User talk:Seventyfiveyears/Archive 1

June 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Interstate 30 has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Interstate 30 was changed by Seventyfiveyears (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.874668 on 2019-06-27T01:17:15+00:00

How to use constructive edits
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing can result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – The Grid  ( talk )  12:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Bad writing
Edits like this are just plain bad writing. You've inserted content that may be true, but you're putting in right in the middle of a sentence where it makes no sense. That addition separated the adjective "north–south" from its subject "United States Highway". The result flows poorly, and it's confusing. Furthermore, while true, that information is a minor detail for the lead of the national article on US 41. It really doesn't belong there at all.

Several of your other recent edits follow this pattern by awkwardly inserting content into the middle of a sentence. In most cases, that content is unneeded in that context. Please consider these points when making future edits, lest your additions continue to be consistently removed.  Imzadi 1979  →   16:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits over multiple articles
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. – The Grid  ( talk )  17:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Usage of multiple accounts
Hello, Seventyfiveyears, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Rschen7754 05:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed page move
Hi, Seventyfiveyears! Please see Talk:NCT (group), where I explained why I removed the PROD deletion requests from the two redirects. Thank you very much for your edits!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 16:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"Coronavirus disease 2015" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Coronavirus disease 2015. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 21 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Spicy (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverted move
Sorry I had to revert your move, but a change like that really should be discussed first. Please request a move at Talk:Sock puppet. Sro23 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's fine. I'll make a request instead. Thank you, Seventyfiveyears at 21:23, 27 July 2020

Sro23, please go to Requested moves/Technical requests to see my request for a page move. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears at 23:05, 27 July 2020


 * Re your WP:RM/TR request, meant that you should start a move discusssion, not request a uncontroversial technical move. I've moved your request to Talk:Sock puppet for you. Station1 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Puppetry (disambiguation)


The article Puppetry (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unnecessary dab, see WP:PTM"

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. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Puppetry (disambiguation)


The page Puppetry (disambiguation) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguated only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ended in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguated zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * was a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that did not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Deletion Review Primefac (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok. I won't make an unnecessary disambiguation page or a disambiguation page that only has one or zero links. I'll try to be careful of making disambiguation pages from now on. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears at 13:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism
Do not edit others' user pages unless WP:FAKEARTICLE or WP:NPA applies. In your role as editor, you otherwise never have reason to do that. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The users of whose userpages (User:Friday and User:Misza13) I edited were very inactive. I looked through their contributions and logs to see when the last time they were active. Seventyfiveyears at 22:59, 2 August 2020
 * I'm not arguing that those editors aren't inactive. My point is that you can put a template on that user's talk page. You do not need to edit their user page. It belongs to them. Retirement is something a Wikipedian chooses. We don't label them retired. For all you know, they may both be dead. Please stay off of user pages. We did not ask you to edit user pages. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So this means that if a Wikipedia user retires, then I can put a "not around" template? Is that what you're talking about? Seventyfiveyears at 23:30, 2 August 2020
 * Let's not conflate two separate things: Put a template on a user talk page, not a user page. When you put a template on a user talk page, stick with "not around." If they want to mark themselves as retired, you let them do that even if they haven't edited in ten years. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I will put a "not around" template on the user talk page from now on. I'll not edit a user page, unless if there's a word that's not spelled correctly, person attack, or if the user page looks like an article. Thank you, Seventyfiveyears at 00:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You can edit someone else's userpage to remove copyright violations, BLP violations, personal attacks, or fake articles on userpages. You may not fix typos on other editor's userpages; some even take offense to that. There are plenty of typos that need fixing in articles, why not do that? Sro23 (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"2019–2020 outbreak" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2019–2020 outbreak. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 3 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Spicy (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Your block log
Hi Seventyfiveyears, I appreciate you are trying to be a constructive editor. I noticed in your block log, last year you were blocked 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. It's pretty clear that was a bad block, because you never used the Sentral2753central account simultaneously, but only after you lost the password to this account. It would have helped if you disclosed as your first edit as User:Sentral2753central that you were formerly User:Seventyfiveyears but lost access to that account, however I also understand that new editors sometimes make mistakes like that. If you want, I can block you for 1 second to "clear your name", so to speak, and in the block summary I can clarify that your first block was invalid. Just let me know. Sro23 (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Well adding that new account really was a bad idea, because technically, I did have the User:Sentral2753central account because I requested a password reset for my old account but that didn't work. So I made that account, but last year I was blocked for 1 week because admins thought I used that account to disrupt. But somehow, I didn't know how to correctly edit last year, but now I learned my lesson. Using multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegal reasons. Usually, if you use a new account for bad hands, but didn't use your old account, the new account is blocked indefinitely, while the old account is blocked for 1 week. Now I'll be honest from now. Thank you, Seventyfiveyears at 01:24, 4 August 2020
 * But I'm saying that you didn't do anything wrong, and shouldn't have been blocked. It's okay to create a new account if you lose your password; that's not sockpuppetry. It would have been helpful if you disclosed your original account you lost access to, but like I said, new users don't always know that. Sro23 (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, have you thought about asking my opinion before making a pronouncement like that? Anyway, I would disagree with that, as the Seventyfiveyears account was eventually resurrected. But as long as they are editing productively I see it as water under the bridge. --Rschen7754 18:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Rschen7754, I am trying to be constructive. But I'm back on this account because currently this is my old account. And what do you mean by "see it as water under the bridge"? Seventyfiveyears at 18:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean that since it was a year ago we should try to move on and not be stuck in the past. --Rschen7754 18:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was going to send you a message, but never got around to it. Timeline is this: Seventyfiveyears account is created in May 2019 and is active until August 22, when access to the account is lost (forgotten password). August 26, Sentral2753central is created and begins editing. The two accounts are never used at the same time. Seventyfiveyears was under no blocks or sanctions as far as I'm aware. That's not sockpuppetry, you are allowed to start a new account if you forget the password to your old one. It would have been helpful if Sentral2753central disclosed right off the bat they are Seventyfiveyears, but lots of new editors don't do this. I think it's very unfair this newbie was punished for forgetting his password. Bad block, hence my offer to annotate the block log. Sro23 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Just want to add that I'm certain I've made blocks like this one before too, so I hope you don't take this as an attack to your person, Rschen7754, because it's not. Wikipedia has such a hard time retaining editors and attracting new ones, and blocking newbies for not knowing how 100% how things work here is one of the ways I believe we are pushing new editors away. I've come to realize the way we treat new editors, the bad blocks I and others make, isn't right. This user decided to stay, but if it were me -- if shortly after joining, I forgot the password to my account, created a new one, and then was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, even though I didn't do anything wrong, I'm pretty sure I would have thought that's it, I'm never going to contribute again because clearly I'm not wanted here. So that's why it feels like the least I can do is add a note to Seventyfiveyears's block log. Sro23 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sro23, blocks cannot be considered as a punishment. I was not really punished. Blocks are used to protect Wikipedia from vandals and spammers. So now I that learned I can technically use multiple accounts, but not to do illegal things. Seventyfiveyears at 18:46, 6 August 2020
 * I think that we should just leave things as is and if it ever comes up again let the evidence speak for itself. Seventyfiveyears was not under sanctions, but ignored several warnings on their talk page (above) about their edits. Both accounts were also warned on September 2 about violating the multiple account policy and the blocks did not happen (nor did the claim to have forgotten the password) until September 24. This is not a clear-cut case one way or the other and the user is not blocked now so I think we should just let things be. If this ever comes up in, say, a RFA, Seventyfiveyears can present their case and let the voters make a judgment. --Rschen7754 00:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Pound sign "technical redirects"
Hi, please do not add hatnotes about pound sign "redirects". There is actually no redirect named Super Mario Maker, and this happens on EVERY article, regardless of what comes after the # sign. For example, if you type "Super Mario Maker #The Brown Dog" you'll have the exact same result. As this happens for every article and anything place after the # sign, it should not be denoted. -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

So technically, if I wrote Luigi’s Mansion in the search bar, it will still redirect to Luigi’s Mansion. Is that correct? Seventyfiveyears at 13:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, or #4, #5, and on. It's atypical to denote this as it impacts essentially any media (video game, movie, etc) that has a numerical sequel. -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Donald Disney
Hi Seventyfiveyears, we've reverted each other on Donald Duck. You added a distinguish template at the top of the page, which adds "Not to be confused with Donald Disney". I would like to take that out. Donald Duck is one of the most well-known cartoon characters in the world, while Donald Disney is a completely unknown electrical engineer. It would make sense if someone searched for "Donald Disney" and expected to find Donald Duck, so having a "Not to be confused with Donald Duck" tag at the top of Donald Disney is a good idea. On the other hand, nobody searching for "Donald Duck" would ever expect to find Donald Disney. Seeing Donald Disney's link at the top of the Donald Duck page will not make sense to readers; it's giving prominence to an unknown person at the top of a well-known character's page. Do you see what I mean? — Toughpigs (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I get it, but having “Not to be confused with Donald Duck” at Donald Disney is useful. So technically, we may have the distinguish template that reads “Not to be confused with Donald Disney” at Donald Duck. But you know, I could agree of what you think. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You are invited to discuss your edits
Reidgreg (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Opening discussions at RfD
Please note that new discussions are always placed at the top of the page, and not at the bottom. I’ve already fixed this, but I’d appreciate if you take note of this for future discussions. Thanks! CycloneYoris talk! 20:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted your move of Tonsil tennis and Reasonable Woman (though Tonsil tennis was moved by an IP, but I assume it was you), since both discussions were opened less than 7 days ago and do not need to be relisted yet. In the case of Tonsil tennis there is a clear consensus for deletion, so relisting that discussion is not necessary. Please read WP:RELIST which will guide you on how to relist properly, you may also want to install WP:XFDC as it makes the whole process much easier. Please note that we normally only relist discussions that have no clear consensus and that were opened more than 7 days ago. CycloneYoris talk! 03:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. This was my first two times doing this. I did not see the relisting discussions policy. Thank you, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:ATBA" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:ATBA. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 19 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Talkback – second notice
Reidgreg (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fire drill (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Fire drill (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The disambiguation page was removed two weeks ago, but it was changed into a redirect, targeting to Fire drill. Then I requested the page to be deleted since it was no longer a disambiguation page, but another user has declined it saying that it should've been taken down to RFD. Seventyfiveyears at 19:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop opening RfDs
Most of the RfDs you've opened have turned out to just be time-wasting, so I strongly suggest that until you get a clue around the guidelines and practices surrounding RfD, you should stop opening RfDs. — &thinsp;J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not just wasting my time. I'm here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Also, I'm just not the only one who sends more than one discussion. Plus, I also tell users why I have this redirect. Besides, adding discussions is not the only thing I do. So if you think that, you're wrong. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Plainly, you haven't been around long enough to get a grasp of RfD's guidelines and practices (most if not all of your nominations fall afoul of ). You should still contribute to RfD, but most of the RfDs you have opened have turned out to be time-wasting for everyone involved. — &thinsp;J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, please stop opening until you show sufficient competence  to not be merely wasting the time of other editors. This discussion evidently shows a lack of understanding of WP:BEFORE. Please address these concerns mentioned in my comments in this section by replying to this comment before proceeding at RfD. — &thinsp;J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I could not find any mention about MacDonald's White Paper in the White Paper of 1939. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Redirects not tagged correctly
Please refer to this edit you performed. Since you did not tag the redirect properly, it causes the redirect to not act as it should during the nomination, and also causes automated scripts to not work correctly. Please refer to the specific steps laid out in WP:RFD step 1 for the proper method which to tag redirects. For example, here's how to use the RfD template on a redirect that targets Example:""...Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:AIV. Thank you. Sysages (talk | contribs) 21:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I was just trying to be a constructive editor. I’m not trying to vandalize anything. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be concerned, Seventyfiveyears, it does not appear to be a valid report. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Your relist of 2020 Singapore Grand Prix
Hi Seventyfiveyears. Apart from the fact that you were the nom, so probably (if not definitely) you shouldn't be the one to relist an RfD you started, but three users gave their view, one as a comment, 2 with suggested retargets. If you agreed with a retarget, it would have been more appropriate to put that under your nom and allow the discussion to be closed. If you disagree with the reasoning given, you should put it in the discussion so that those making the suggestions know what to respond to. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Nominaters are allowed to relist his/her own discussions, but only if the discussion has no specific and clear consensus and was opened at least 7 days ago. I thought that there was no consensus to my discussion, which is why I had to relist it. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that you've relisted without adding anything (and you presumably read what was there and didn't feel there was anything to add), to me it looks like consensus to retarget to Singapore Grand Prix. If that is not the case I would suggest you contribute to the discussion, rather than just relist. A7V2 (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you aren't allowed to relist a discussion you have nominated; read WP:INVOLVED (it may be just for admins, but relisting is universally considered an administrative action; non-admins don't get special powers here). Also, remember to follow RGUIDE: If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is delete. — &thinsp;J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Unilateral trivial page moves
After several attempts to engage you in discussion of your page move of 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides → 2010–17 Toronto serial homicides, I have requested that your page move be reverted. If you wish, you can contest this at Requested moves.

I would note that discussion of edits is crucial to consensus building on Wikipedia. Editors really shouldn't make any edit that they aren't willing to discuss as to why it's an improvement to the encyclopedia.

I would also note that arbitrary page moves can be a particularly disruptive editing behaviour. I would suggest that before you conduct any other page moves, that you become familiar with Article titles and its subpages, and get in a habit of checking the article's move log as well as its talk page(s) for indication of previous page moves. If a page has been moved before, there is generally consensus for the present name and it shouldn't be moved without opening a discussion to establish a new consensus. I feel that it would also be a good idea to read through and participate in WP:RM discussions to get hands-on experience with the relevant policies, guidelines and practices.

I hope that you can find a productive way to continue editing. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Per, if you can't explain your moves when queried, please stop performing them. Best, — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 16:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding relisting RfD discussions with no comments
Please see WP:SILENCE. Basically, if there are no comments in a discussion after its required 7-day period of being posted, it is assumed that it is uncontroversial. In other words, I would highly recommend not relisting such discussions as administrators will usually delete those per WP:SILENCE and the discussions don't/shouldn't need relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked editor's user pages
Please don't edit blocked editors' user pages, as you did here and here. I appreciate that you're trying to help, but I recommend focussing your efforts on writing articles before getting involved in the back-end of the project. – bradv  🍁  15:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On Special:Contributions/Anthony E. Lahmann, it said that the account was globally locked. Also, at Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 1 (used the correct link if I did not link this correctly), the last comment said that Sysages is likely a sockpuppet of Anthony. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Invite!
It seems that you have a lot of interests in tropical cyclones, so I figured that you might accept this invite.  SMB9 9thx   my edits  12:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about First Lady and Second Gentleman-designate titles in infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff
Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020)  755  21:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of BOTW (disambiguation)
Hello Seventyfiveyears,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username John B123 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, BOTW (disambiguation) for deletion, because it is unnecessary and disambiguates only a single page.

If you feel that the page shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, 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 please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

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

John B123 (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The DAB page is already fixed by, so it no longer meets the speedy deletion criteria. The revision is how I created the DAB page. Also, the creator of the page can remove the deletion tag if the page meets G14, see this: The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is G6, G7, G8, G13, G14 or U1. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!




 Seventyfiveyears , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Regards, SONIC 678 01:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

RfD closures
Seventyfiveyears, I want to point out a couple faulty closes that you have done recently:


 * Your closure of Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 25 is not accurate. This term is mentioned in the song is not at all what was in dispute—it's that it is not mentioned in the article. This nuance is important because closing it as "keep" should also add the proposed mention to the target to resolve the issue brought up with those wanting deletion. I went ahead and did this now, so it's no longer problematic.


 * One other issue is Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 25. The redirect in question is not a R from other capitalisation, that never even came up during the discussion. The issue was that the lowercase denotes a general "emergency use authorization" (common nouns are lowercase), but it is redirecting to a US-specific one (the caps denoting a proper noun).

While I'm here, I also want to say this: I do not think you are an experienced-enough editor to be closing RfD discussions. Your problems at RfD have been well-documented, so I'm not going to reiterate them here, but closing involves a level of understanding and mastery of the redirect guidelines that I do not believe you have. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Category 5 (film) (February 25)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Category 5 (film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Category 5 (film), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Category_5_(film) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Category_5_(film) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dandupalya 4 (February 25)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dandupalya 4 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dandupalya 4, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Dandupalya_4 Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HitroMilanese&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Dandupalya_4 reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hitro talk 06:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Dendi Kingdom name
Please see Talk:Dendi Kingdom. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  23:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Dandupalya 4
Hello, Seventyfiveyears. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Dandupalya 4, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Category 5 (film)
Hello, Seventyfiveyears. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Category 5 (film), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Category 5 (film)


Hello, Seventyfiveyears. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Category 5".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Utah House Of Representatives Entrance.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Utah House Of Representatives Entrance.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Utah House Of Representatives Entrance.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Utah House Of Representatives Entrance.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement&#32;of https://house.utah.gov/2017site/daily-buzz-january-24-2017/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)