User talk:Joshbaumgartner

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
2006-2016 archive, 2017-2018 archive, 2019 archive

Redundant categorisation[edit]

This edit added a redundant category, Category:Audio files in English, to a file that was already in Category:Audio files of females speaking English. There are many such edits in my watchlist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thanks for the alert, result of an upmerge CfD, I did an overcat check and removed the violators from Category:Audio files in English. Josh (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


COM:AN/U[edit]

বাংলা | Deutsch | English | español | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Nederlands | português | русский | sicilianu | svenska | Tagalog | +/−


Gtk-dialog-info.svg
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#CfD scope? (Military vehicles of the interwar period). This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Surprised[edit]

What shall we do with a user who completely disregards policy like this? In spite of this? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: I have reverted the change (again) and issued a second comment on their talk page. If they persist with the disruptive edits then we will have to bring this up at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Hopefully, that will not be required. Josh (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Wild this durting iongoing discussion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I have commented on that CfD. At this point Rereader1996 (talk · contribs) has ignored multiple warnings about the same issue. Josh (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: @SergeWoodzing: I have no objection with an administrator being involved within the cfd considering we’re all trying to get around those, some of us on the basis of factual information released by relevant and authoritive sources and others basing it on assumptions :). Rereader1996 (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: @SergeWoodzing: yet on that CFD regarding Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia, @Themightyquill: has already stated their suggestion to move to a neutral category name. Rereader1996 (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Rereader1996: You must understand that the problem is not your position on the naming of the category. That is perfectly fine to present and argue in a CfD. The problem is your behavior of violating the CfD process by enacting your own edits on multiple categories while they are still under discussion. Josh (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Symbols_by_quantity[edit]

Category discussion warning
Symbols by quantity has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Symbols_by_quantity.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština  Deutsch  English  español  français  italiano  magyar  polski  português  sicilianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  ไทย  日本語  עברית  +/−

Estopedist1 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Categories_about_aviation_requiring_diffusion[edit]

Category discussion warning
Categories about aviation requiring diffusion has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Categories_about_aviation_requiring_diffusion.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština  Deutsch  English  español  français  italiano  magyar  polski  português  sicilianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  ไทย  日本語  עברית  +/−

Estopedist1 (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Groups of insects[edit]

Hi Joshbaumgartner, can you please stop adding Lepidoptera illustration plates to categories like 10 insects, 11 insects, etc.? This is not what Category:Groups of insects is for, it should instead contain media displaying actual insects naturally occuring next to each other. Thanks. --LamBoet (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

And now I see this one. Please realize that this doesn't make any sense. We already have Category:Lepidoptera illustrations (and its subcategories) for these pictures. Please don't create endless "X insects" categories, they will have to be deleted. --LamBoet (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Really? Category:Groups is a very general topic. Groups by more specific rationale can be seen to with a sub-category. Perhaps try Category:Groups of insects in natural settings or some such to get down to the definition you seek. Restricting "groups" to a limited scope just for insects is what does not make sense. As for needing to delete categories by quantity, that would fly in face of existing categorization schema. Josh (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
1) I am not restricting the definition of "groups", you are extending it in a very far-fetched way. I think you know very well what kind of media these categories used to contain before you started filling them with plates.
2) What flies in the face of the existing categorization scheme is what you are doing now, i.e. adding a new redundant category tree that doesn't seem to have any purpose. Why would one put a category like "X insects" to every Lepidoptera plate file? To whom is it useful? Please stop doing this; I will have no qualms about emptying these categories myself. --LamBoet (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
"I think you know very well what kind of media these categories used to contain before you started filling them with plates." - Irrelevant. New additions to a category are not restricted to matching existing contents, otherwise what would be the point of adding new content if it only mirrored existing content?
"What would one put a category like "X insects" to every Lepidoptera plate file?" - Sure, why not?
"I will have no qualms about emptying these categories myself." - I presume that you would only do so after proper resolution of a CfD and in accordance with agreed upon consensus. Josh (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
1) New additions to a category are restricted by the category's purpose. In this case, people who browse Category:Groups of insects expect to actually find groups of insects, rather than illustration plates, which already have their own category structure.
2) Why not: because it would clutter these categories with thousands of off-topic files, and clutter thousands of file pages with a meaningless category. It is really for you to answer: what is the use of putting plates in these categories? And moreover, why would you think that Category:1 insect (or "1 [any topic]") can be useful. Do you realize that it would have to contain a large majority of insect files of Commons?
3) For obviously mistaken or obviously abusive categories, no, this usually goes through speedy deletion, criterion C3. --LamBoet (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Animals_by_quantity[edit]

Category discussion warning
Animals by quantity has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Animals_by_quantity.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština  Deutsch  English  español  français  italiano  magyar  polski  português  sicilianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  ไทย  日本語  עברית  +/−

Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Two versus 2[edit]

I saw that you moved Category:Two cats to Category:2 cats with the summary "standard numeric representation of quantity in category name". Based on quick searches I did, it is common for the number to be spelled out, not represented by a numeral. There is a general rule in English that sentences (or titles, as in this case) should not start with a numeral. Can you direct me to any policy or guideline that supports your changes? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@World's Lamest Critic: Apologies, this is the result of a pair of CfDs (listed at Category talk:Groups). I had been adding the CfD links to talk pages for a while, but didn't on these latest ones, simply putting the aforementioned note. Numeric representation improves international access as well as supporting easier use of templates to manage categorization by number. Josh (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
That discussion is you and one other editor. And you closed it yourself. Category names on Commons are in English (for better or worse) - international use is really a non-issue given that starting point. And we should follow the common English usage. Categories which start with a quantity should be spelled out. Categories that don't start with a number can use the numeral. They are different cases. I suggest you stop what you are doing until there is a wider discussion of this issue. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
More than one, but regardless the discussions were open for some time and all users who either checked the CfD pages or browsed the tagged categories were able to voice their opposition if they had any. I understand your concern about English sentence structure, but there is nothing in category naming policy that states category names must follow a particular formal word structure or specifically that numbers at the start of titles should be in a particular style. I completely disagree with you that maximizing the ability of people to use Commons categories regardless of language is a non-issue. We use English for titles of categories, generally, but that is no reason to use English in such a manner as to make things harder on non-English speakers. Biological taxa are by the way specifically listed as an exception to the English-first rule. Josh (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I started a discussion here. I suggest you lay out your case again, rather than assuming that people will read the linked discussion. Although I favor spelling out the quantity if it begins the category title, I'm not trying to force that view, just get a discussion going so that we can have consensus before you get too far into your changes. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@World's Lamest Critic: Excellent, thank you for raising the issue at VP, I have opened a new CfD at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Groups of cats. Josh (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Military equipment by former country[edit]

Hi! Why you remove Category:Military equipment of Yugoslavia, Category:Military equipment of the Soviet Union, Category:Military equipment of Czechoslovakia from Category:Military equipment by former country? Лапоть (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC).

@Лапоть: Unintended, result of a template issue, I've re-added it manually. Josh (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Topic of country[edit]

Hello, I discover your use of the template:Topic of country for sub-categories such as Category:Military equipment of France.
Although I think this is a good thing to use this template for general categories (Culture of ..., Geography of ...), I think it is not appropriate for sub-categories because it adds these categories in the country category.
For example, the category above already belongs to Category:Equipment of France and Category:Military of France. So it should not appear in the Category:France category.
Is there a parameter in the template to avoid this ? I hope my explanations are clear. Sincerely, Pmau (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pmau: You are completely correct. The template had an error that was adding it to the country category incorrectly. This has been rectified for Category:Military equipment of France. It should fix the appearance of any others with the same issue. The template should only place it in direct topic parents (as you note, equipment and military in this case). No additional parameter should be needed, as these are managed by the template, but if the direct parents do not exist, appropriate higher cats should be added manually. Thanks! Josh (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Geography of Liechtenstein[edit]

Hello Joshbaumgartner, I have seen your changes in the Category "Geography of Liechtenstein" (also in "Geography of Switzerland" and so on). The new navigation block is very large. I personally would like to continue using the navigation block "Countries of Europe", it is smaller, clearer and fits quite well for the countries in Europe. Kind regards --Schofför (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I am working on code that will set the list to only the continent of the country instead of the whole world. The problem with {{Countries of Europe}} is that the text is too small. I like compact solutions, but they need to be accessible as well. Josh (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Then I wait for the result. :-) And yes, the text can be a little bigger, but it shouldn't be too big either. Otherwise you have to scroll first until you find the other files in the category. Kind regards --Schofför (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
It sure would be nice if there were a way to add the navbox after the category contents, in essence using a navbox the same way as in an article, but AFIK this is not possible. I am also looking at the option of doing it as a sidebar (as the Wikidata Infobox is done). For smaller topics a global list is fine, but for larger topics, by continent listing is more appropriate, so there is a parameter ("navby=continent") that can be added to {{Topic by country/data}} to make that happen. You can see now that Category:Geography of Liechtenstein should only show European countries in its navbox. Josh (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I see that only the countries of Europe are now displayed in the category Geography of Liechtenstein. It's a good thing.
The list of countries now follows the spelling of the names in English. Sorting by alphabet in the other languages is still missing. The other navigation block can adjust the order of the respective language. For example, Hungary is after Greece - in Alemannic and German it should be after Ukraine because we write Ungarn and not Hungary, also Tschechien and not Czech Republic, Deutschland vs Germany etc. Kind regards --Schofför (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
There are two things here: displaying names in the user language and sorting the list correctly for the user language. The template used LangSwitch to change the list based on the user's language, though it needed the list to be made for each language which was a task mostly yet to be done. It did have a default option that showed the labels in he user's language but simply used the default sort order. At any rate, the LangSwitch was removed by another user and thus now labels are only in english. Due to some edit conflicts with the user, I have not been working on this one for a couple of weeks, but I will need to restore the ability to show names in the user language and sort the list correctly based on said language labels, probably with a better method the LangSwitch used previously. Josh (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

QuickCfdClose Gadget[edit]

I've found closing CfDs to be a bit of an arduous multi-step process, so I started a gadget for streamlining the process. Since you participate in CfD frequently, I thought this might be helpful to you. Currently it only handles the closing of the discussion page itself, but when I have time I will expand it to some of the other repetitive tasks like removing the notification templates from the affected categories. See User:BMacZero/QuickCfdClose. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@BMacZero: This looks like a really useful little tool. I will definitely keep my eye on development and give it a spin at some point. Thanks! Josh (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Can a state have some politics before it is founded?[edit]

Can a state have some politics before it is founded? Of course not, and so institutions which ceased to exist long before its establishment cannot be considered its part. Czech Republic was founded in 1968 as a part of federalized Czechoslovakia and became an independent state in 1993, while Bohemian National Alliance of America was founded to support separating of Czech lands from Austria-Hungary in 1914 and ceased to exist shortly after establishing Czechoslovakia in 1918! While Czech Republic has its clear beginning in 1968, Czechia is a term that can be applied to anything connected with Czech territory throughout all the history. You can rarely find a serious source using the term Czech Republic in connection with the times before 1968. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking a question, or answering it? Is this relevant to a particular item or edit? Josh (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I am trying to explain the problem caused by the edit which I linked to above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
So remove it from Category:Politics of the Czech Republic if you feel it doesn't belong there. Where's the problem? Josh (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop[edit]

Your changes in lot of categories are radical, you've broken lot of categories by incorrect zautocategorization and removed the necessary navboxes. Autotocategorization is generallyt undesirable and you've forgotten LOT of cases. Almost alld categories where you've put the untested template are now mixed with incorrect topics. verdy_p (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your damaging edits to the template need to stop. Again, you make big claims of incorrect topics, etc., but have not provided specifics. Instead you have acted by making drastic changes to a complex template, breaking it badly. You then claim the template is broken. Well yes, you broke it! Josh (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Hello. Please stop edit war at Template:Topic by country/layout. Edit warring may get you blocked next time. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

If you edit war on a template again, you will also lose template editor permissions. Just putting that out there incase it was unclear. ~riley (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@4nn1l2, ~riley: You have both been crystal clear and are 100% correct. I was wrong to engage in the edit warring over that file, I got caught up in it and should have known better. I have no excuse for my mistake, but I can assure you that it will never happen again. I should have relied on discussion and raised the matter if needed on the notice board instead of trying to act on my own in such a manner. Is it possible to restore the file to its original state prior to the start of our edit war so the changes can be discussed and only implemented if consensus is achieved? In any case I am sorry to have involved you in this mess and respect your decisions fully. Josh (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I am going to defer to 4nn1l2 on that one as he is already involved on the talk page. Thank you for showing insight and understanding. ~riley (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Many_trucks[edit]

Category discussion warning
Category:Many_trucks has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Many_trucks.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština  Deutsch  English  español  français  italiano  magyar  polski  português  sicilianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  ไทย  日本語  עברית  +/−

188.110.54.18 12:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Education and Politics as activities?[edit]

Hi Joshbaumgartner, in March you changed many of the Education and Politics categories of each country in such a way that those categories are now to be seen as Activities - e.g. Activities in Germany. This must be an unwanted side effect. If you look at the root category Category:Activities you will notice a variety of (true) activities, but no general category such as Politics or Education. Could you please explain the reason for your edits? --Till (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Till.niermann: Note that the main structure is:
Category:Human activities by country does not exist, so therefore, Category:Education by country and Category:Politics by country ended up directly under Category:Activities by country. If someone sees fit to add this later to the 'by country' structure, that could be easily accommodated, but I am not sure that is really needed. Hopefully this helps answer your question. Thanks! Josh (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that explains to me the reasons for your changes. But, to be honest, it seems quite absurd to me to call education or politics a kind of activity, even in the most abstract sense. If you do that, there is no end to what is to be seen as an "activity", it is, essentially, everything humankind has ever done or is in the process of doing: Science, history, medicine, whatever. No, I'm strongly opposed to this concept and would rather stay with what the guy from the street would call an activity, i.e. what is listed in the Category:Activities. --Till (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Till.niermann (talk · contribs) The principle is a hierarchical one here. If it is agreed to remove politics from human activities, and hence from activities, then of course the same change should be made for 'by country'. In other words the 'by country' or 'by anything else' trees should reflect the hierarchy of the main categories, though any particular indexing scheme may see one or several levels of such a scheme to be redundant. I do not know that I agree with restricting the scope of activities to such a narrow band. Keep in mind that "activities" is a main topic (one of only a handful such categories) and as such topics are extremely broad in what they contain. Sub-categories are relied on for more narrow interpretations. I'm not sure what a guy from the street would say, or who qualifies as such a guy or who doesn't, so I don't think that is a very good method of determining categorization criteria. In my experience dealing with hundreds of CfDs, categories that rely on 'common sense', or more accurately, that rely on common preconceptions held by some subset of users, as opposed to being based on objective criteria are a recipe for trouble. However, as it stands, Category:Politics is a sub category of Category:Activities, ergo, Category:Politics by country should be a sub category of Category:Activities by country. Breaking that because one does not agree with the scheme of the parent category is the wrong approach. The correct approach would to be raise a CfD for Category:Politics or Category:Education, or even Category:Activities and propose changing the scope and categorization scheme applied to them. Once that is settled, the new scheme can be applied to all of the indices such as 'by country' or 'by whatever'. I appreciate your point about Education seeming a bit abstract to call a discrete activity and that Category:Activities including all sorts like that is so huge as to be almost too broad to be meaningful. That discussion simply belongs at the main category level, not at the index level which should just functionally and objectively follow whatever the parent category scheme is. Thanks! Josh (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
So, to be clear: Do you think it is OK that with your changes you essentially say that “education” and “politics” are activities like cleaning, drawing, and walking? --Till (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
They already are categorized as such. I didn't add either Category:Education or Category:Politics to the Category:Activities tree. Whether I think it is okay is rather irrelevant, isn't it? Josh (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Numbercategory-vehicle[edit]

Hi! Sorry to disturb, but could you take a look at Category:Number 5 on racing motorcycles and Category:Number 5 on racing cars? It seems like they broke somehow over the years... Anders (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Anders: Check those out now, they should be working correctly. "racing car" and "racing motorcycle" had not been correctly setup in the template...fixed now. Josh (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, they are working again, thank you!! --Anders (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:1_people[edit]

Category discussion warning
1 people has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/08/Category:1_people.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština  Deutsch  English  español  français  italiano  magyar  polski  português  sicilianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  ไทย  日本語  עברית  +/−

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Category name pluralisation for animal breed categories[edit]

Hi, I noticed you moved a cat breed category onto a pluralised name ("Egyptian Maus"). This is not proper (and I've fixed the category); breed names as category names must be in singular form. It may not be obvious at first, especially based on the limited type of media we thus far have, but a breed is a multi-faceted phenomenon, not merely a group of animals with the same arbitrary name. There's things like breeders and studs, organisations, events, development and history, standards, founding/influential individuals, genetic topics, disputes, subtypes, specialised uses, traditions, etc. Furthermore, each breed name is a proper name. --Pitke (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

................ After taking a look around it has become clear this was not an isolated incident. Please revert your breed category name pluralisations. --Pitke (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
@Pitke: I have no problem with cat breeds having an exemption from the standard category naming guidelines. A note on the category's talk page explaining the non-standard naming convention to be used for he categories would be helpful to ensure users are aware of the correct practice and reasoning for it. Josh (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Fry1989 eh? 15:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)