You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Fairly OddParents#Confirmation show has been cancelled. Please discuss this before changing related articles Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See File:Tennessee Titans wordmark, 2018.svg. Just for future reference, you're better off requesting on my Wikipedia talkpage as I don't edit on Commons very often, and when I do, I don't have notifications to let me know someone posted there. Corky 18:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go. Did you block the page? 530Pres (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or notify an admin to lock the page? 530Pres (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I have no control or interest over that. It's not my problem if a vandal attacks, it's the mods.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I just really wanted to make the obvious change about Aaron Rodgers being the owner of the Bears after that comeback in week one. Saw that you were the last one to make a change to their page and I read your profile and saw that you take this site pretty serious. Stay in school and don’t do drugs or get a girl pregnant. 530Pres (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol as if I have any chance of getting a girl pregnant. I'm too chicken to even socialize many times out of school.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GalaxyFighter55. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, any reasoning for reverting? I know it's the same on every page (i guess), maybe this needs discussion as we link everything once, but the teams? Makes no sense. Kante4 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anything? Kante4 (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Nickelodeon original films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is starting to look like an edit war. Please see {{uw-3rr}}. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Nickelodeon original films‎; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant. You still re-added the controversial content that you've been reverted on, and you could have easily been reported to WP:ANEW. Instead, you should have just gone straight to adding your other sources rather than making that pointless edit simply stating you would do such, which also reintroduced the material you've been reverted on. Or better yet, use the talk page to discuss it like you were pointed to from the beginning instead of yelling at other people when it was your obligation to initiate discussion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GalaxyFighter55, there's now followup discussion on this at Talk:List of Nickelodeon original films#Reliable sources not reliable?. Bottom line is that only one of those sources probably checks out, but there is a bigger issue with these two now if they go to Netflix and not to Nickelodeon... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm TheFarix. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Naruto: Shippuden (season 11), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 11:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a personal Twitter account is not a reliable source, per WP:RSSELF. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I’d appreciate it if that was told to the person who originally added that source on the special’s Wikipedia page.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry about the stuff over on Toonami. I really shouldn't edit when I'm as tired as I am right now. (I'm a little under the weather.) I'll be honest that I'm not really sure about adding the American stuff to the lead since I'm not as brushed up on Wikipedia guidelines as I used to be, and I hadn't noticed or didn't remember the separate infobox for the Cartoon Network version of Toonami. Again, sorry about that. — Gestrid (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting the logo, the white logo is the main logo, here is a source: [[1]] SportsFan007 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may I ask how you’re “concerting” SVG file’s in here? From the request you made on my talk page to the upload on there Falcons wordmsk, they’re not SVG files. It looks like you saved a png file and save it as a SVG file... Corky 23:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Corkythehornetfan: Oh so that's the case for by uploads? Terribly sorry about that, I thought it was ok to do that but I guess not. Don't have the software for actual SVGs on here so I guess I'll stop when it comes to those.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The SVG files have a coding that make them look the way they look, meaning PNG files have to be converted to the coding. I use Inkscape as my program of use. I've gone ahead and updated the logo. Corky 06:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Corkythehornetfan:Do me a solid and convert the Los Angeles Chargers 2020 wordmark too.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind lol thanks.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, no problem! I'm working on cleaning up the Rams wordmark now that I uploaded. Corky 06:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Okuruno Noboru requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you update the score during the game last night? You're not supposed to do that. – PeeJay 09:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sent messages to as many people as I feel warrant it. You've been editing here long enough to know that it's not supposed to be done. Instead of just going along with the crowd, how about you set a good example by following the guidelines? Also, why are you replacing zeroes with dashes? Dashes can imply that the information is simply not available; adding a zero indicates that we know what the figure was and that it was zero. – PeeJay 15:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What guidelines? You have no reason to be replacing none with 0 just because you "feel like it". It's ALWAYS how YOU want it edited and people are getting sick of it.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines that say you should discuss things instead of expecting everyone to go along with you just because you're the one who's the most stubborn. Oh, and who are these "people"? At this point, it seems like it's just you hiding behind a made-up mob that exists only in your mind. I've tried explaining the situation to you and everyone else, but you simply disagree without providing any actual argument. – PeeJay 18:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do the exact same thing. I understand but your stubbornness to only have everything on article how you want it, context or no context, disillusions your discussions.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that when I've literally started discussions on your talk page and the WP:NFL talk page? If people aren't willing to provide reasoning for their positions, it's not unreasonable to undo their contributions until they do so. If you've provided a rationale, it's probably got lost in the quagmire and I apologise, but all I've seen from you is moan after moan that apparently I'm stifling you. – PeeJay 18:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda ironic considering your defense was "zero is better than none" and the fact that you removed the "game play behind" which provided context, something you used to your defense to revert the dash marks. You're nothing but a hypocrite my dude.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I have now provided a rationale whereas you're just slinging mud like it's going out of fashion. If you actually had a leg to stand on, you would provide some reason for your position rather than making personal attacks. – PeeJay 19:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already given you a reason and yet you refuse to accept it. They need context just like the attendance. It’s obvious the game was played but not everyone know what behind closed doors is. You’re making up excuses to get what you want again and I’m not having it with this one.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so should we change "limited attendance" to "game played with limited attendance" in the Colts and Texans games? No, obviously not. The context of "behind closed doors" is obvious, especially when the term is linked. I think you're just being contrary here and you need to stop it. – PeeJay 21:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it doesn’t make any sense, just like only putting “behind close doors” without some additional context. You’re the one being contrary and you need to stop.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. – PeeJay 20:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is YborCity John thank you for your contribution to Adult Swim however I had reverted this edit because there seems to be some confusion over the actual address of Adult Swim in Atlanta, Georgia. Please go to Talk:Adult Swim for a full explanation and to discuss it further. Thank you. YborCityJohn (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Los Angeles Rams season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malcolm Brown. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a now-archived thread at WT:ANIME a couple of months ago discussing this topic, I thought you may be interested: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 74 § Lead sections for Latin titles. No consensus was reached, but we all agreed there is a semantic difference. — Goszei (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cool a123

Hello GalaxyFighter55 my name is Elijah but on Wikipedia I go by cool a123 I got your message on my talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool a123 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lost Song (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TVA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We had a bit of an edit race there, sorry I probably should have just let you edit it or coordinated it better somehow. Link20XX (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that advanced streaming debuts do not constitute as a premiere? Then what is the "original release date" parameter for? According to Template:Episode table, this parameter determines whether the episodes were released online or aired. Also, it is not a simple pre screening of episode 1, because according to Funimation schedule, they are going to release episode 2 on January 10, 2021 when Japan would air the first episode, meaning that Funimation will have an advance of a week on every episode. So wouldn't this be the same case as Noblesse (manhwa) where the release streaming premiere date was kept over the air date on Television? 2A04:CEC0:10C2:1E7E:1C86:D377:BFEB:751B (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, as you can see, I did not reverted your contributions but instead tried to figure out the issue on your talk page. I'd recommend you to keep the conversation here if you don't mind because I don't have a fixed IP. And yes sorry, the link I posted seems to be the schedule for the non premium members, the episodes are free to watch a week after the original release, so that explains the week delay. Here is the link for the premium members, which seems to be accurate, since they indeed released episode 2 today. So since it is now confirmed to be more than just a pre screening of episode 1, what makes it any different than Noblesse? I am for documenting both the original japanese intended run on television as well as the online pre-release but we need to stay consistent on every pages, which is not the case at the moment since I am seeing a few pages putting the premiere as the original run and was reverted when trying to put the japanese original run for Noblesse. Let me know if you ever start a conversation with other editors regarding this topic, I'd be interested to have a look. 2A04:CEC0:118A:F093:FEA:2CFF:75A6:F51C (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, that's only because the dates were linear. I never really expected a streaming site to release every episode of an anime in weeks or days in advance. This will need some type of group consensus resolution to fix.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your edit to "instant death" made me do some hunting. :)

I decided to change "instant death" to "rapid death", as research apparently found that there is a brief period of time before death.

The following source says, if you are mouse, you still get about 15 seconds even at 80,000 ft. See Figure 1 Survival time in seconds on sheet 2 (page 332). A bit 1950's with an inverted, logarithmic, (slide-rule inspired) right-hand Y axis going up the page on the figure to bring the altitude down from 80,000 ft to 30,000 ft. I guess the authors are trying to say, the lower the altitude, the higher the pressure, and the longer the mouse lives.

Rockhold, W. T.; Stemler, F. W.; Wiebers, J. E.; Hiestand, W. A. (1950-03-01). "Survival Time of the Mouse as Related to Ambient pO2 Produced by Explosive Decompression". Experimental Biology and Medicine. 73 (3): 331–332. doi:10.3181/00379727-73-17672. ISSN 1535-3702.

On the other hand, "instant death" does happen with sudden, high-magnitude change, like further down in the article.

1983 in the North Sea, where violent explosive decompression from nine atmospheres to one caused four divers to die instantly from massive and lethal barotrauma. 

While the sources are neat, the "instant" or "rapid" section had no citations, and I didn't think this sort of thing fit in that section of prose.

I guess the 9 atomsphere down to 1 atmosphere pressure change is pretty rare, so maybe "rapid" is more accurate?

Thanks!! Your edit also helped me find a nice cite journal with quote supporting the Decompression injuries on the last of the listed injuries: Frostbite or hypothermia.

Lent (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lent: That's great to hear! Thanks for fixing that up!--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GalaxyFighter55: Your edit with to word "instant" got me questioning my assumptions, which is always a healthy way to start. Be Well! :) Lent (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my edit? The Rams won and will face the Packers and the Buccaneers, having won, will face the winner of Chicago-New Orleans. We put the Bills on the bracket for the divisional round after they won, so why not the Rams and the Bucs? Gumballs678 talk 19:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gumballs678: You do not understand how the playoff bracket works. Buffalo was added because that's a lock-in and they're assured a home playoff game next week. The NFL does not use a fixed bracket and if New Orleans loses, Tampa Bay would host Los Angeles next week while Green Bay hosts Chicago. Please read the info below the bracket.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GalaxyFighter55: I see that now. When I first read the note about reseeding to make sure I was editing it correctly, I missed the part about the fixed bracket. Thanks for the explanation. Personally, I think a fixed bracket would make more sense, but that's not up to me. Have a good day! :) Gumballs678 talk 19:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see you performed a cut and paste move at Witch Hunter ROBIN and Witch Hunter Robin, however, this violates WP:CUTPASTE. If you want to get the move un-done, I would recommend making a request at WP:RMT instead. Link20XX (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request at WP:RMT to fix the first move. Please don't do copy-paste moves. Link20XX (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello GalaxyFighter55, if I send you this message it is because I would like to create an article on Wikipedia with the title "the most watched cartoons in the world". But I can't do it alone, I need help. And since you are a very thorough user, could you help me do that, you give me ct advice. So do you accept that we team up to create this article? Rayan wind (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway we can break down the episode list into season pages because that page is long now and I have no idea on how do it. SpectresWrath (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SpectresWrath: Per MOS:TVSPLIT, we definitely have enough of an article size to warrant splitting them up (50 to 60 episodes, with summaries). However, we must determine the episode number to split at, my proposal would be we split each article at 52 episodes each. And of course, if they ever decided to officially separate them into seasons (I'm not sure if this is what Naruto / Shippuden went through), we would adapt to that normality.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

52 episodes wouldn't be possible since it breaks in between the arcs, but yeah it has to be split up at some point. SpectresWrath (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be sort of an edit war going on in the Final Space article (which I noticed you edited) over the past few weeks or so about this show streaming on Netflix. It does indeed stream outside the United States on Netflix (and a large amount of the people viewing the article are likely to be outside the US), but it seems like Netflix is repeatedly readded and removed and readded again. Do you know any Wikipedia guidelines that could apply to this? Wizzito (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy is trying to delete both pages for no reason. I need your help stopping him. SpectresWrath (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SpectresWrath: There is already a separate season page for the article, you don't need two season pages for the same thing. Govvy (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every long anime has season pages, so theirs no reason to delete them. Look at Inuyasha for example SpectresWrath (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit on Yashahime, which you are right, I could not find an article on Crunchyroll which supported it. Therefore, the information was not reliable. However, what you reverted the section back to is an a reliable source but it was just an personal opinion on the writers and not any real data. I don’t think it should be there either. I never seen personal opinions in the reception areas. In addition, I looked up two other anime mention in the article on Wikipedia this source was not used on either of them. I would remove it but you use Wikipedia more to know what is allowed in that section. I don’t think it should be there. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yashahime:_Princess_Half-Demon FedualJapan (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry wrong person. FedualJapan (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FedualJapanWhat: the heck are you talking about? I only add informative pieces.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again. I am sorry wrong person. FedualJapan (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC) FedualJapan (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. You got my name wrong when you pinged me. But I already said “Sorry”. “Wrong person” I don’t understand the reason of your comment. FedualJapan (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Gen:LOCK (TV Series) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Gen:Lock. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Link20XX (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I be in charge up updating line scores for the 49ers for the rest of the season? Thanks. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]