15 September 2013 UTC If you asking me the specific that concerns me is the inappropriateness of using a picture of a replica I would like someone to show some interest in the other proposed images I have given reasons why a number might be suitable As for working with the discussions that are already on the page well that has been tried and failed hasn t it If there was any success in working with those discussions then Ealdgyth you wouldn t be feeling hectored about the subject being brought up again Have the votive crowns if you must You are bound to be criticised for them not being sufficiently representative but if you are prepared to argue that you like them anyway then go with that Just remove the reproduction images That sarcastic unnamed editor has really shown up the inadequacies of Wikipedia where people can actually argue for pages and endless blinking pages over whether a reproduction object ought to be used to represent an historic period when there are a thousand other images freely available It makes Wikipedia as an encyclopedia of the 21st century look just plain stupid The moment that Pedro way way back there mistook it for a genuine object was your warning that it was problematic Smec comment that it was reproduction was your second warning that it was inappropriate Pedro followed up with a pertinent comment about using a Robin Hood image instead At that point you should have got the message and made the change All this shouldn t haven t needed to be said Having to hammer a point that should have been taken on board more than a year ago is ridiculous I can not understand why you would expect anyone to be polite about it at this point in time I can not comprehend why the problem wasn t fixed a year ago Just chose any temporary solution that you like but get rid of the misleading reproduction object And no stating that it is reproduction doesn t fix the problem 15 36