The Devil's Advocate

English: Welcome to the Commons, The Devil's Advocate!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--SieBot 18:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. Check your email—you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Vordrak (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Email

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. Check your email—you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Michaeldsuarez: Responding to your e-mail publicly for the benefit of anyone wondering, yes the account on RationalWiki that recently edited their "Timeline of GamerGate" article is mine. Since the page claimed I was banned from the English Wikipedia for "GamerGate-related" off-site harassment, I felt I needed to set the matter straight since GamerGate has been given a reputation for a certain type of harassment even if I think that reputation is undeserved. Granted, the Arbitration Committee has still said nothing to me about what actually prompted the ban, but based on their public comments to other users and the change made to the ban announcement, I have every reason to believe it has nothing to do with GamerGate at all and instead concerns the report I sent them on December 21st. Due to ArbCom's original vague announcement several sites have stated the harassment claims were GamerGate-related, including a not-so-nice news article in some small-time outlet. I am not sure why a site that seems to pride itself on being "rational" would so relentlessly reject a person's efforts to correct false claims made against them, but it is not as if I ever took their name too seriously.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for response, and sorry for my late response. I don't sign into Commons that often anymore. As for RationalWiki, see en:Political_myth. People, especially ideologues, have their own visions of how events played out and who the victims, villains, and heroes are. Myths are more powerful than facts in the minds of people; thus, reality is replaced by myth in their minds. Humorously, that enwiki article doesn't mention Georges Sorel, the guy who first theorized about the power of myth in the minds of people. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate post

Hello. This is

1. A vicious personal attack
2. Importing Wikidrama

I am much more concerned with the former than the latter, but really neither is preferable. Please note that everyone is free to edit on Commons at any time if it helps to further the goals of the project and doesn't break our rules.

Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone made negative insinuations about me on the English Wikipedia knowing I was unable to defend myself. I simply left that person a message pointing out how he was completely mistaken. Not sure what you consider a "vicious personal attack", but given the atmosphere I have witnessed on Commons in the past I am not sure how you can think any comment was so horrible as to warrant this dramatic response.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

ygm

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. Check your email—you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Sfarney (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Your server is not accepting email from mail.com. Server block list. Grr. Alternate suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talk • contribs) 06:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Modification request filed

Your favorite admin chimed in with remarkable speed and a predictable opinion.[1] Sfarney (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: Brown's comment just now is more worth addressing than Ian's. From my reading, the community appeal generally did see the potential involvement as an issue with your sanction, but a lot of them did not feel it was proved. Many simply relied on Wordsmith's characterization of simply having read a lot of documents about them, because that was the only evidence known to them at the time. A few editors still argued based on this alone that Wordsmith may have been involved and should at least have not been the one to impose the sanction. Had this evidence been known to the community at the time they would have likely had a different reaction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: I would suggest you focus on Wordsmith's involvement and not discuss Prioryman's history. This was not in the last draft you sent me and if I had seen it I would have advised against talking about him beyond the parts directly concerning your sanctions. You should consider removing those bits about Prioryman that don't directly concern the report you filed against him and the report he filed against you. Editors may accuse you of using the appeal as an excuse to attack your opponents and that is frowned upon.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

yup, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talk • contribs) 23:03, 03 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: Just so you know, his claims of "forgetting" about having spent around a year involved in an anti-Scientology protest movement are highly dubious. This isn't based merely on common sense. Wordsmith had a page in his userspace apparently containing a "COI" disclosure. He, as you may see, deleted that page in the middle of May this year, roughly two weeks before he topic-banned you. While I cannot see the deleted contents of the page, obviously, the prior instances where he linked to it both involved Scientology so it was almost certainly about his involvement in Chanology.

You may notice one of those instances involved him claiming to be "uninvolved" while suggesting action against an editor at AE. He was apparently relying on a very forgiving understanding of this section of the ARBSCI case. Pretty sure it was not intended for people who make comments such as this on a Scientology-related article. Even one of the anti-Scientology editors felt that comment was inappropriate and Wordsmith's explanation says a lot, especially given he topic-banned you based largely on an extremely flimsy allegation about you being OSA.

Interestingly, the former admin Cirt who Wordsmith is chatting with there was subject to an RFC on his conduct, with specific mention of Scientology-related editing that included editing related to Anonymous. Wordsmith endorsed a contentious close of the RFC as an "uninvolved admin" in spite of this and marked a noticeboard request for a neutral closer as resolved. Cute. He didn't get much done there as the arbitration request used as a pretext for closing it was accepted and ended poorly for Cirt, but it is yet another case of Wordsmith engaging in some questionable use of his admin position on Scientology-related matters.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: In regards to Salvio's disappointing response, you should consider posting the evidence in my above comment, at least the evidence in the first two paragraphs. Given Salvio's generally stellar conduct as an admin and arbitrator I would like to think that evidence would give him sufficient reason to reconsider. Wordsmith claiming he forgot about spending nearly a year participating in Project Chanology is dubious enough and even more so when he apparently had a page in his userspace all about it that was deleted two weeks before your topic ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I hope I have framed it adequately. Sfarney (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: I think your statement about the forum thread is a bit off. Your phrasing seems like a suggestion that Wordsmith is one of the posters in the thread, but there is no evidence for that. While I think that is most likely where he came up with that asinine idea about you, he may have simply read the thread. Perhaps it wasn't your intent to suggest Wordsmith was a poster in the thread and if so you should clarify that you are only suggesting that thread was the origin of his "private evidence" as tying him to an account that isn't declared could be considered outing. He did allude to the same allegation in this diff you included in section 2 of your appeal, so it is enough to establish that his claim likely came from that thread.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I certainly did not intend that W was posting to that thread, and I do not see how anyone could get that idea from the current wording. I will add disclaimer. Sfarney (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, when you said "Such he did with me" in regards to him accusing you of being connected to OSA and follow by talking about that post it gives that impression. I think your change to the wording is sufficient to avoid that impression.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: Wordsmith is almost certainly lying again about having never used WhyWeProtest as I have new evidence that would suggest he actually posted on the forums less than three years ago and was a leader in Chanology-related protests around the same time. I will send this evidence on to you after I send it to an arbitrator so you can forward it on as well. Since Opabinia is claiming to have not seen your e-mail or mine, I am going to send Salvio a copy of my original e-mail along with the new info. You should consider resending your e-mail, perhaps to an individual arbitrator who has commented on your appeal rather than the Committee mailing list, to insure it is received. This new evidence is definitely not something you should post publicly.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: Sent you the e-mail with the new evidence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Forwarded it. The sustained pause may indicate the Juggernaut has got a stick in the spokes. Sfarney (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: Don't try to get your hopes up too much. A pause could just mean they are taking their time to comb through the evidence and discuss it. I think the evidence is significant and badly damages Wordsmith's case, but there are some on the Committee who do not care how badly admins behave so long as they are going after the wrongthinkers. The fact Wordsmith is lying and downplaying his involvement with Chanology works against him on the other hand. One thing that can get the Committee to really turn on an admin is when that admin does not respect their authority.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your help immensely, but do not worry about my hopes. My expectations are a close match to your picture above. Ranking is strong with this people. Both Scientology and Zeitgeist offend the prevailing Positivist dogma. The article and talk page on Conspiracy theory is a good example -- any mention of the Devil requires a true believer to spit on the floor and mutter denunciations. Sfarney (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You mention multiple personal photos in your letter. Can you give me a link? Sfarney (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: Links were in the e-mail. That kind of stuff is definitely not good to post publicly, even when he uploaded it himself on Commons.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: In regards to this, you should avoid sharing with another editor the off-wiki evidence I sent you if that is what you are considering. The outing policy doesn't strictly outline how it applies to e-mails, but it is implied at least that personal information should not be sent out via e-mail unless necessary and only then to admins. Particularly, some of the latest evidence I sent you would definitely be considered an issue to share with a non-admin. Best to stick to what has been posted publicly when e-mailing a regular editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Do not be concerned. Laval and I found each other on the same side of the debate. The information and email is yours, and I have done with it only as you have authorized. My offer to email is only because I cannot say anything of substance on the talk page while under the topic ban. The effort is well-focused at this moment -- as focused as it can be, I'll wager. I'll do nothing to disturb the beam. 2601:600:8E00:1886:FEAA:14FF:FEC9:484B 07:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: I sent in my evidence to Salvio, you should make a note that additional evidence has been sent to him for the rest of the Committee to review showing Wordsmith has been involved in Chanology protests in a leading role as recently as a few years ago.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Update: According to a message I have just received, additional evidence has just been sent to Salvio showing that -- contrary to The Wordsmith's representations here -- The Wordsmith was involved in a leading role in Chanology protests just a few years ago. Hopefully, Salvio will share that evidence with the other Arbs. I have not personally seen the evidence. Sfarney (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: You should probably address some of the evidence at AE as Prioryman suggested. I would note that five out of the nine diffs he gave in his filing concerned you questioning the reliability of Ortega's blog. He included a diff of you starting an RSN discussion, but the contents of that RSN discussion shows at least three uninvolved editors, Nick-D, PermStrump, and Grayfell, agreed that Ortega should probably not be used in the article and he is no longer used in the article. One of them agreed with the OR complaints as well. While you erred in starting the GA review, the concerns you raised about the heavy use of primary sourcing are echoed by someone who just opened a GA review of the page and those concerns were cited as evidence in two of the diffs Prioryman used in his report. Granted, the Committee may still argue something of this nature, but they can't claim you aren't addressing the original evidence or that you weren't legitimately trying to have the article be compliant with Wikipedia's content policies.

While I won't show you most of the recent evidence against Wordsmith, in my e-mail I did include some things that would be fine to show you. Specifically, I made the point that Wordsmith's rather blatant lying about the nature of his anti-Scientology activities directly affected your community appeal. At the appeal he claimed he was an "expert" and focused only on having documents about the Church. I pointed out that most uninvolved editors who commented on your appeal not only relied on that deception in dismissing your complaints, but in some cases suggested it was additional reason for confirming your topic ban. Specifically, I pointed out comments by John Carter, Jbhunley, and Beyond My Ken. One person I didn't mention who also raised it was Alanscottwalker. Both Walker and Carter cite your allegations against Wordsmith as additional cause for upholding the topic ban. Community consensus was thus misled as a consequence of Wordsmith's deceit and in turn that hurt your community appeal.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I am working on a point by point response to Prioryman. Hopefully it will not be too late. Sfarney (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Updated with partial response. Sfarney (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: Dude. Your comment about the GA review is plainly wrong. While I understand you may not be familiar with how GA review works since you have never been involved in the process, they do and it is going to seriously hurt your appeal. It is not an issue to acknowledge that you shouldn't have opened the review, and admitting as much would work in your favor, but insisting you did absolutely nothing wrong there is something they will hang over your head and exploit as a way to ignore everything else. Had you asked me beforehand I would have told you it would tank your appeal. Perhaps I should have made it clear that basically what I said above is about as far as you should go as it would be sufficient.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I followed the policy as I understood it and as it is written. If that policy statement is wrong, it should be corrected. I have revised the text accordingly. I have offended many people in life by telling the truth. Should I expect the Internet to be any different? Sfarney (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: I imagine that change works, but I don't get why you don't mention the RSN discussion. Aside from Prioryman's voluminous responses and a single remark from the SPA, both involved parties, only one editor didn't agree that Ortega should be avoided in that discussion. Honestly, you can address all five of the Ortega diffs by making that one point without the need for some lengthy response getting into all the details, though I suppose it is good to note also that your statements about Ortega's employment were based off how reliable sources characterized his departure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: Assuming you saw GW's response, I agree there is no need for her to recuse. In fact, it seems more that Wordsmith misled her about the nature of your contributions since he claims you "made some contributions to chemistry, but the bulk are Scientology-related" as that is rather badly misrepresenting your contributions. He either lied or didn't check very hard before making the SPA call. Even the most basic check would have shown the SPA claim to be bogus.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for re-note on the RSN. I had forgotten about the level of agreement, and hadn't connected it with the subsequent removal from the article. Now I need to wash dishes, change diapers, make beds, and feed the B&B guests. Another long day. Sfarney (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: Um, what are you thinking with this comment? There has been no public talk of banning you by the Committee. Have they privately notified you of a ban discussion? Unless you have been informed in some way that you are being banned or there is a discussion about banning you, then this only risks them taking such an idea into consideration. I also don't know why you are claiming Wordsmith is the "primary author" of the Chanology article as that honor would go to Cirt who is a completely different editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

A topic ban is a ban is a ban. It is not a site ban, but it is a ban. Would you understand that when my taxes are used to bomb cities around the world, I have little interest in paying taxes to build bridges and stop forest fires? Similarly, when the tools and public presence of Wikipedia are abused to further destructive propaganda -- as we now see in more than one area -- I have little interest in supporting the Wiki on current events or any of the other dozen areas that I have supported in the past, so if it is a ban, I don't care what kind. I never got used to the taste of other people's shoe leather. About 10,000 characters were added by "the wordsmith" to the now 110K article, and many other edits as well. "The primary author" is changed to "a primary contributor". Sfarney (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

If you mean topic ban then you should probably change it to refer to them upholding the topic ban. Otherwise it may give them the idea to site-ban you, unless you are saying you no longer care.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Heh! If you mean the Arbs are like a bunch of stoners at an acid party fixating on a random phrase (hey, yeah, like she said "ban", man. Should we ban her?), then the project is no longer on the critical list -- it is a walking zombie. Sfarney (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: Sorry they declined your appeal. Not too surprised overall given the behavior of arbitrators towards me and others, even if I was disappointed by some of them. At this rate there is going to need to be some sort of intervention before the current ArbCom does something that completely destroys Wikipedia's already sullied reputation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Reputation is one thing, quality of encyclopedia is another -- though they are closely linked. If the enc. has a bad reputation, good editors will be scarce. Conversely, if they make the good editors scarce (as they are doing), quality of enc. will suffer. But now they do both: They insist on bad work and they eliminate those who will not consent to having it bad. (And here I genuflect 3 times in case Weller is reading -- see how polite and courteous I am?) Sfarney (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior

Drmies tried to quash my questions to Weller (on en.wiki) as well. Suspicious. Maybe his worry isn't the question but Weller's response. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: I'm not sure there is some big secret involved. Drmies is merely towing the admin blue line. For him, that Weller is clearly in the wrong to claim himself as "uninvolved" is not important. What is important is preventing the authority of admins, and especially arbitrators, from being undermined by such pesky things as rules and facts because down that path lies anarchy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And another personal attack

I see that you've been warned by User:Magog the Ogre before. Calling an ArbCom colleague a "little errand boy" is clearly a personal attack. And in case you missed my edit summary, I do not want you on my talk page at all. I also don't want anyone on my talk page who isn't going to discuss Commons issues. Doug Weller (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I haven't violated any policies, and Drmies taunting me with "kindly comment there" should hardly complain about such a light jab as that. Magog never cited a policy against commenting on en-wiki matters here, because there is no such policy, and it was hardly a personal attack that time either. Even if it were, people taking the opportunity to badmouth me and make false insinuations about me where they know I can't respond are just as guilty of a personal attack. All I cared about here is that you saw my comment pointing out your need to recuse as an involved admin on R&I matters and you have obviously seen it so you can't run from it by pretending it isn't there any more.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Brittany Pettibone

The licensing on the photo has changed to Attribution

WTF do we do now — Preceding unsigned comment added by PressFartToContinue (talk • contribs) 23:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@PressFartToContinue: I think it is still a valid free license on here. Flickr uploads are reviewed by admins or individuals with the reviewer user right. Obviously, they'll have to change the license on here to the correct one.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Having said that, I'm not sure if you can unring the bell on the public domain release.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Brittany Pettibone Image a Selfie

yes. Given the circumstances of the photo however I think it'll still a serve a purpose on the Wikipedia page for Pettibone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PressFartToContinue (talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

If she took the photo herself and she released it on a free license then there shouldn't be any issues with using it on Wikipedia. The admin who deleted the image on Wikipedia was in error.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Importing images from Verizon's Flickr

Hello, I noticed that you have imported several images from Flickr to Wikimedia Commons, did you know that you can use Flickr2Commons for that? That way a bot can review the license and using this method is easier to import images. If you have any questions about using the tool you can always ask me on my talk page, go tự the help desk or ask a more experienced user.

Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 08:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Selfie request

@The Devil's Advocate: I see that your Wikipedia article doesn't have a picture of you yet, would you mind uploading a selfie 🤳🏻 or multiple selfies so we can insert it into your Wikipedia article? If you're not interested in having your face on Wikipedia then feel free to ignore this message. I just happened to come across the article about you and noticed that there was no photograph present, due to your negative experience with the website I would also understand that you might not want to have your photograph there. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia article about me. You may have confused me with someone else.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to confirm, is this about you? And is this someone else? If so then please forgive my ignorance. As you're one of the most prolific critics of Wikipedia I had assumed that this other prolific critic of Wikipedia was you. 😅 --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Auerbach is definitely someone else, though we have spoken quite a bit about Wikipedia and I was involved in the initial dispute that led to him focusing on the site.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, then please excuse me for wasting your time, enjoy your stay here on Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Affected:

• File:Jennifer Garner at D23 expo 2011.JPG

Yours sincerely, Ytoyoda (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2001.jpg

File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2001.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Taivo.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)