User talk:Firsfron/Archive 16

WP:DWG
I've updated WP:DWG. Please see what you think. Should deceased users' Ë-mail this user" feature be deactivated? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234)  C 03:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Joan Crawford - The usual method of asking for sources is not to undo an edit, but to ask for sources to be added in order to back up the addition to the article. As such, I undid your revision and rewrote what I added to include sources for the comments relating to her birth. Likewise with her boxoffice receipts for films leading up to the so-called box office poison label, I have researched this subject VERY thoroughly and all box office stats are in my possession from the Eddie Mannix Ledger, which is in print and can also be accessed in its original form at the NY Library for the Performing Arts as well as at the Academy of Arts and Sciences Library in LA.

Joan Crawford
§Thanks for the reply. However, I AM conversant with how one is supposed to question unsourced information and, no offense intended at all, you are not following those guidelines when you simply UNDO what I have added.

Once again I have reversed your undo as, according to Wiki it was unjustly done, nor did you follow their STRONG suggestion to use talk page before you do such a thing, thereby avoiding the situation we are in, namely, an edit war. What you are strongly encouraged to do is as for a citation or further details.

Among other things, wiki says: ''Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not his or her edits were justifiable: it is no defence to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring".''

''Furthermore: experienced editors avoid being becoming involved in edit wars This section in a nutshell: Communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Shortcut: WP:AVOIDEDITWAR''

''In general, communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. It may help to remember that there is no deadline and that editors can add appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion. When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. When these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution.''

''Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse. They revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, and as a result edit warring is more frequent.''

''The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.''

You are, by virtue of continual undoing of my edits without discussing them first, bringing about this edit war. I believe you have no reason other than wanting to improve the article, but your method is in question as per Wiki's guidelines. Please follow the appropriate guidelines and ASK for more clarity or better sources or page numbers as need be. This can easily be done using "who said?" or requests for "citation" etc.

As for links to websites, I did not provide a link to a fan website. I DID provide one to an archive for a valid newspaper article. There is nothing in wiki rules to suggest one cannot use such links because they "might eventually go dead."

Basically you are saying that some of my sources are questionable - according to Wiki, they are not: ''Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.'' The link for the news article, which is in itself verifiable by virtue of the link, is not questionable. Therefore it cannot be challenged simply by UNDOING everything.

As to page numbers, I am wrong to have not included them and will remedy that immediately. However, again, according to wiki, this is not a valid reason to undo an edit.

Hopefully we can work together for the benefit of the article within the guidelines set up for us.

Despite being an admisitrator, you appear not to care about the rules. Despite my pointing out the various rules, your use of ONE portion of them to justify your undos is, frankly, unfathomable. Why would you choose to ignore precedent?

As such, I am going ask for another administrator to step.

Guidelines
Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.[2][3][4][5]

Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct.

Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Precious
  dinosaurs and archosaurs

Thank you for quality paleontological articles on dinosaurs and archosaurs, for example Psittacosaurus, and for "helpfulness and for answering questions that others would just ignore", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (26 May 2007, 17 February 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 358th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 358 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Seven years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we agree to disagree?
I believe that, by and large, we view the issues between us from different viewpoints. I do not discount your standards at all, but as I said elsewhere, it is your method that concerns me. Try putting yourself in the opposite position. I have to assume that you would prefer I attempt to use the talk pages first, before undoing your no doubt useful contributions to wiki.

I have zero issues with you or anyone else pointing out issues with what I have done and in fact welcome it. After all, we are all each other's guardians here in an effort to make things better. The site belongs to everyone and no one when it comes to contributions. I am far from perfect and I know of no one who is.

Despite our volleys on talk pages and through Arbitration (I appear to have jumped the gun there), I would like to think you and Ryan are more interesting in the use of factual information for the JC and any other article. I've spent 25 years doing slow, deliberate research into the life of a woman I was lucky to have met a number of times. I would never use my own experiences on here, but my head is held high as to the veracity and verifiability of my sources.

I am happy and willing to guide you to those sources if you like. The are not hard to access. I am even willing to scan and email documents to back up my refs. I am also willing to go into considerable detail as to why the claims of others, famous though some may be, do not hold up in light of documented facts (this would include Ms. Crawford herself). Perhaps, at very least, this might quell some of your well-intentioned concerns.

At any rate, despite our mutual annoyance, I would greatly prefer to work with people as opposed to against them. It really is a waste of our time and energy...

Thanks,

Tal1962 (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Joan Crawford
Oops, I didn't think to check to see if a case had been opened because of some reverted material.  Pinkadelica ♣  06:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined
This is a courtesy notice that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please feel free to see this page for suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- ( X! ·  talk )  · @908  · 20:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Helen Burgess
Could you restore the User:Helen Burgess page so that I may retrieve its contents? --Simfan34 (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It, of course, is a work of fiction of my own invention, and is meant to serve no malicious purpose. --Simfan34 (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Note regarding callsigns
Hi there Firsfron, RE: List of former NTA Film Network affiliates in the United States

As a leading member of WP:TVS, I just wanted to let you know that in in order to address both current callsigns and WP:NOTBROKEN, I have decided to add the current callsigns separately rather than fix the link. E.g. for WIVB-TV formerly WBEN-TV;

WBEN-TV (now WIVB-TV)

Makes it easier to recognize a station. Call me if you have concerns... :-)

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234)  C 17:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yewtharaptor
Hi, Firs;

Got another one: YPM 6281, almost entirely ripped from (Olsen, P. E., McDonald, N. G., Huber, P., and Cornet, B., 1992, Stratigraphy and Paleoecology of the Deerfield rift basin (Triassic-Jurassic, Newark Supergroup), Massachusetts: in Robinson, P. and Brady, J. B. (eds.) Guidebook for Field Trips in the Connecticut Valley Region of Massachusetts and Adjacent States (vol. 2), New England Intercollegiate Geological Conference 84th Annual Meeting, Contribution no. 66, Department of Geology and Geography, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, p. 488-535.) with a dose of the editor's interpretations of two fragments of bone. J. Spencer (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

WP Television Stations in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Television Stations for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Alex in Wonderland
I just created a stub article for Alex in Wonderland. I've gone as far as I can with it, but I noticed that in your userspace draft on NTA affiliates you mentioned that the show was soon only on one station. From my web research, I know the first thirteen episodes still exist, and thought you might know whether just the first thirteen were taped and then the later ones were only shown on WNTA. Seems plausible, but I can only speculate. Also you might want to double check the premiere date I gave. I presumed the copyright dates given for individual episodes that I found corresponded to the air dates on WNTA, but it's possible that they are production dates and the actual air dates were later once the other stations had the tapes, since NTA tried to be a network. Carolina wren (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Megapnosaurus/Coelophysis problem
Hello Firsfron. I am informing users that might want to say something about this. If you have an opinion please add it. Thanks. Reid,iain james (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, if there is anyone else who you think might want this message sent to them you can inform them. Reid,iain james (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Herrerasaurus
This is a note to let the main editors of Herrerasaurus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 17, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/October 17, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Herrerasaurus was one of the earliest dinosaurs. Its name means "Herrera's lizard", after Victorino Herrera, a goatherd who discovered the first specimen. All known fossils of Herrerasaurus have been discovered in northwestern Argentina in rocks dated to 231.4 million years ago. It was a lightly built bipedal carnivore with a long tail and a relatively small head. Its length is estimated at 3–6 meters (10–20 ft) and it may have weighed around 210–350 kilograms (463–772 lb). The type species, Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis, was described by Osvaldo Reig in 1963 and is the only species assigned to the genus. Where Herrerasaurus and its close relatives lie on the early dinosaur evolutionary tree is unclear. For many years, it was known from very fragmentary remains. However, with the discovery of an almost complete skeleton and skull in 1988, Herrerasaurus has been classified as either an early theropod or an early saurischian, with many researchers treating it at least tentatively as the most primitive member of Theropoda. It is a member of the Herrerasauridae, a family of similar genera that were among the earliest of the dinosaurian evolutionary radiation. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You probably are aware of this? Sorry butting in - happy editing. XOttawahitech (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

new comer
Hello Firsfron! I am a new hand in editing wiki pages. I have so many question about it. Write me back when you received my message — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yangsen715 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

File:DMNS_Edmontosaurus.png
Hi Firsfron, I'm new to this and not sure how else to contact you. I am a researcher working on a children's book for a publisher in NYC. They would like to use your photo of the Edmontosaurus from the Denver Museum showing the bite mark in the tail. I know your image is in Creative Commons, however because this book will be published for trade and library usage, the publisher would like to receive permission from you direct for the image. Please contact me at eteresa-consultant@scholastic.com for more details. I would appreciate it. Thank you! Emily researcher (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Emily Researcher

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Baryonyx head & forelimb NHM2.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Paramount Television Network
This is a note to let the main editors of Paramount Television Network know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 20, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 20, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Paramount Television Network was a venture in the late 1940s by American film corporation Paramount Pictures to organize a television network. The company had built television stations KTLA in Los Angeles and WBKB in Chicago, and had invested $400,000 in the DuMont Television Network, which operated stations in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pittsburgh. The Paramount Television Network aired several programs, including the Emmy award-winning children's series Time for Beany, and distributed them to an ad-hoc network of stations. It signed affiliation agreements with more than 50 television stations in 1950; despite this, most of Paramount's series were not widely viewed outside the West Coast. The Federal Communications Commission prevented the studio from acquiring additional television stations. Escalating disputes between Paramount and DuMont concerning breaches of contract, company control, and network competition erupted regularly between 1940 and 1956, and led to the dismantling of the DuMont Network. Paramount continued to produce series for other networks, and re-entered the broadcast network field in 1995 with the United Paramount Network. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Brachiosaurus
Hi, I was just trawling around and found that you put a comment on the Brachiosaurus edit page saying "no italics here". Not being a scientist of any description I'd like to know whether you meant that there should not be any italics there or were you saying that there are no italics but that there should be? I realise that it is some ago now since the comment was made but perhaps you could have said something like "please do not put italics here because it's a borrowed name not a real one".  Jodosma   (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, help me with the Jurassic australian Formations, and to give a image to the article Ozraptor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yewtharaptor (talk • contribs) 20:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing as part of a course
Heya, long time no talk :)

I'm running a course at the local university for staff in our Faculty of Education. Currently the university in question has articles on all the other faculties, and I was toying with the idea of getting the staff to contribute to a page about our faculty as part of this course. Good idea? Bad idea? Risky idea? Pitfalls? Pratfalls? Would they be too close to the topic to be objective? I've been away from Wikipedia culture too long to know how to best handle this, but would appreciate your insight. Cheers!

Z iggurat 01:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Rrring rrring
Hey, I was surprised to see that you've been active again. Are you sticking around? Cheers, Samsara 00:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ditto...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Apatosaurus review
Since your an admin, could you reset the time stamp on the Apatosaurus GA nomination, as we had the review restarted because of a quick-pass without any comments. might have a bit more to say as he knows more than I on what to do and what was done. IJReid discuss 15:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's a pretty good explanation. I'd add that the review was a "rubber stamp/drive by" review. Not sure if Fir's so active at the moment, though. Perhaps ask . FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ed Kilgore's page
Hello Firsfron! I'm just wondering why Ed Kilgore's (Buffalo sports broadcaster and Hall of Famer) page has been deleted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Kilgore

I see his name has been added to The Buffalo Sabres broadcasters page, but is showing red as his page is mysteriously gone. If you'd like me to write a new one, I'd be happy to do so. Thanks for your help,

Shannon Kilgore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.225.22 (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Cochise College for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cochise College 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 Articles for deletion/Cochise College 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.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 12:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Only Girl (In the World)/archive2
Hello. I re-nominated "Only Girl (In the World)" for FAC 8 days ago, but I haven't had any comments. As you commented in the previous one, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind re-reading and seeing if I have address your comments from the previous nomination. Thanks. — ₳aron  10:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Help With Vandalism
Sorry to disturb you, but I have a question. Someone keeps erasing an entire page (Odinism). What is the proper way to deal with that? As an administrator, could you ask them to stop? Thank you. --Holtj (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am the editor in question, and I would like to clarify that my actions were not WP:Vandalism. The Odinism article, in its present state, is appalling. It essentially consists of a) un-referenced material, b) information cited to primary and non-reliable self-published sources, and c) sources about pre-Christian religions which are being used to bolster claims about this new religious movement. Moreover, as has been pointed out over at Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement), the Odinism article was essentially developed by User:ThorLives as a WP:Coatrack after a range of other editors prevented him from continously editing disruptively over at Heathenry (new religious movement). ThorLives is currently the subject of a debated Topic Ban here. If Holtj can bring up a compelling reason for why the Odinism article should continue to exist in its own right then I am more than happy to debate this with them and other editors, perhaps through an RfC on the Odinism article's talk page. However, they should not keep insisting on re-establishing material that is of an utterly poor quality and which should, by all of our policies, be deleted (in fact, doing so places them closer to the boundaries of vandalism than any of my actions). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I have removed the inappropriate content, but would still argue that the article should be wiped and formed into a redirect. If advised, I am happy to take this issue to RfC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but the person above, who seems a bit unhinged, continues to disrupt the Odinism page and attack others. Now she is attacking multiple editors. Can you help? Thanks

Her latest: Sockpuppet_investigations/Holtj  --Holtj (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Adventureland Iowa updates from May 1 2006
You contributed a bunch of new stuff to the Adventureland Iowa page back then, including starting the section about themed lands. You specifically mentioned Space Shot Midway and Bavaria. Do you know where you heard those two names being used? Allen Huffman (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Pop culture in Pachy'saur
The Pachy zord in Power Rangers Dino Charge. It was a Popular show.65.255.88.233 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Seoman Snowlock for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seoman Snowlock 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 Articles for deletion/Seoman Snowlock 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. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lost Island Water Park


The article Lost Island Water Park has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This uncited article basically amounts to advertising."

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 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 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. Dolotta (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Bethel Iowa.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bethel Iowa.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the 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. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Possibility of getting a full image of Azendohsaurus
Hi Firsfron,

I love everything about dinosaurs, especially looking at images of them. Is there any chance of a full image of Azendohsaurus. I have seen several on other sites. But they are covered by user license and I am at present trying to set up a dino information database website (first attempt ever at website construction and code writing). I am collecting images for the site and usually can find them on commons.wikimedia.org but have been unable to find one of Azendohsaurus. Anyway, thank you for listening. Hopefully you have better luck than I have.

Mirraxsis2001:8003:88C0:2000:3105:23B5:8C72:3F93 (talk) 05:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Dinosaur bar.GIF


The file File:Dinosaur bar.GIF has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Midnight Notes Deletion
Hi there. In 2010 you deleted the page "Midnight Notes Collective" and a decade later I want to re-open the page. The importance of the Midnight Notes Collective within autonomist Marxist social theory has increased somewhat in the intervening time due the emergence of the field of commonning studies. The Midnight Notes Collective published foundational work to this body of theory with their work on the New Enclosures, which has been re-examined in the In Common series from Zed Books, the publishing of Sylvia Federici's book on commonining and growing re-appraisal's of the work of the Midnight Notes Collective. I realise that it is a fairly niche edge of Marxist social theory but it has significant coverage in these re-appraisals, from secondary sources, that are verifiable, and have been growing over the past 40 years so I think it meets Notability guidelines. E.g. de Angelis & Harvie 2013: "We owe much of this understanding of primitive accumulation to the political and theoretical work of the Midnight Notes Collective, who recovered the twin concepts of enclosures and commons as still-relevant political-economic categories in their 1990 document The New Enclosures" Rowand017 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Network Revenue, 1955.png


The file File:Network Revenue, 1955.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Firsfron's header.png


The file File:Firsfron's header.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. —&thinsp;JJMC89 bot 00:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. —&thinsp;JJMC89 bot 00:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Page
please sir i want you to create a page for me steven (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Arbor Hill, Iowa for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arbor Hill, Iowa, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Arbor Hill, Iowa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lycurgus, Iowa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oratory. 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) 05:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Editing Question.
Hello, Firsfron I want to ask you why did you revert my edits on Discord, Iowa 10/26/202174.67.178.97 (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Reply to last Question.
I see why but it is starting to get visitors because of the name of the chat service Discord. But thank you for your clarification about this. Have a nice day74.67.178.97 (talk).

Nomination of Garwood, Idaho for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Garwood, Idaho, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Garwood, Idaho until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Omni Broadcasting Network
I just did a writeup on the talk page of Omni Broadcasting Network as a possible hoax because I couldn't find any reliable information about it online. I checked the article history and was surprised that the creator was still active here. I don't think it was a hoax on your part - the website was real enough, and there's a smattering of sketchy supporting documentation I turned up - but I couldn't find any info on the FCC site or any reliable third-party sources. Without impugning the work you put into the page, do you remember what brought Omni Broadcasting Network to your attention in the first place? Tisnec (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Omni Broadcasting Network
 * added links pointing to KCTU, WTCN, KXGN, WLYH, WBQD, KBSU, WBTR, WCLL, WGTN, KXOK, WUPT, KCCE, KJLR, WVBC and KCLA

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Anna May Wong infobox edit
Regarding your edit summary, "Undid revision 1035790766 rv good-faith edits, but people don't have to be notable to be in the infobox", documentation for Template:Infobox person says for the "parents" parameter, "Names of parents; include only if they are independently notable or particularly relevant." Does something about Wong's parents qualify them for the "particularly relevant" part? Eddie Blick (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Jimtown, Delaware
I found one passing reference to this in a congressional hearing as a black town, and going through it on Streetview, it looks like the sort of place blacks were relegated to in these parts. Other than a bunch of goings on about running sewer in the area courtesy of a nearby development, though, I'm not finding anything. You have a better knack for this sort of thing than I do, so I'd appreciate it if you could try to dig some history up on it. Mangoe (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Another one of the same ilk: Pinetown, Delaware. This one has enough news coverage to show that it is a black community, but I haven't found any significant history, and the news articles are decidedly reluctant to admit that it's a black neighborhood. It clearly goes back a long way, though, judging from the maps. If you can come up with anything it would be very helpful. Mangoe (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Geostub badassery
I noticed you did a pretty good job on Codys Corner, Florida -- I have been seeing a lot of geostubs at AfD that seem to be of a similar nature. Most of them, nobody is able to find any sources for, but if you'd like, I can let you know when I find one that looks like it can be saved. jp×g 10:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Got a few more for you that nobody else has had much to say about yet: Windsor Farms, P and W Patch, and Pine Waters (all in Pennsylvania). jp×g 23:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bailey, Iowa
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bailey, Iowa you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bailey, Iowa
The article Bailey, Iowa you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bailey, Iowa for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bailey, Iowa
The article Bailey, Iowa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bailey, Iowa for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Custom signature fix needed
Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error, specifically formatting tags that are obsolete and in the wrong order.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.


 * Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Remove anything in the text box.
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Change the signature as shown below, or make other edits to make the signature appear how you want it to appear.
 * Click Save to update to your newly fixed signature.

Current signature:

Fixed signature:

More information is available at Signatures. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail
jp×g 01:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of genera from the Cambrian Period
Hello Firsfron,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged List of genera from the Cambrian Period for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want List of genera from the Cambrian Period to be deleted, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)