User talk:Nicknack009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives and sub-pages[edit]


Good to see you back, such as it is. Your contributions have been sorely missed.--Cúchullain t/c 19:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Nick! The reason I included a list of notable Ancient Romans is because I wanted to give the reader a list of Romans who significantly changed Roman history. The Romans I have added are great Generals, lawmakers and emperors. The reader when studying these individuals will have a full grasp of the entire history of Rome. I am aware of the list of ancient Romans, but most are insignificant to the casual reader and of little value to the professional historian. Per82 (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles 05:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


nice work Decora (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hind 2007[edit]

If you enable e-mail in your preferences , I'd be glad to send you a temporary link for access. I can't take the time to look at this myself, though Haploidavey seems not to have ruled it out. Wareh (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A queue! - it makes me feel quite at home. Nicknack, please let me know (here would be fine) if you need more than the single access - or even, once I've read the Hind article, a second opinion on the particulars. Haploidavey (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I have the article saved, and will read it at my leisure. As for now, it's late, and I'm going to bed. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've summarised Hind's argument. Still don't think it makes political sense - it would be like the US, after the first Gulf War, appointing an Iraqi dignitary as the new ruler of Kuwait. (I also think the best solution for the westward crossing is that the main invasion force sailed from the Rhine, one of the four departure points for Britain mentioned by Strabo and the easiest route for the four legions from their previous stations to the coast, not that they landed at Chichester.) --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Grant Morrison photo[edit]

Hi. Your opinion on what would be the best photo for the Infobox in the Grant Morrison article is requested here. If you could take the time to participate, it would be greatly appreciated, but if you cannot, then disregard; you don't have to leave a note on my talk page either way. Nightscream (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Nicknack009! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Good to see you! and Irish language stuff[edit]

At Badb#Representations_in_legends I put in the OI of "The Morrígan's Prophecy" from CELT: Cath Maige Tuired: The Second Battle of Mag Tuired. The English translation has been shared around for years, with a variety of people tweaking it. I think it's pretty straightforward, but would appreciate someone with more Irish to check it. What had been there previously was a modern English version that, while creative and poetic, had been translated from a Modern Irish variation, and hence diverged pretty significantly from the original Irish. Stay in touch, K? Go raibh maith agat, - Kathryn NicDhàna 20:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Julius Caesar Edit[edit]

Hi. I recently edited the Julius Caesar article to remove a sentence that I thought was misleading, but you undid the edit. I had created a section in the Julius Caesar talk page about why I think that sentence is incorrect. Could you please just post a reply in that section to explain why you think the sentence should remain?

Thanks, IBrow1000 (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Conn Cetcathach[edit]

Hi, you expressed a concern over my edit which you reverted so I've amended slightly. The problem is that 'historical tradition' a phrase that many would see as an oxymoron. asnac (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

John Constantine[edit]

Forgot to put the citations for factual accuracy, made it and hope this'll help — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

liberti and libertini[edit]

For a brief explanation, see Roman Empire#Freedmen. You seem to be unaware of how these terms were actually used in Latin authors, and that in fact they tend to not be distinguished once we get deeper in the Imperial era. Please check the sources cited there, but a dozen others could easily be cited. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I should also note that so basic a source as the Oxford Latin Dictionary defines libertinus as "a member of the class of freedmen, a freedman (w. ref. only to social and leg. status)" and libertus as "a freedman (w. ref. to the manumitter or patron)." As is pointed out in Mouritsen and elsewhere, however, these distinctions are often hard to discern in the actual usage of Latin texts. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


I see you have been struggling to try to communicate with Rheton. You may or may not know that he/she has reported you to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Naturally, I have declined the report, as the suggestion that your edits are "vandalism" is absurd. However, you should be careful about edit warring: it would be a pity if you were blocked for your efforts. As you probably know, the standard edit warring warning template says "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." Please do feel welcome to contact me if the disruptive editing continues, and I will take administrative action if it becomes necessary. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


I'm not sure what was wrong with the edits you reverted at [1]. Obviously they weren't minor, & I think there was a slight grammar problem, but what else? Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted. For some reason I thought they were a removal of content rather than an addition. Sorry. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Been there, done that. No problem. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Julius Caesar[edit]

Don't know how much you want to work on that article, but in regard to this edit, I also don't think we need the gallery currently at Julius Caesar#Depictions, since that is what Cultural depictions of Julius Caesar is for, and the article is already illustrated with too many busts. However, I do think we need some kind of summary section there covering legends/legacy/"depictions". Cynwolfe (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi, there is discussion concerning the spelling of Boudica's name, during which a comment of yours from 2006 has been referenced. If you have any additional information about the issue, your input would be appreciated. Paul B (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


What's the problem with the new template structure if the content is unchanged? You are acting as if it is your own property.-- (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The content is not unchanged. Everything is now framed in religious terms, not mythological ones. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Amergin Glúingel[edit]

Ran into this name in a new edit to Druid. I'm struggling with it. Can't find him mentioned here[2] under that name, but she does say:

Amairgin (Amargcn, Amhairghin, Amairgin, Amairgein, Amorgin) Irish hero. This name, which means "wontlrously born" or "song-con- ception" is borne by two legendary poets: • Amairgin, son of Mil and the first great poet of Ireland, was reputed to have lived in the sixth century c.e. When the tuatha de danann, who then had control of Ireland, blew up a magical storm to keep the invading milesians from landing, Amairgin's magical words calmed the storm and allowed his peo- ple to land, with Amairgin himself becoming the first of his race to set foot on Irish soil. As he did so, he recited his most famous poem, the "Song of Amairgin," in which he describes himself shape-shifting into a salmon, a sunbeam, a flower, a spear; similar poems...

No Gluingel here, and no Druid (and later than the classical Druids).

Brief mention in Llewellyn's Complete Book of Names. And of course[3] but that doesn't say he was a Druid or even mention Druids. The article is pretty vague about where he is mentioned. Where is he called a Druid in Irish mythology? Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

He has the epithet Gluingel in Lebor Gabála (for example here, page 33 paragraph 387). I can't turn up any reference to him as a druid - I must have copied that over when the article Amergin was converted into a disambiguation page - although his opponents are called druids. The reference to Amergin supposedly living in the 6th century CE is just wrong - the invasion of the Milesians was supposed to have taken place in the deep pre-Christian past. Having said that, druids are not uncommon in medieval Irish literature, down to St Patrick's time. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen that Gluingel, but I'm not convinced we should use that as the title as his common name. I've removed the claims he was a Druid. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


There was Celt in al-Andalus and Ottomans went as far as Vienna thus covered some Celtic regions.. Furthermore, Judaism was quite prominent in some parts. Pass a Method talk 08:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

None of those regions had been Celtic since the Roman conquest, and none of them contributed to the Mabinigion. Go away. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Tony Harding[edit]

And thanks for adding Lefty!

Sadtoseeitsmorning 14 February 2014.  —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 

Not a problem :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nicknack. Thanks for your tweaking of the page. I have all the info but I'm not so hot on the ways of Wiki! Tony was my father so I have access to loads of his old comics such as Action, Bullet, ROTR, Victor Scoop etc... I'd like to upload an example of his comic artwork to the wiki page, maybe something from Look Out For Lefty? Would appreciate your help with this. Also I have another obituary from the Guernsey Press (which I have referenced). Cheers! Antony. Sadtoseeitsmorning 13 February 2014.

High King of Ireland[edit]

The thing is, it doesn't matter who is right here. Please read WP:3RR - you are in breach of this and need to step away for a short while or you will probably end up blocked as your reverts aren't covered by the exemptions. This isn't the way to deal with problems like this. You really don't want a block on your record. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you are getting some helpful advice. I see you misunderstood 3RR, no problem. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

List of druids and neo-druids[edit]

Could you take a look at this article and the talk page? Some of the articles linked may have problems also, I already spotted one. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Erasmus Augustus Worthington[edit]

Thanks for your detective work. As a final nail in the article's coffin, I have used Tineye to locate the photograph here - it is one John Tregerthen Short. I have nominated the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erasmus Augustus Worthington. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

August 2014 - Annals of Ulster question[edit]


I received your note about the Annals of Ulster changes. Okay, let me explain my edit that you changed back here, so we can discuss my concern in this forum. Apologies on my part if I saw the wrong link. I've been concerned that some of the entries involving Ulster-related articles are being edited to rewrite a historical narrative to suit narrow-minded political agendas. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not doing that.

My concern was that the link I followed didn't seem to make sense. Can you please provide me the link you intended to use, or are you using, in a reply below perhaps, so I can just follow it to see? I have looked on the web and I have tried to follow your link and I cannot find anywhere that validates the name of the Annals being what you are showing. Annala Uladh was the only name I had previously known about. If you could provide that, it would be appreciated. Otherwise, I have to ask that we omit the name until we have some kind of scholastic verification that the annals were ever known by that name. I cannot find the Four Master's reference to the annals as being referenced to a progenitor chieftain, or to any single individual, but always saw them referenced as the Annala Uladh. Thank you for your consideration of this request. I look forward to seeing the link. Maybe the link Wikipedia provided was not the one you intended. Thanks again.

Oghmatist (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Have replied on your own talk page. Basically, you're not editing the article you think you are. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Read your reply. Thank you. Will you consider using this link to further educate the researcher that wants to validate the name history of this Cycle? Your current link leads to a search page that is not immediately user-friendly. Here is the considered link:

As you will see, this link provides an author, date, and title that allows the researcher to do further reading. Thank you for the talk. Oghmatist (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Re. The Hill of Tara[edit]

Hi I was just wondering why you reverted my addition to the page The Hill of Tara. I though my edit was useful and I had cited an article on the subject. I dont mean to question you judgement but I would just like to know where I went wrong. ~~dickscawed — Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a trivial incident involving non-notable people. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

While I acknowledge it may be obscure I wouldn't go as far as calling it trivial. The event was part was part of The Gathering which was in itself an event of international significance. The fact that the hill of Tara was chosen also makes the event relevant as it reflects how the hill has developed into a modern tourist attraction on account of it's historic roots. Whether the people involved are non-notable is a different matter. ~~dickscawed

I called it trivial because it is. Tara is a monument of historic significance. Occasional tourism publicity stunts are insignificant and don't belong in an encyclopedia. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Conor / Conchobar[edit]

Hello, I noticed you reverted this merge. These names are different spellings of the same thing. On the article Donald for instance, Domhnall and Donal (as well as other spellings) redirect there, for a centralised discussion on the name. What would be the purpose of having several articles on the same name when they can be brought together efficiently? Claíomh Solais (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. They are distinct names, and there is no overlap between them, so the two articles refer to distinct sets of people. Modern people with the name Conor are not called Conchobar, and medieval people with the name Conchobar are not called Conor, so a reader looking up "Conchobar" is not looking for people called Conor, and vice versa. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
How is there no overlap between them when Conor is just an Anglicisation of Conchobar? Otherwise, "Conor" would just be jibberish word, without it's Irish context of "lover of hounds". I suppose you could make an argument that Connor is the most commonly searched in English so that might be a better centralised location, as the article on Donald is for example, which I would be open to. Look at articles like John (given name) or Paul (name) for example which gives an overview of the name and then discusses within it derivatives in other languages. Claíomh Solais (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no overlap because they are used in different periods and in different languages. The medieval Irish kings listed under Conchobar are never referred to as Conor. The modern people listed under Conor are never referred to as Conchobar. Conor is not "just" an Anglicisation of Conchobar, it's now an English name in its own right. There are lots of names like that, and there is no "one size fits all" rule for how Wikipedia is to treat them. Different forms of the same name are not interchangeable. See, for example, William and Wilhelm for an example of two forms of the same name that have separate articles. Equally, Juan and Seán are eqivalent to John, but have separate articles. In fact, there is a disambiguation page for alternate forms for the name John, with links to dozens of separate articles. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Legendary characters[edit]

I searched the WPBIO archives for 'legendary' and read the very few relevant hits --only four relevant, in contrast to the sense in which Charles Darwin is a legendary scientist.

Last October you notified ... and concluded, "I shall start removing legendary characters from the project." Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 49#Characters from Irish myth and legend.

Did you complete that? --P64 (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

P64 (talk · contribs), that was a while ago. I think I completed it with the Irish characters, but I don't think I did anything with characters from other cultures. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Renaming the Derry article[edit]

Hi Nick, are you able to respond to my question [4]. Please help me out here. I'm trying to engage on this in a sensible manner so sarcastic comments aren't helpful [5]. TY. Dubs boy (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Not being sarcastic. You asked me what policy was being followed. I linked you to that policy. As I explained to you before, the current naming is an agreed compromise. It's something a broad consensus can live with. But you do not appear interested in that - you want to win. All that would achieve would be to reopen a very tedious argument. Now, I have made my position on this issue clear more than once, please do not keep asking. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


Thanks. Reported this to RPP. Doug Weller (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


Whilst the section you moved the information too I feel is probably better for it and so won't argue about that, may I ask why you felt that the factual accuracy of the section was disputed? Everything that needed cited was cited and is in the sources attributed. The pre-existing literature section however does have issues that need addressed yet isn't tagged, but I'll get that to bit eventually. Work in progress ad all that. Mabuska (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I just seen that you opened a talk page discussion of it at the article page. Mabuska (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nath Í mac Fiachrach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A. M. Sullivan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

To scholars...[edit]

I see only one source that state that he was real. There are many other scholarly sources doubt this. Due weight must be given and better detail given over the controversy over the issue. Then again the article ignores the reality that many scholars doubt the "fact" that all of Nialls sons are so. Mabuska (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Opened up discussion on the talk page. Mabuska (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting me[edit]

Morning Nicknack009, Thanks for reverting my edit on Category:Medieval Irish poets - do not know what I was thinking Icarusgeek (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Lugaid Mac Con Roi[edit]

Hi, I see you've made a load of edits on the page for Lugaid Mac Con Roi...I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not entirely sure if you added this particular piece of information or not, but it made me curious... "He took Lugaid's head and set it on a stone, but his blood melted the stone and the head sank right through it." I've never seen that anywhere but on this Wiki page, and was wondering where you read it (if you were the one to actually add it) Thanks! Nightpassing (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember if I added that or not, but it's in The Death of Cú Chulainn in the Book of Leinster. I have the edition/translation by Bettina Kimpton in the Maynooth Medieval Irish Texts series, published by the School of Celtic Studies, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, in 2009. It's on page 46. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that edition! Nightpassing (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


Your revert to poor english, is reverted. WurmWoodeT 13:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Welsh kings[edit]

thanks for the information re: bio tags. these were good faith edits. sorry for the extra work.--FeanorStar7 10:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of The Drama of the Lost Disciples for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Drama of the Lost Disciples 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/The Drama of the Lost Disciples (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. North America1000 15:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Nicknack009. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment removal[edit]

Hello. I thought you might like to know that somebody is trying to delete your comments - and mine too - on the Cunobeline talk page. I have tried to engage with the editor, but he has now deleted these comments three times. I have reverted twice and will do so again if necessary. As far as I can see, an editor is not allowed to remove comments from a talk page in most circumstances. WallHeath (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Cages (comic book cover).jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Cages (comic book cover).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Your dispute is spurious and I have removed it. What is primarily notable about a visual artist is their work. An example of their work is informative, not "decorative". --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Cages (comic book cover).jpg listed for discussion[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cages (comic book cover).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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)