held hostage

::Edit all you like as we have already seen there's no agreement to anything but rather royally hacked. 149.167.15.110 (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your reply. That explains everything.

::I have no idea what this other reply is about. Hand Of Eunomia (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)