User talk:Themashup: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:30, 2 March 2024

Welcome!

Hi Themashup! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. I noticed alot of things that might need updating on here that I've noticed for years. Love being chill, thanks for the place about editing, I'm a bit new but love learning more Themashup (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes

Please do not remove Rotten Tomatoes references from articles. PhilKnight (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. The links didn't work for the ones I found and couldn't find a working verifiable archive. Won't do it again. Themashup (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. In future, I suggest you use an edit summary to avoid confusion. PhilKnight (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Hello, I'm Loriendrew. I noticed that you recently removed content from Boyhood (2014 film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I removed was a Allocine aspect showing how the film was recieved by a french film site. I have been alerted by others that, that shouldn't be on the EN wiki after I tried to do it for other films and allocine should only appear on the french version of wiki and that is possibly a mistake. Themashup (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Atonement (novel), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I diddn't remove this. I added it. It's to show what people thought of the work upon release I see this on multiple books wiki on what critics thought upon release and was adding that. Just noticed it disappeared. I might've accidently deleted it not sure how. I'll add it back. I'm just trying to add data that seems to be missing from wiki page and on this book there was no section on critics thoughts. Bookmarks is a popular source for what critics thought and here it shows what American critics thought and found section on what british critics thought upon release. This seems significant. since it's own every other wiki page. Saw someone yesterday delete it since they saw it as not relevant which dosen't make sense since it's literary on every wiki page and just makes sense. I'll add it back, thanks. Themashup (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Wonderland

Issues with cite farm and weak cites. The most reliable source is used in the article, which echoes a detailed summation of contemporary reviews of the book. If you have any further issues use the article talk page. K Geaham (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Though, I foudn over 6 articles and not to mention 22 magazines i forgot to use which support my claims. I may have been a bit too direct as I feel what i should've said was the work recieved a specific reception but none of my words were unfounded. The book was recieved generally negatively according to critics of the 20th century who continually spouted that but later did we disprove portions. I was aiming to discuss the main look at the work that had been referenced continually.

...I will revise it though and agree with the idea that some of my statements in my revision were not founded well enough. It would be the work reception page would be how it was actually recieved according to recent reports, 20th century veiws on 19th century reception whcih dominated the era, and the general look of the time actually as it is extremely detailed and I fulyl agree I should've went in more detail. Thanks for the help/ Themashup (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in my statment there: *21st century views, 20th centurey views which domianted the era and critque of thoase veiws, followed by how we been able to get a greater look at the reception. Also, thanks for the feedback Themashup (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you just said isn't true though (received generally negatively by critics). We go with the most reliable sources on here, and the source used (Morton N. Cohen) is that, which correlates with the link I provided above. To counter this is WP:original research. K Geaham (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the article talk page (the book, not here) and gain a consensus. Any contentious material requires a consensus. K Geaham (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit cofnsued Im new here on stuff coudl you epxlain this all to me im cofnsued Themashup (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that, was so distracted by this really good show I been binging and all. Honestly, I'm so bored of this you can do whatever bye xoxo. Themashup (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? No. What i said was based on multiple sources. Many sources debated it's reception. In the article you pointed to it directly said the work was considered to have poor reviews which came from many sources in the 20th century. Nowadays, the reception has been cleared up I wanted to add how it was viewed in the 20th century and critique their invalid looks which became apparent to me once I scanned through the article I forgot to read the rest of. Themashup (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just to explain a few things as I didn't know you were new. On this site we use the most reliable sources (often those who are peer reviewed), and the one used in the article (Morton N. Cohen, a professor on the subject) is a good one. The link I added on here (on reception) clearly states what Cohen also states, that the book was well received. If a book (or film, or whatever else) gets 80 good reviews, and 5 bad reviews, we reflect that. On here its WP:undue weight to say "poorly received" by focusing on the 5. That's where balance comes into it. Read through that link again (and see all the reviews for the book when it came out) as it explains it very well. K Geaham (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I just read into it it was generally positively recieved. But 20th century views and all messed with me and confused my thoughts sicne many magazines then declared the oppisite and opposed that consistently to a poitn where the ones who say the book was recieved well acklenowege its status as being quote on quote recieved badly. Its like a myth thats not true. I want to add that discussion of the myth in the sense of discssing each century's look at it like Hmalet without its on wiki page since thats not that detailed. I added it in the chat on the book as you said for a conseous btu not sure how that works.

While Cohen guy can say the book was well reicved, thats fine, there is also debate on this in terms of many,mnay magaizxnes saying otherwise and I think their voice is improtant and would like to add how there is debate since wihtout sdaying that it would seem that it being acclaimed is a unviersal truth amongst scholars when it seems highly highly debated.

I get your point though in saying it is recieved well, i shouldve said that orignally. but i feel we should add in the debate and also acklownekdge it is a highly debated topic. while there are newer shcoalrs like him or whatever disprovving this 20th century notion of the book, for over like a hundred years and even in new articles now, they see the book as being negatively recieved. i would say debatable tehre even if there are ways to disprrove it since there is a huge didvide on this dispite the newer facts and all.

im terrible though at this stuff so i might be wrong, not sure. just trying to add all the details so the next schoalrs reading these articles dont have to worry about forgetting all of this and then getting lectured for not checking page 22 of some ranodm book or knowing that this topic is debated. thats kind of my vibe. adding all the details that seem missing but i am new and horrible at it. wikipedia is so complicated. Themashup (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot, I sent it here in that chat thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alice%27s_Adventures_in_Wonderland#Reception_Change

Tell me if you think it works or not for yourself, i wanted to send it in the chat like you said cause i spent awhile typing and patching it up and now very sad since my dentist appointment got moved and trying not to think about it. Themashup (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey don't worry about it being complicated on here (it's the same for everyone who is new to the site); it gets easier after a while. In regards to the general point about the book's reception, no reliable source says anything other than it was well received (that link mentions Wikipedia, but Wikipedia on it's own (without reliable sources) is not accurate. It's the good sources that make Wikipedia more accurate/reliable, hence the policy to always go for the best sources. If you look at the link I posted again you will see this review from the John Bull newspaper in 1866 (a year after Alice was released): "From the same publishers, too, we have to welcome a beautiful copy of that old favourite, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland." As that link then mentions, the review (with the words "old favourite") is "more of a nod to the wider popularity" (basically saying that the review also reflects other reviews in how well received it was). On a bit of general advice about editing on here, try to use less words and sources (really only two (maximum three) cites are needed, so long as they are WP:reliable sources of course). Keep edits concise and clear, oh and when adding a wikilink don't link the same article twice (once is sufficient, any more is WP:overlinking). There are rules but you will get the hang of them. K Geaham (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, thanks. I wasn't sure on all of that till now. My main goal at this point is to improve stuff on wiki I see and all cause it gets annoying opening a book page and half the info isnt there.

Been super busy so havent been able to do anything here much. trying to earn points sinc eeard wiki gives points for edits.

For the alice book, I'll add a couple of sentences to it after the oens tehre showing some toher maagzines prasiing it like john bull and the ath to show some other opinions but in like one sentnece to keep it short and to the point. Themashup (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Worm Hole is not a reliable source. Also be aware not to add undue weight by quoting a rare negative review when the vast majority were positive. Gabriella MNT (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? The Worm Hole I checked some of their quotes and found them they seem reliable in many of their quotes as I found them referenced almost everywhere. I have been told they were a good source so a bit confused thats all. Um.. I found mutilple mixed reviews of the book or not overglowing reveiws and there are other negative reviews I found but they deserve to be highlighted as with literary any other book. It's good to show the positives and negatives and Alice was not unanimously recieved. Themashup (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added some other negative discssion when the book released I confimed and found through multiple magazines refferencing the reveiws and while their view on the overall reception is wrong the qutoes ceratinely arent.

also, for the worm hole, found magazines proving them right. for the anth, found the full name of the publication and the quote was correct and many of the "the worm holes" quotes are easily able to be verified. Themashup (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammer horrible. I added a extra review or two since you seem to have an issue with me pointing out one negative rveiew ot show not all recpeiton was psotiive so added some other(s) to fix that. Thanks for feedback

Themashup (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Worm Hole is a blog, and no blogs are allowed on WP. The point of undue weight stands. You will find a negative review of anything that is overwhelming received positively, the film E.T. just like Alice in Wonderland for example, but we reflect how it was widely received rather that give weight to a minority or fringe view. Use the talk page for any queries. Gabriella MNT (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? I'm ntpo sure you've looked into the books reception. It wasnt that universal. There were alot of detractors but it was mianly positive. Take this quote"

As it usually happens with masterpieces, the reception of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland was varied: Illustrated London News and The Pall Mall Gazette gave it a warm welcome; The Spectator recognised its value, although condemned the ‘mad tea party’; Athenaeum thought it was a forced and gruesome story; and The Illustrated Times recognised the author’s wit, but stated that Alice’s Adventures were ‘too extravagantly absurd to produce more diversion than disappointment and irritation’."

While this person is wrong in that it wasnt mianly priased, there were hevay critques still thrown at it from mutlipke poublciaitons. Why should we ignore that cause most were psotivie. It's like saying well 90 percent liekd it so ignroe the 10 percent in thsi case it just seems very annoying and dumb.

There were destractors and whiel they wetrent the majorty they were storng enoguh to eb dsicussed this long and there were multiple at the time. It wasnt receievd like a masterpiece instead very well.

(Carroll, Lewis | Writers | Mediavaca) Themashup (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While this person is wrong in that it wasnt mianly divise (was messing up words there but just so annoyed i literary have to do all of this to add things that are literal common sense) , there were hevay critques still thrown at it from mutlipke poublciaitons.

Themashup (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing your Alice talk

On Talk:Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, I collapsed the actual content of the proposed edits, so the page is a bit cleaner, and others can still easily see what is proposed. I know it's bad form to edit another editor's words on talk, so tell me if I've overstepped my bounds, and revert if you prefer it the other way. Thanks. _signed,Willondon (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Greatest Books

The article The Greatest Books has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No non-primary sources whatsoever. See other tags as well.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TLA (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:The Greatest Books logo.svg

Thanks for uploading File:The Greatest Books logo.svg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yellow Dog (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Times. 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) 06:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Greatest Books

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Greatest Books, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Themashup. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page The Greatest Books, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, you will be required to respond to this prior to making any more edits. Also, you need to stop marking all of your edits as minor since most of them are not. You may have set a "preferences" setting to "mark all edits as minor"; if so, please uncheck or remove that setting. Minor edits are things like typo fixes (e.g., "teh" to "the") that no one could conceivably dispute. Major additions of content or the like are not minor edits. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for epxlaining marking as minor and all I'm kind of new in terms of knowledge. Though, your attitude here is quite rude I get I make a mistake like that but how this is phrased is quite rude. Themashup (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I answered this already but again I don't have any intention than adding a site that was not on this site that I thought deserved to be here based on the fact that I couldn't see why not. I have no bias first of all I just like adding things that are missing that I notice. Themashup (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like expanding on that reply I just made since forgot to say some other things I typed out. My creation of that wiki article was literary just explaining the site what it does and it's impact to show how it is impactful based on mult. sources scholary and normal sources. I could've had mroe sources but I made it like a day ago so of course its not perfect like obvi. Don't like the rude attitude though in this comment here as my article clearly was unbiased since I was formal and saying the briefest stuff. If adding a site here is biased, then maybe check hwo you define bias since I use the encoypoedia answer. Themashup (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not responded whether you have a conflict of interest regarding the above site. If you continue to dodge the question, I will block you from editing, and then you can consider that as "rude" as you like. So, please answer with a clear "yes" or "no": Are you affiliated with, or do you have a financial stake in, that website? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have made that clear which was my statements from above were clarifying and stating very clearly. I am not dodging the question when I state how I was just adding the site and have no other relation to it. I was saying your rude for your attitude in your statements because you were it wasn't like I was just calling anything rude. Themashup (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well...I'm not entirely sure I buy that, but I can't find anything to the contrary. Regardless, Wikipedia does not permit promotional material. An article about this subject would require independent sourcing; that is, sources which have nothing whatsoever to do with it and write about it, and they would also need to be reliable. Note that most web content resources are not notable; those that are actually appropriate subjects for an article are the exception, not the rule. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I was promotional I just showed the site what it does and parts of the site asdie from the others since it seemed required. I grabbed like 7 sources online for the article jsut 4 where for the site which were on how it was made and features and I could've used a article online for the features just diddn't care to cause I don't have time and I wanted to make more wiki pages. Also, I have made it clear with the no and as you said there is literary nothing to the contrary can we literary just stop doign the well or there mgiht be and just move on cause im getting so bored of this. Thanks for the tips though on what wiki allows. Themashup (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop canvassing bookbrowse.com links

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does canvassing mean? Confused on that term is it using it as a source? I thought it was a source meant to be used since it has it's own wiki and is referenced in some places so thought it was a important source. Cool if not just making sure and why since I'm so confused now by what's good and what's not good as a source if it even has it's own wiki page that seems to make it seem like a improtant source. Thanks for feedback Themashup (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Greatest Books logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Greatest Books logo.svg. 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. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 03:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 ::::Well...I'm not ''entirely'' sure I buy that, but I can't find anything to the contrary. Regardless, Wikipedia [[WP:SOAP|does not permit promotional material]]. An article about this subject would require [[WP:IS|independent sourcing]]; that is, sources which have nothing whatsoever to do with it and write about it, and they would also need to be [[WP:RS|reliable]]. Note that most web content resources are not [[WP:N|notable]]; those that are actually appropriate subjects for an article are the exception, not the rule. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 12:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 :::::I don't think I was promotional I just showed the site what it does and parts of the site asdie from the others since it seemed required. I grabbed like 7 sources online for the article jsut 4 where for the site which were on how it was made and features and I could've used a article online for the features just diddn't care to cause I don't have time and I wanted to make more wiki pages.  Also, I have made it clear with the no and as you said there is literary nothing to the contrary can we literary just stop doign the well or there mgiht be and just move on cause im getting so bored of this. Thanks for the tips though on what wiki allows. [[User:Themashup|Themashup]] ([[User talk:Themashup#top|talk]]) 15:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
+==Please stop canvassing bookbrowse.com links==
+[[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please do not add inappropriate [[Wikipedia:External links|external links]] to Wikipedia. [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#LINK|Wikipedia is not a collection of links]], nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See [[Wikipedia:External links|the external links guideline]] and [[Wikipedia:Spam|spam guideline]] for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the [[nofollow]] attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.[[Category:User talk pages with Uw-spam2 notices|{{PAGENAME}}]]<!-- Template:uw-spam2 --> <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 02:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
+:What does canvassing mean? Confused on that term is it using it as a source? I thought it was a source meant to be used since it has it's own wiki and is referenced in some places so thought it was a important source. Cool if not just making sure and why since I'm so confused now by what's good and what's not good as a source if it even has it's own wiki page that seems to make it seem like a improtant source. Thanks for feedback [[User:Themashup|Themashup]] ([[User talk:Themashup#top|talk]]) 02:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 ==Orphaned non-free image File:The Greatest Books logo.svg==
 [[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|text-top|left|⚠|link=]] Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:The Greatest Books logo.svg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|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 [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]).